• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case

Last edited:
Any federal assistance is paid for by tax dollars, that you fail to understand that doesn't surprise me, nor does the fact you ignored the larger point that you have no problem with "redistribution of the wealth" so long as you approve of its destination. Typical hypocrite.

No, understand it completely but none of what you posted has anything to do with FIT and what that is supposed to fund nor the state and local taxes people pay. Not sure you pay either.

Redistribution of someone else's wealth is not something I support regardless of the destination.
 

That's the President's opinion. The Supreme Court has the constitutional authority and professional discretion to take up such cases. Of course, President Obama is not the first President to complain about the Supreme Court's choosing to hear a case and/or its rulings. Beyond the President, one frequently hears political pundits complaining about the Court exercising its authority to review myriad legal issues. Such complaints are par for the course for those who are unhappy about certain issues or cases coming before the Court for legal review.
 
Clearly your logic also applies to food, water, living quarters, entertainment, transportation, a wage, retirement, and burial.

Do you want to count how many from this list are regulated to some degree by the Federal Government? Or would you like me to count for you?
 
No, understand it completely but none of what you posted has anything to do with FIT and what that is supposed to fund nor the state and local taxes people pay. Not sure you pay either.

Redistribution of someone else's wealth is not something I support regardless of the destination.

Then you oppose all taxes.
 
Then you oppose all taxes.

Get some help with reading comprehension, I know the Federal Govt. has to be funded but I also know we don't need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. You don't seem to understand the role of the Federal, State, and Local governments. I suggest a civics class.
 
Do you want to count how many from this list are regulated to some degree by the Federal Government? Or would you like me to count for you?

Do you pay state and local taxes? What do those taxes fund and provide? Why the duplication?
 
I don't believe it is the other taxpayers' responsibility to pay for someone else's personal responsibility issue. If the states want to do it and get the support from their citizens then so be it, but NOT a national program funded by FIT dollars.

It is now, like it or not. I like it.
 
What really bothers me is people who don't understand what taxes they pay and where the money is supposed to go. Schools aren't funded by Federal Tax dollars, but rather state and local dollars. Police, schools, and fire fighters-state and local taxes. You continue to prove me point.

I just noticed we both live in Houston. Good, now not only will some of your federal tax money go into my pocket, I also get some of your state and local money as well. Thank you.
 
I just noticed we both live in Houston. Good, now not only will some of your federal tax money go into my pocket, I also get some of your state and local money as well. Thank you.

Naw, doubt it. thankfully I don't live in Harris County so you get none of my tax dollars and TX is a very low tax state. We have dealt with each other before, still wonder why you live in this state.
 
Get some help with reading comprehension, I know the Federal Govt. has to be funded but I also know we don't need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. You don't seem to understand the role of the Federal, State, and Local governments. I suggest a civics class.

I wasn't arguing amounts, also you are the one that needs civics lessons sense you fail to understand the federal dollars going to school lunch programs and police departments.
 
Sounds like he's gotten a preview of how the court is leaning in their ruling and is already objecting to their pending ruling.
I believe the Chief Justice doesn't want the legacy - the Roberts Court shot down Obamacare. He saved it once and he'll do it again, IMHO.
 
Naw, doubt it. thankfully I don't live in Harris County so you get none of my tax dollars and TX is a very low tax state. We have dealt with each other before, still wonder why you live in this state.

What county do you live in; I will move there. I just want to be close to you and your money. :lamo
 
I wonder, if it is appropriate for the President to criticize the Supreme Court for the way it does its job.

No, I'd be inclined to say that it's not appropriate. What would be more appropriate and good leadership, IMHO, would be to make a statement similar to 'the court has ruled and we all are bound by these rules, so let's move forward even though it may not be the decision we agree with' or something along that vein.

We already know that Obama's not bound by such decorum or solid leadership principals, as shown in how he criticized SCOTUS for the Citizens United v. FEC decision in the middle of SOTU address no less. Very poor form, if you ask me.
 
What Obama is doing is essentially tampering with a court decision.

How is having an opinion "tampering?" You think Roberts was wrong, correct? Why are you "tampering?
 
It really is sad what Obama supporters have made this nation and their total ignorance as to the role of the Federal Govt. and where the money comes from for that govt. It is easy for them to ask for subsidies because they just don't get it, subsidies come from tax revenue paid for by actual taxpayers.

One of the worst things to ever happen in this country was LBJ creating the unified budget where all tax revenue from all tax sources goes into one pot regardless of what the tax was supposed to fund. That makes it easy for politicians to spend money and then when the item the taxes were to fund runs out of money simply say the program is broke and we need to tax the taxpayers more. Obama supporters have no problem taking from someone else and Obama has no problem promoting wealth redistribution.

GOOD GRIEF!Six post in and youre already derailling your own OP?thread.:doh
 
I wonder, if it is appropriate for the President to criticize the Supreme Court for the way it does its job.

I think it's totally appropriate. President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But I suspect it only bothers you if it's a democrat doing it.
 
No, I'd be inclined to say that it's not appropriate. What would be more appropriate and good leadership, IMHO, would be to make a statement similar to 'the court has ruled and we all are bound by these rules, so let's move forward even though it may not be the decision we agree with' or something along that vein.

We already know that Obama's not bound by such decorum or solid leadership principals, as shown in how he criticized SCOTUS for the Citizens United v. FEC decision in the middle of SOTU address no less. Very poor form, if you ask me.

It's not appropriate because a democrat is criticizing a potential decision that may derail a piece of the PPACA, and make you happy. I doubt you were bitching when Bush did the same thing.
 
It's not appropriate because a democrat is criticizing a potential decision that may derail a piece of the PPACA, and make you happy. I doubt you were bitching when Bush did the same thing.

Wonder if you have the stones to admit what the outcry would be today had that been Bush saying what Obama said?
 
No, I'd be inclined to say that it's not appropriate. What would be more appropriate and good leadership, IMHO, would be to make a statement similar to 'the court has ruled and we all are bound by these rules, so let's move forward even though it may not be the decision we agree with' or something along that vein.

We already know that Obama's not bound by such decorum or solid leadership principals, as shown in how he criticized SCOTUS for the Citizens United v. FEC decision in the middle of SOTU address no less. Very poor form, if you ask me.

I agree that the stunt President Pinocchio pulled about Citizens United, with the justices sitting right there in front of him, WAS very poor form. But aside from the fact this speech could have an effect just opposite the one intended, it is fairly tepid meddling, by historical standards. Franklin Roosevelt was determined to get rid of a couple justices who had been voting against his New Deal schemes--so determined that near the start of his second term, he suggested a clever new scheme for the Court. This would have increased it to twelve justices, while imposing a maximum age limit that would have forced his adversaries out. This "court packing" scheme was a clear attempt to bully the Court into calling things FDR's way, and even though it never was carried out, just the threat of it seems to have produced the desired results.
 
Back
Top Bottom