• 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

Wonder if you have the stones to admit what the outcry would be today had that been Bush saying what Obama said?

What do you mean, the partisan left would have raised hell, just like they did when Bush in fact criticized a SCOTUS ruling. That's what you partisan hacks on both sides do. Personally, I had no problem with Bush doing it, and I have no problem with Obama doing it. Bet it didn't bother you when Bush did it.
 
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.

I do believe that you'd be wrong in your assertion there.

Granted, I'm no fan of ObamaCare, that's no secret, but there's good leadership and proper deference and decorum commensurate with the office.
Obama has exhibited none of these things, and he should have. I'd bitch just as much had these things not been observed by ANY president.
 
The political left should hope that they aren't left hanging with this thing. They should be hoping the SC shoots it down. This should be fun to watch no matter what happens.
 
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.

Why is it that liberals / progressive / Democrats can't seem to manage to play within the rules? Is it the only way they think that they can win? After all, if their value / policy proposition is guaranteed to make things so much better, why not let it go forth on it's own merits? Oh wait. That's right. their value / policy proposition is almost guaranteed to make things WORSE, so they have to shove it down the nation's throat, come hell, or high water.
 
I do believe that you'd be wrong in your assertion there.

Granted, I'm no fan of ObamaCare, that's no secret, but there's good leadership and proper deference and decorum commensurate with the office.
Obama has exhibited none of these things, and he should have. I'd bitch just as much had these things not been observed by ANY president.

Obama's not the first president to criticize a SCOTUS ruling, and I fail to see the problem with it. So when Bush did it, you disapproved?
 
Obama's not the first president to criticize a SCOTUS ruling, and I fail to see the problem with it. So when Bush did it, you disapproved?

It is how he did it and the tone in which he did it, not the first time. It was very personal as was his speech at the state of the union. Obama has zero class, lacks leadership, and improper decorum on the public stage. He continues to show his incompetence.

I know of no other President in modern history to make it personal with the Supreme Court

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html?_r=0
 
Why is it that liberals / progressive / Democrats can't seem to manage to play within the rules? Is it the only way they think that they can win? After all, if their value / policy proposition is guaranteed to make things so much better, why not let it go forth on it's own merits? Oh wait. That's right. their value / policy proposition is almost guaranteed to make things WORSE, so they have to shove it down the nation's throat, come hell, or high water.

Obama's not the only one to do so. So did several others, including Reagan:

Harding 1922: Warren G. Harding: Second Annual Message

Coolidge 1923: Calvin Coolidge: First Annual Message

Roosevelt 1937: Franklin D. Roosevelt: Annual Message to Congress

Eisenhower 1953: Dwight D. Eisenhower: Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union

Reagan 1988: Ronald Reagan: Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the State of the Union

Obama 2010: Barack Obama: Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union
 
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.


Taxes pay for whatever the people vote for them to pay for and millions of Americans voted for the ACA when they elected Obama.
 
Last edited:
Obama's not the first president to criticize a SCOTUS ruling, and I fail to see the problem with it. So when Bush did it, you disapproved?

Sorry, but I don't specifically recall Bush's criticism of a SCOTUS ruling. That doesn't mean he didn't, it means that I don't recall it.

It has to do with when and where. I don't find SCOTUS ruling criticism in the middle of SOTU appropriate. So if Bush did criticize a SCOTUS ruling during a SOTU, yes, I'd find that inappropriate for the time and place as well.


Seems that history is against me on this one, but I maintain my position. I don't believe that SCOTUS criticism is appropriate for a SOTU.
 
Sorry, but I don't specifically recall Bush's criticism of a SCOTUS ruling. That doesn't mean he didn't, it means that I don't recall it.

It has to do with when and where. I don't find SCOTUS ruling criticism in the middle of SOTU appropriate. So if Bush did criticize a SCOTUS ruling during a SOTU, yes, I'd find that inappropriate for the time and place as well.


Seems that history is against me on this one, but I maintain my position. I don't believe that SCOTUS criticism is appropriate for a SOTU.
I agree with that.

Where is it appropriate?
 
Sorry, but I don't specifically recall Bush's criticism of a SCOTUS ruling. That doesn't mean he didn't, it means that I don't recall it.

It has to do with when and where. I don't find SCOTUS ruling criticism in the middle of SOTU appropriate. So if Bush did criticize a SCOTUS ruling during a SOTU, yes, I'd find that inappropriate for the time and place as well.



Seems that history is against me on this one, but I maintain my position. I don't believe that SCOTUS criticism is appropriate for a SOTU.

Is it criticism, or is it admonition? The difference is subtle, but important, and admonition for those who need it certainly has a place in a SOTU address.
 
Sorry, but I don't specifically recall Bush's criticism of a SCOTUS ruling. That doesn't mean he didn't, it means that I don't recall it.

It has to do with when and where. I don't find SCOTUS ruling criticism in the middle of SOTU appropriate. So if Bush did criticize a SCOTUS ruling during a SOTU, yes, I'd find that inappropriate for the time and place as well.



Seems that history is against me on this one, but I maintain my position. I don't believe that SCOTUS criticism is appropriate for a SOTU.

The op hasn't anything to do with a SOTU address. Funny, first it was just plain wrong for Obama to do this, I'm laughing how the goal posts have been moved now that nobody can hide from the fact it's pretty common for a president to do this, we'll have to pick on his time and place. It's the constant partisan bias at DP.
 
That depends on the listener. I was listening, and it didn't sound disrespectful at all to me.

I'm sorry that my attempt at sarcasm evaded you, my bad. I agree with you.
 
Why is it that liberals / progressive / Democrats can't seem to manage to play within the rules? Is it the only way they think that they can win? After all, if their value / policy proposition is guaranteed to make things so much better, why not let it go forth on it's own merits? Oh wait. That's right. their value / policy proposition is almost guaranteed to make things WORSE, so they have to shove it down the nation's throat, come hell, or high water.

Two can play that game of intimidation. If brushback pitches like this one from Limpwrist are fine for one team to use, then the other team has the right to use them too. Sauce for the goose, etc. I think President Reagan was very good at playing hardball, while doing it with so much geniality and charm that people never seemed to view what he did as dirty or unpresidential. In this case, I think Obama may shoot himself in the foot. Supreme Court justices don't like being pushed, especially when they all know the passage in question is from a sorry 2,000 page piece of garbage which is riddled with internal contradictions, and which no one who voted "Aye" had even bothered to read. They already bailed out the Obamacare law once by telling Congress what it really meant to say, and they may be sick of being asked, again, to save the Gruberites from their own piss-poor drafting.
 
Taxes pay for whatever the people vote for them to pay for and millions of Americans voted for the ACA when they elected Obama.

Show me the bill that allowed Congress to spend SS and Medicare money on the operating budget of the United States? Taxes were created to fund different activities. LBJ created the unified Budget which apparently you and other Obama supporters do not understand. Suggest you look up the history and tell me where the people voted for that or even understand it?
 
Show me the bill that allowed Congress to spend SS and Medicare money on the operating budget of the United States? Taxes were created to fund different activities. LBJ created the unified Budget which apparently you and other Obama supporters do not understand. Suggest you look up the history and tell me where the people voted for that or even understand it?

Republicans want to steal 700 million dollars from Medicare to pay for retraining all those people that are going to loose there jobs due to that sorry TPP treaty. Where's that in the constitution?
 
Show me the bill that allowed Congress to spend SS and Medicare money on the operating budget of the United States? Taxes were created to fund different activities. LBJ created the unified Budget which apparently you and other Obama supporters do not understand. Suggest you look up the history and tell me where the people voted for that or even understand it?

Show me where it says congress can't raise taxes to spend on the laws the people elected them to make?
 
So you're opposed to all forms of taxation??
Sounds more like he's opposed to all tax revenue going into a single holding fund and then being distributed from there.

Perhaps he's suggesting that each bill/department/law/whatever be funded seperatly with it's own tax directly connected to it - as in, say we want to increase funding for weight loss efforts by the department of health or whatnot.

Impose a 2% tax on some specific food types and put the money into a fund which can only go towards that thing.

As an example, you understand.

I think it works that way in many local/state governments? Or some of em at least.
 
And that would make a difference.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

I don't understand why Obama would publically question what cases the Supreme Court should hear in the first place. They don't report to him. Things are getting stranger by the day in DC! :shock:
 
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

I don't understand why Obama would publically question what cases the Supreme Court should hear in the first place. They don't report to him. Things are getting stranger by the day in DC! :shock:
Well, if my iffy memory of the past decade is any indication, various senators and congressman have been bitching about each other, the president, and the courts for years now.

And various presidents have been doing the same.

What the hell is new about this?
 
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.

By that same token, federal tax dollars shouldn't go to states to fund their state highway/road repair/construction projects.

:shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom