REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Thursday, April 5, 2012 05:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 865
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:06 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News. The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate challenge to the health care law. It was apparent, however, that the justice who questioned the government attorney present was referring to Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's review of that law.

The source said the justice, Judge Jerry Smith, was pointed in his questioning of the government attorney, asking whether Attorney General Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.

Smith then ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-depart
ment-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1OZDwQx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:25 PM

HERO


The President risked disciplinary action from the Bar.

It's violates the Rules of Professional Responsibilty to question the integrity of the Courts in the way he did.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:41 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Not only that, but he was factually wrong on every point he brought up in that bizarre statement.

There's been plenty of precedent of the SCOTUS over turning laws passed by Congress. It's happened hundreds, if not thousands of times. Any Const. Law teacher should know that, so why does Barack claim it's never happened before ?

Is he truly that clueless? Or does he just think his base are, and that's who he's talking to?

Not only was ObamaCare NOT passed by a " large majority ", it would not matter in the least, even if it had. The law is the law, no matter by what margin of vote, and if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, then guess what... it is !

Absolutely unbelievable that Obama would DARE talk about this being an ' activist ' court, should it over turn the mandate. It's not making up an imaginary law, out of thin air , which is exactly what RvW did. No, this would be preserving the very foundation of freedom for which this country was based. The SCOTUS would be doing nothing but its basic, constitutional duty. Activism ? My ass!

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:23 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Now that is funny coming from the right, the side that coined the phase activist judges.

This is also ridiculous because court is asking Holder to explain what President means. Nothing but saber rattling.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:58 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Now that is funny coming from the right, the side that coined the phase activist judges.

This is also ridiculous because court is asking Holder to explain what President means. Nothing but saber rattling.



Obama is the one who started rattling his own sabres.


Obama’s unsettling attack on the Supreme Court

Quote:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettli
ng-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html

There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”

To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.

That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.

And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”

Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”

But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.

Worse, the president’s critique, and in particular the reference to “unelected” judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench.





" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:08 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”

Wow this is what has people up in arms? Shall I start posting what some noted conservatives have said about so called activist judges? It comes down to the fact that conservatives can't take their own medicine.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



No, it comes down to the fact that Obama can't take no for an answer. He's too arrogant and hopes his followers are so stupid, that they'll actually believe this would be ' unprecedented" for the court to rule a law unconstitutional.

And this guy TAUGHT constitutional law ???

Really?



And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.


" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:43 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Show me where he said it would be unprecedented.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
It's violates the Rules of Professional Responsibilty to question the integrity of the Courts in the way he did.


Fuck. That. Noise.

It's about TIME someone questioned the Courts integrity, long past it in fact, and whatever excuse the Thin Black Line has for dodging accountability is no more valid with me than the bullshit excuses of the Thin Blue One.

Professional courtesy does NOT, SHOULD NOT, extend to unquestioning acceptance of something which conflicts with ones own personal morality, and to insinuate or even directly state that this should be the case is offensive to me.

The day we fail to question simply cause we're told not to, is the day we're lost completely.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 2:48 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The day we fail to question simply cause we're told not to, is the day we're lost completely.

-Frem
.


You can question anything you want, lawyers can not.

Lawyers have a legally recognized monopoly, as such we are held by the Courts to ethical standards of their choosing, but generally recommended by nonpartisan legal scholars. We agree to abide by these standards in exchange for the right to practice law. This recognizes both the unique relationship and responsibility we have to both our clients and the Courts and is a centuries old tradition.

The President did not get in trouble because he was critical of activist courts, although I note for the record that if not for such judicial activism he'd have been more likely to be cleaning the White House rather then living there.

He got in trouble for raising the issue of the Court's power to act and for language that was hostile to the Court's status as a co-equal branch...as if the unelected nature of their position was somehow illegitimate.

You can be critical of decisions, Judges, policies, etc, but he questioned the nature and foundtion of the judicial system and that is not allowed by lawyers. He did it in reference to and as a party to a pending action. It's not a disbarment offense, but I've seen good lawyers sanctioned for less.

If his position is, as it appears, that Courts lack the power to act on Constitutional issues, then he needs to explain it. That is what the Court is asking. Is the President questioning Marbury?

So now the President is rolling back the rhetoric. He knows that without Marbury, there is no Brown, no Gideon, no Roe...and no check on the power of Congress and the President to simply ignore the Constitution. He's not a fool, but he clearly got angry and carried away...which has always been a problem for him.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Show me where he said it would be unprecedented.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Are you serious ? The comments of the President are at the very start of this whole conversation , the point of this thread, and you're asking where he said it ?

Ok, here it is...

" Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress ".

The ruling of the Court against O-Care would not be unprecedented, the law was not passed by a "strong majority " , and it wouldn't have mattered to the Court even if it were passed by a strong majority.

3 falsehoods , by the President, in just that once sentence.




* Note to everyone* - Do not believe Anthony. He does not know what he thinks he knows on matters concerning of what I think or believe.


" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HERO:
Quote:

Lawyers have a legally recognized monopoly, as such we are held by the Courts to ethical standards of their choosing, but generally recommended by nonpartisan legal scholars. We agree to abide by these standards in exchange for the right to practice law. This recognizes both the unique relationship and responsibility we have to both our clients and the Courts and is a centuries old tradition.
Wrong.

"Lawyers" may have to abide by a set of ethics, but the Supreme Court Justices do not. They are wholly unaccountable.

Also, we can look back on various decisions, and there are many that stand out as historically flawed, such as the Dred Scott decision and the Florida election results (in which the Supreme Court had no business insinuating itself). It is perfectly correct to criticize the Supreme Court. Without that criticism, their decisions would have no feedback whatsoever.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rappy, you're now "layering" your signature with multiple defenses?

Yanno what?

If you think that's going to change anyone's mind here, you're a sad pathetic little man. Anyone who has had any extended discussion with you knows that you're a greedy deluded pimp for capitalism who would sell his mother for a few shekels. All they have to do is look up what you've said, like the quotes I've memorialized for you (above).


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:33 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


The florid 2000 election was the result of a biased Florida court. Had it done its job, the USSC would not have to have stepped in.



* Note to everyone* - Do not believe Anthony. He does not know what he thinks he knows on matters concerning of what I think or believe.


" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, you're now "layering" your signature with multiple defenses?

Yanno what?

If you think that's going to change anyone's mind here, you're a sad pathetic little man. Anyone who has had any extended discussion with you knows that you're a greedy deluded pimp for capitalism who would sell his mother for a few shekels. All they have to do is look up what you've said, like the quotes I've memorialized for you (above).




I'm for freedom, yes, but the rest of your comments are beyond inane and ridiculous. Those who are for capitalism aren't greedy. Those who want socialism are. You've taken my quotes completely out of context, edited them, much like what NBC did w/ the Zimmerman 911 audio. You're about as shameless and as unethical.



1* Note to everyone* - Do not believe Anthony. He does not know what he thinks he knows on matters concerning of what I think or believe.


" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:39 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Are you serious ? The comments of the President are at the very start of this whole conversation , the point of this thread, and you're asking where he said it ?

Ok, here it is...

" Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress ".

The ruling of the Court against O-Care would not be unprecedented, the law was not passed by a "strong majority " , and it wouldn't have mattered to the Court even if it were passed by a strong majority.



Thank you, when I asked for that I could not find it.

Now, as posting in the other thread, the Supreme Court has not over turned a major piece of federal legislation in over 80 years. So to do so now would be against modern precident.

Also, strong majority is subjective. The law did pass with 60 votes in the Senate. That is a super majority. You keep saying it does not matter, but keep bringing it up.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:43 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The florid 2000 election was the result of a biased Florida court. Had it done its job, the USSC would not have to have stepped in.

* Note to everyone* - Do not believe me. I do not know what I think I know on matters concerning of what I think or believe. n




The court ruled that the way the recount was going violated idividuals rights, not that it was biased.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Are you serious ? The comments of the President are at the very start of this whole conversation , the point of this thread, and you're asking where he said it ?

Ok, here it is...

" Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress ".

The ruling of the Court against O-Care would not be unprecedented, the law was not passed by a "strong majority " , and it wouldn't have mattered to the Court even if it were passed by a strong majority.



Thank you, when I asked for that I could not find it.

Now, as posting in the other thread, the Supreme Court has not over turned a major piece of federal legislation in over 80 years. So to do so now would be against modern precident.

Also, strong majority is subjective. The law did pass with 60 votes in the Senate. That is a super majority. You keep saying it does not matter, but keep bringing it up.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



It passed by a mere 7 votes in the House, which has 435 members, not 100. But I'M not the one who brought it up in the 1st place, that was Obama. As you can plainly read.

Google or Bing are your friends. I merely typed in " Obama unprecedented " to find the quote. Give it a try sometime, if you're not caught up on current events.

And also... the entire drama and circus in the courts over Florida 2000 were nothing less than an absolute joke. All one needed to do was read the instructions on the ballot. Right there, the instructions were plain and direct, as to how to vote. If , at any time while still in the poling station, a voter felt they had a question or needed a new ballot, all they needed to do was ask. Claims of some getting confused, or mis-remembering a vote for 1 candidate while thinking they were voting for another, should have been completely ignored. Once you drop that ballot in the box, your vote is made. Take all the time you want to check things are accurate before so, fine. But try to bitch and phony up excuses for why you "may " have been duped or confused, and still voted the way you did... sorry. Tough cookies.


* Note to everyone* - Do not believe Anthony. He does not know what he thinks he knows on matters concerning of what I think or believe.


" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:25 AM

JONGSSTRAW

We carry in our hearts the true country, and that cannot be stolen.


Holder's written explanation of Obama's seditionist threats against the Supreme Court will probably have boogers on it.












NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:33 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


"Lawyers" may have to abide by a set of ethics, but the Supreme Court Justices do not. They are wholly unaccountable.


The President is a lawyer, he is bound by the rules.

As for the Court, they are not unaccountable...they can and have been impeached.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:41 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Now, as posting in the other thread, the Supreme Court has not over turned a major piece of federal legislation in over 80 years. So to do so now would be against modern precident.
]


The legislation could pass with every vote in the Senate and House, be signed by the President and universally loved and still be unconstitutional.

As for the last 80 years...I think you'll find that a little off...by 80 years give or take a few months.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:49 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It passed by a mere 7 votes in the House, which has 435 members, not 100. But I'M not the one who brought it up in the 1st place, that was Obama. As you can plainly read.



Okay, so you know he said strong because of the number of votes? Or could it be he meant the majority that voted for it where strong in their belief in it. As I said, subjective.

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And also... the entire drama and circus in the courts over Florida 2000 were nothing less than an absolute joke. All one needed to do was read the instructions on the ballot. Right there, the instructions were plain and direct, as to how to vote. If , at any time while still in the poling station, a voter felt they had a question or needed a new ballot, all they needed to do was ask. Claims of some getting confused, or mis-remembering a vote for 1 candidate while thinking they were voting for another, should have been completely ignored. Once you drop that ballot in the box, your vote is made. Take all the time you want to check things are accurate before so, fine. But try to bitch and phony up excuses for why you "may " have been duped or confused, and still voted the way you did... sorry. Tough cookies.



Okay, but that still does not point to bias as you claimed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 5:11 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
The legislation could pass with every vote in the Senate and House, be signed by the President and universally loved and still be unconstitutional.

As for the last 80 years...I think you'll find that a little off...by 80 years give or take a few months.



Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court.

Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:00 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court.

Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration.
]


I was going to mention US v Jones (2011), but you are too narrow in your "landmark legislation" definition. For that we have to go back to Citizens United. That does not eliminate other cases, just that's the first one that comes to mind. There was a case during the Bush admin on Gitmo as well.

I'm sure if you limit your inquiry more carefully you'll get the answer you want. For example, name the number one show on TV and by number one I mean shows on basic cable networks in existence for at least fifty years and whose call letters start with C and whose leading actor is a white male playing a navy cop. The answer is NCIS which proves that CBS is the number one network.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:12 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court.

Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration.
]


I was going to mention US v Jones (2011), but you are too narrow in your "landmark legislation" definition. For that we have to go back to Citizens United. That does not eliminate other cases, just that's the first one that comes to mind. There was a case during the Bush admin on Gitmo as well.

I'm sure if you limit your inquiry more carefully you'll get the answer you want. For example, name the number one show on TV and by number one I mean shows on basic cable networks in existence for at least fifty years and whose call letters start with C and whose leading actor is a white male playing a navy cop. The answer is NCIS which proves that CBS is the number one network.



It's all about the clearification.

Jones, did not strike down federal legislation. Citizen United did strick down federal legislation, but the 36 page bill was not a major piece of legislation in the least. Even if we say it was it to went again modern precedent.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hey, you guys are trying to DEBATE these ijts? Let them have their fun, they enjoy so much finding anything negative about Obama, why ruin their pleasure (and encourage them, to boot)?

What will be, will be. Sabre rattling on both sides. I think it was dumb of Obama to speak the truth; that never pays off in politics. That doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court is currently occupied by a bunch of VERY activist judges. The 2008 election is only the first example, Citizens United as a GLARING example, the fact that Thomas even SITS on the Supreme Court is another glaring example. There is no way in heaven a Supreme Court Justice should have the ties he has, or that his wife should be allowed to do the things she does and he not recuse himself from the health-care issue. It's an affront to American democracy, disgusting, and way beyond offensive. "Activist judges" is a term Republicans have bandied about for decades when referring to judges who didn't do what they want. But nowhere in history do I know of anything as "activist" as taking the election of a President out of the hands of the people, nor anything as obviously egregious as Citizens United. There were very clear agendas in both, and I'm afraid, having gotten away with those and others, the same will happen again.

Of the three branches, at one time the Supreme Court was the closest to nonpartisan. That's long since ceased to be.
Quote:

...as a political spectacle, with the eyes of the nation upon them, it was clear to see that we have a large contingent, perhaps a majority, of committed judicial activists on the Court. Only they’re on the conservative side of the ledger. I think EJ Dionne is largely correct:
Quote:

Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office?

It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches [...]

Here we were in a court of law, and instead of the main topics being settled precedent like Wickard v. Filburn or recent cases like Gonzalez v. Raich, you had the conservative justices picking through the health care law and sounding like talk-radio hosts, with hypotheticals about broccoli and invocations of the Cornhusker Kickback. And while Jon Walker makes a good point about the implications of the Court striking down the individual mandate, and while some of the Justices and even the legal team on the conservative side agreed that a single-payer plan would be Constitutional, in the rare event that a future Democratic Administration passed such legislation, I have no doubt that conservatives would turn on a dime and find another reason to call THAT unconstitutional. And I have no doubt that this set of judicial activists on the Court, at least, would agree with them.

This is not really about protecting the individual mandate – one which doesn’t come with enough of a strong set of social protections to really defend, nor is it strong enough (the penalties are weak, there’s a hardship exemption, and there’s pretty much no enforcement power) for a strong objection. It’s about a majority or near-majority on the Supreme Court quite literally making it up as they go along, in obeisance to raw ideology. http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/30/the-supreme-courts-conservative
-activist-judges/
it in a nutshell. As is this:
Quote:

In the face of seven decades of precedent, the Supreme Court’s grant of certiori to six cases attacking the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is an astonishing display of judicial activism. The decision to do so seems alarmingly consistent with the extremist philosophy of Clarence Thomas, who flatly does not believe in stare decisis. That the federal government’s power to regulate commerce is even being questioned is virtually inexplicable as a legal matter: the law deals with the $2.7 trillion health insurance industry, in a country in which 62 percent of all bankruptcies are occasioned by medical debt.

As political theater, however, the motivation becomes clearer. Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, has been deeply involved in organizing nationwide opposition to the health reform. She even set up her own political action committee, Liberty Central, whose Web site says that the Affordable Care Act “tramples on the Constitution.” The group encourages readers to attend rallies and fund raisers for the plaintiffs in the pending hearings, from which Clarence Thomas refuses to recuse himself.

Conservatives rail against “free riders” all the time, so one might have expected them to be supportive of a requirement that people buy into a health care system enabling greater efficiency in cost-spreading. Indeed, the first versions of the Affordable Care Act were hatched by the conservative Heritage Foundation and shepherded into being by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. So what’s behind the turn of heart? Alas, it goes to yet larger political stakes. Limiting the commerce clause in the fashion pressed by these appellants would also undo the legal grounding for … well, everything: the Social Security Act, unemployment insurance benefits, Medicare, the National Labor Relations Act, the Occupational and Safety Health Act, the Clean Air Act, all federal disaster relief, the Anti-Trust Act, the Equal Pay Act, and all jurisprudence related to public accommodations, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That, in a nutshell, is why Supreme Court validation of the Affordable Care Act will be so important. “Judicial activism” doesn’t begin to describe the havoc if the justices decide otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/25/on-the-health-care-law
-is-the-court-being-thoughtful-or-partisan/activist-judges-with-a-clear-agenda
can't help wondering if that's what the conservatives have in mind; certainly everything listed above is something they're against. So setting precedence against all of those things is perhaps a doorway to getting rid of them all? Makes me wonder.

Nonetheless, the fact of an "activist" Supreme Court is undeniable. For all the years conservatives have used "activist" to decry any judgment with which they disagree, it's current conservative judges who have taken activism to a new height!

The one that gets me is "Conservatives rail against “free riders” all the time, so one might have expected them to be supportive of a requirement that people buy into a health care system enabling greater efficiency in cost-spreading." AS OF RIGHT NOW, there are millions of what they'd call "free riders"--people who receive medical care without having to pay for it. The rest of us "socialists" are paying for it NOW by our taxes and health-care insurance premiums. So what, aside from an agenda to maintain the status quo and hatred of anything Obama, could be their intention in doing away with something that ends the "free riders" of today and replacing them with private enterprise being paid for by those who use it?

I'm not going to get roped into ridiculous back and forths about the minutia of something our rabid right-wingers hold dear to without even realizing what it MEANS in real dollars and cents; I merely make the case that the actions of the current Supreme Court are those of partisan, activist judges, not impartial Supreme Court jurists who put legality aside in favor of agenda.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:18 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Hey, you guys are trying to DEBATE these ijts?


Why are you posting in this thread?

Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Let them have their fun, they enjoy so much finding anything negative about Obama, why ruin their pleasure (and encourage them, to boot)?


Why not? They let you have your fun (and lot's of it) finding anything negative about republicans. Besides, weren't you going to stop debating Auraptor for the umpteenth time?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:22 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Hey, you guys are trying to DEBATE these ijts?


Why are you posting in this thread?

Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Let them have their fun, they enjoy so much finding anything negative about Obama, why ruin their pleasure (and encourage them, to boot)?


Why not? They let you have your fun (and lot's of it) finding anything negative about republicans. Besides, weren't you going to stop debating Auraptor for the umpteenth time?




Would you like cheese with your whine?

Spoon!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:47 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Would you like cheese with your whine?


No thanks Niki.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:52 AM

STORYMARK


LOL!

Riiiight. Yeah, miiiight just want to brush up on them readin skills. You're starting to sound like a typical, fact-shy wingnut.

Ive been here years longer than Niki, ya boob.

Spoon!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:00 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Ive been here years longer than Niki, ya boob."

and yet, I'M the bad guy...

Story is just a troll.





"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:19 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
LOL!

Riiiight. Yeah, miiiight just want to brush up on them readin skills. You're starting to sound like a typical, fact-shy wingnut.

Ive been here years longer than Niki, ya boob.


Subtlety is not your strong suit, of that I am certain.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:47 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Story is just a troll.





If that makes you feel better, you can go ahead and believe that. It wouldn't even be close to the worst of your cro-magnon beleif system.

Spoon!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:50 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
LOL!

Riiiight. Yeah, miiiight just want to brush up on them readin skills. You're starting to sound like a typical, fact-shy wingnut.

Ive been here years longer than Niki, ya boob.


Subtlety is not your strong suit, of that I am certain.



And facts are not yours. But then, that's old news.

Spoon!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2012 2:53 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Story, s/he called you Niki on purpose to insinuate you and her are socks together, which I don't believe at all by the way, but the act of accusing someone of being someone else's sock puppet has always made me laugh, its funny to watch.

Note to self: Unload the dishwasher.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise. "A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2012 3:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm for freedom, yes
Yep, the "freedom" to trample anyone who stands between you and money. You use the word "freedom" as a code-word for "unrestrained greed"... the meaning of your sentences doesn't change a whit when the the words are switched, So, yep... you're STILL a pimp for capitalism who would sell his mother for a few shekels.
Quote:

You've taken my quotes completely out of context, edited them
I didn't edit them in the least, and when I bring back the context, you'll look just as bad if not worse.
You can't even stand up for what you really believe in, 'cause when ppl call you on it, you whine and hide. What a shitty little coward you are.

That's not an insult, just an observation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2012 3:54 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Sig - you're an unabashed liar, first.

Freedom absolutely fails and IS crushed, under true, pure democracy. Democracy is little more than mob rule, and not the rule of law.

2nd, your warping of what freedom means is the absolute worst, far left wing sociialist bullshit imaginable.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:14 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Freedom absolutely fails and IS crushed, under true, pure democracy. Democracy is little more than mob rule, and not the rule of law.

2nd, your warping of what freedom means is the absolute worst, far left wing sociialist bullshit imaginable.



"And freedom, oh freedom well, that's just some people talkin'
Your prison is walking through this world all alone" ~Desperado, The Eagles

Rappy for all your talk you really have no idea what freedom is.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:37 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Why did I post in this thread? To offer INFORMATION, something you guys rarely do. The original story was from FauxNews, so I don't necessarily believe a word of it (especially the "unnamed source" parts), so I looked up the facts for myself.

I have the right to post just as anyone else does, but I'm not "debating" anything. I'm offering facts about the Supreme Court, and my opinion of them and what's happened to them.

Story, hope you're enjoying yourself, and have nothing better to do than go toe to toe with nobody.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:54 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:


Rappy for all your talk you really have no idea what freedom is.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



You think freedom is measured by how much you can get from govt? You have no clue, do you?




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2012 5:19 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You think freedom is measured by how much you can get from govt?



No I don't, nor does anyone here. That has been explained to you before. You are to stupid to remember or to locked into your own fantisy to allow such facts.

Freedom is being able to live your life as you see fit to. Anything that gets in the way of that lessons a person's freedom. That includes all obsticals, not just government ones. A person who has to work 80 hours a week just to pay rent and food costs is a lot less free than a person who can't own a certain type of car because of government regulations.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
What New Zealand Could Teach US About Indigenous Culture
Fri, October 31, 2014 18:49 - 38 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine
Fri, October 31, 2014 18:45 - 606 posts
Election fraud.
Fri, October 31, 2014 18:18 - 6 posts
Marijuana On The Ballot In Florida
Fri, October 31, 2014 18:07 - 5 posts
Obama hindsight
Fri, October 31, 2014 18:00 - 15 posts
2nd healthcare worker tests positive for Ebola
Fri, October 31, 2014 18:00 - 55 posts
Rush was wrong today!
Fri, October 31, 2014 17:55 - 18 posts
Obama makes rare campaign trail appearance, people leave early
Fri, October 31, 2014 17:40 - 11 posts
Lava flow?
Fri, October 31, 2014 17:35 - 3 posts
Kaci Hickok - Don't Tread On Me!
Fri, October 31, 2014 17:16 - 14 posts
Lindsey Graham steps in shit
Fri, October 31, 2014 15:56 - 6 posts
You can't take the sky from me
Fri, October 31, 2014 11:05 - 71 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS