• 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!

Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

Harshaw said:
:roll:

It's not a mistake, because it's what he said.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make any sense. A spoken sentence can never be a mistake?

Did you not just commit the exact same type of error Obama did?

Continue hacking. ;)
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
This doesn't make any sense. A spoken sentence can never be a mistake?
Click to expand...

:roll:

Speaking of "hacking," did you purposely misconstrue what I said? I mean, I quoted you, and bolded exactly what I was responding to, and everything.

It's not a mistake to confuse two thoughts as one, because the sentence contained only one thought, and not the second one you read into it.

Did you not just commit the exact same type of error Obama did?
Click to expand...

Combine two factual misstatements with incorrect statement of judicial review? No, can't say I did.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

No, he didn't. He didn't tell the judge anything the judge didn't know, and his last sentence: "The President's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein" is just plain false.

What, exactly, do YOU think the "lesson" was?
Click to expand...

It appears to me that 90% of the letter did not discuss the President's remarks at all, and only at the end did he address was the 5th Circuit requested.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

Speaking of "hacking," did you purposely misconstrue what I said?. . .

It's not a mistake to confuse two thoughts as one, because the sentence contained only one thought, and not the second one you read into it.
Click to expand...
Yes, to prove my point, which is your hypocrisy in doing the same to Obama.

How did I misconstrue you, exactly? What you said is, technically, incorrect. The sentence you wrote contained only one thought. You expect me to read into yours what you meant, but if I read into Obama's what he, as a constitutional scholar, most definitely meant, I am being ridiculous? You can't have it both ways.

Now if you want me to behave as an honest human being, I would understand your quote to mean something like "it wasn't a gaffe like Romney's, because it wasn't a statement that only became offensive because it was taken out of context." But apparently you don't want me to behave as an honest human being.
 
Last edited:
American said:
It appears to me that 90% of the letter did not discuss the President's remarks at all, and only at the end did he address was the 5th Circuit requested.
Click to expand...

Nope. He gave a general summary of judicial review, which wasn't even the question. The court knows full well the history of judicial review.
 
I'd give Holder an incomplete it was less than 3 full pages. :roll:
 
Krhazy said:
Yes, to prove my point, which is your hypocrisy in doing the same to Obama.

How did I misconstrue you, exactly? What you said is, technically, incorrect. The sentence you wrote contained only one thought. You expect me to read into yours what you meant, but if I read into Obama's what he, as a constitutional scholar, most definitely meant, I am being ridiculous? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Siiiigh. My patience for immaturity and dishonesty is pretty low today, but I'll see what I can do.

You said it was a mistake to confuse two separate thoughts in the sentence. I said it isn't a "mistake," because there's only one thought in the sentence.

Then, you claimed I was saying . . . . well, I'm not even sure WHAT you claimed I was saying -- that Obama didn't make a mistake? That a "spoken sentence" couldn't be a mistake? I don't even know, because it makes absolutely no sense. Whatever it was, it had no resemblence to that which I actually DID say.
 
Harshaw said:
Siiiigh. My patience for immaturity and dishonesty is pretty low today, but I'll see what I can do.
Click to expand...
Makes two of us. ;)

You said it was a mistake to confuse two separate thoughts in the sentence. I said it isn't a "mistake," because there's only one thought in the sentence.
Click to expand...

So now you're saying it is not a mistake when someone accidentally confuses two thoughts in a single sentence so that it comes off as a single thought?

A mistake is any action that is unintentional. If you want to argue that Obama intended to combine the two thoughts, be my guest. I find that ridiculous.

Then, you claimed I was saying . . . . well, I'm not even sure WHAT you claimed I was saying -- that Obama didn't make a mistake? That a "spoken sentence" couldn't be a mistake? I don't even know, because it makes absolutely no sense. Whatever it was, it had no resemblence to that which I actually DID say.
Click to expand...
You've tried so hard to distinguish what Obama did from a simple mistake that it has indeed become confusing, I agree.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
Makes two of us. ;)

You've tried so hard to distinguish what Obama did from a simple mistake that it has indeed become confusing, I agree.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, you claimed it was other people who were making the "mistake." But they were not making the mistake YOU said they were. THAT'S what I said.

If I'm doing anything, it's "distinguishing" reality from your attempts to spin Obama's statement away from BEING a mistake at all.
 
Harshaw said:
Uh, no, you claimed it was other people who were making the "mistake." But they were not making the mistake YOU said they were. THAT'S what I said.
Click to expand...
Lol, I don't know what you are talking about here.

You erroneously combined two thoughts.

You said "It's not a mistake, because it's what he said."

Thoughts were (1) it's not a mistake (because it was intentional; Obama knew what he was saying and meant it), and (2) it's what he said. Both legitimate points to make. But when you combined them together, it made an untrue sentence, implying that because Obama spoke the words, they can't be a mistake. That is obviously not true.

It literally is the exact type of error Obama made. But please, continue to dig yourself in a hole...

Or submit to me a three page, single-spaced paper on whether you think spoken sentences can never be mistakes. Thanks in advance. :p
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
Lol, I don't know what you are talking about here.

You erroneously combined two thoughts.

You said "It's not a mistake, because it's what he said."

Thoughts were (1) it's not a mistake (because it was intentional; Obama knew what he was saying and meant it), and (2) it's what he said. Both legitimate points to make. But when you combined them together, it made an untrue sentence, implying that because Obama spoke the words, they can't be a mistake. That is obviously not true.

It literally is the exact type of error Obama made. But please, continue to dig yourself in a hole...

Or submit to me a three page, single-spaced paper on whether you think spoken sentences can never be mistakes. Thanks in advance. :p
Click to expand...

OK, dude. I've explained what I said in simple terms several times now, and you're still claiming I said something I didn't, while quoting that very simple explanation.

So, you either don't understand plain English with little more than a third-grade level vocabulary, or you're being deliberately dishonest.

I really don't care which, but I'm not wasting another second on it. Blather away about whatever you want.
 
Harshaw said:
Nope. He gave a general summary of judicial review, which wasn't even the question. The court knows full well the history of judicial review.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, which is why Holder's reply to them is so hilarious. That judge should have known what he was doing when he gave that order to the administration, which had nothing at all to do with the case that the order came from. Holder was merely instructing the judge, in a very hilarious way, to abide by legal precedent which the judge should have already known was set in stone. Was it a slap in the face by Holder? Absolutely. Or, better yet, let's call it a legal Soupy Sales letter with egg instead of a pie that Holder threw in his face. LMAO.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Of course they do, which is why Holder's reply to them is so hilarious. That judge should have known what he was doing when he gave that order to the administration, which had nothing at all to do with the case that the order came from. Holder was merely instructing the judge, in a very hilarious way, to abide by legal precedent which the judge should have already known was set in stone. Was it a slap in the face by Holder? Absolutely. LMAO.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, that wasn't the question the judge asked.
 
Harshaw said:
OK, dude. I've explained what I said in simple terms several times now, and you're still claiming I said something I didn't, while quoting that very simple explanation.

So, you either don't understand plain English with little more than a third-grade level vocabulary, or you're being deliberately dishonest.

I really don't care which, but I'm not wasting another second on it. Blather away about whatever you want.
Click to expand...
Have a nice day. I encourage you to reread our conversation at a later time with some impartiality.
 
Last edited:
Here is Obama's own clarification of what he meant:

UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but thepresident today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."
Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care."The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said."Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.​
Click to expand...
​
 
I think the court of appeals was out of line. What is a Judge doing ordering a letter based on what that Judge heard on TV? This is not how it is supposed to work regardless of what anyone thinks of Obama's statements. It was not something before the Court.
 
Krhazy said:
We are only talking about one sentence. Obama's statements about "judicial activism" and "lack of restraint" are not inconsistent with what he really meant. You should read the response the Justice Dep't submitted to the court.
Click to expand...

You might be only talking about one sentence, but I like things in context. Again, its a prepared speech. He meant every word.

Krhazy said:
Even if the mandate does sets a new precedent (an arguable point), that makes the SCOTUS decision on the matter unprecedented as well. Or as SCOTUS will likely say, an issue of "first impression."
Click to expand...

It is only a "first impression" because it has never happened before. But Obama was using "unprecedented" in a negative tone. Combine with the fact that he talks about "judical activisim" and "lack of restraint" you know that he was talking, as you also assumed going by your previous post, that by striking down the mandate SCOTUS was breaking past precedent. (which btw is also not "unprecedented"). They've "changed" their minds before.

Krhazy said:
But here is the actual line of precedent Obama was referring to (from Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.):
Click to expand...

Conjecture. But even if he was talking about it so what? That IS dealing with interstate commerce which the government is allowed to do. Getting healthcare insurance or healthcare itself is not always an interstate deal. It is not uncommon for a person to live in the same neighborhood their entire lives and as such, no interstate commerce is involved.

Krhazy said:
Add that to the fact that SCOTUS has not overturned a law based on the commerce clause since the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

So? Just because they haven't before does not mean that they can't now. Combine that fact to the fact that every other law that was passed was obviously about interstate commerce and this is the first one that deals with the individual directly by forcing them to buy something just because they are alive and yeah...whole different ball game.

Krhazy said:
No, the hackery is a deliberate attempt to make an obvious mistake into something conniving or demonstrating extreme ignorance.
Click to expand...

Oh so its just a mistake now is it? Not a "gaff"? Changeing the goal posts much? Again, a prepared speech is not something that a mistake can happen with. But I will be fair and honest with you....Did Obama say this in response to a question by the reporters? Or did he say it during his speech? If it was in response to a reporter then I might concieveably believe that it was a mistake. If it was during his speech then there is no way that it was a mistake. Speeches are normally prepared and checked over a few times to make sure that no mistakes happen.
 
danarhea said:
Context is everything. Read it again. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Ummm . . . I did. The judge asked whether or not the President believes a court has the power to strike down a law.

This:

Holder was merely instructing the judge, in a very hilarious way, to abide by legal precedent which the judge should have already known was set in stone.
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer that question.
 
danarhea said:
Looks like Holder not only did his homework, but gave a lesson on the Constitution to the judge who fired the shot. LMAO.
Click to expand...

Not really. According to that link they are now trying to argue that SCOTUS shouldn't even be trying to decide on the ACA because they do not hold jurisdiction over the case, at least thats what I got from it. Considering they are trying to keep it upheld based on the commerce clause which SCOTUS has deliberated about before, multiple times I don't see how they can claim this.

danarhea said:
And speaking of making remarks about the Supreme Court, here's a blast from the past. :mrgreen:

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Reagan said that 10 years after the case was decided, not while the case was being discussed. Apples and oranges.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Reagan said that 10 years after the case was decided, not while the case was being discussed. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges are at least fruits.

This example was more like a comparison of apples and ridiculous straw men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom