Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...alth-care-law/

BMT

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by BMT

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...alth-care-law/

BMT

Remembering the State of the Union awhile back this could be one of those "teachable moments" for Chief Justice Roberts. Mentoring in what it means to have differing roles and separation of powers, dontcha know.

[bubba]

Is it just me, but is calling zero a constitutional scholar like calling me a scholar of communist theory or radical islamic terrorists......... He studies the document, not for figuring out how to implement it and follow it, but more for looking at ways to make it irrelevant.....

[Box]

judicial activism is only allowed when it favors a liberal policy agenda...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Remembering the State of the Union awhile back this could be one of those "teachable moments" for Chief Justice Roberts. Mentoring in what it means to have differing roles and separation of powers, dontcha know.

The president's comments towards Chief Justice Roberts were at least as intolerable as Joe Wilson yelling out "liar."

As much as anything, this country needs the three branches of the government to do some brawling along institutional lines.

Originally Posted by bubba

Is it just me, but is calling zero a constitutional scholar like calling me a scholar of communist theory or radical islamic terrorists......... He studies the document, not for figuring out how to implement it and follow it, but more for looking at ways to make it irrelevant.....

MOO, scholars and policy makers would both serve the national interest better if they realized that there's a difference between theory and practice.

Yes, there should be an ongoing dialogue between the eggheads and the wonks but the blurring of lines is changing a dynamic of cross pollination to unhealthy stagnation.

My $0.02.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The president's comments towards Chief Justice Roberts were at least as intolerable as Joe Wilson yelling out "liar."

As much as anything, this country needs the three branches of the government to do some brawling along institutional lines. MOO, scholars and policy makers would both serve the national interest better if they realized that there's a difference between theory and practice.

Yes, there should be an ongoing dialogue between the eggheads and the wonks but the blurring of lines is changing a dynamic of cross pollination to unhealthy stagnation.

My $0.02.

I found what Wilson did to be extremely tolerable.

Ditching the un-Constitutional Obamacare BS prolly wouldn't even be an issue if Kagan had done the honorable thing and recused herself from the case.

[stfesta]

Isn't a Supreme Court Justice vetted by our elected officials? If so that would make them for the people, by the people once removed.

I can live with that.

What do I think about when I think about an unelected official?.............How about a Czar? Weren't those appointed by the current President? Not just one or two but, many. There seems to be a Czar for just about everything. I think there may be a Czar to regulate how I wipe my arse.

Let's not forget the (well timed) people appointed while congress is not is session. Those get an un-vetted pass to their appointed positions as well.

I really hope America gets a wake up call this June (with the Supreme Court Decision) that lasts thru November.

Just my $0.02
sf

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, scholars and policy makers would both serve the national interest better if they realized that there's a difference between theory and practice.

"There's a difference between theory and practice..."

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

It's just politics, Obama is trying to save face. The Left is saying that it is judicial activism by the conservatives on the Court, and the Left (and Obama now) pointing out how this is something the Right is always arguing against. But the Right argues against judicial activism in the sense of the SCOTUS finding things in the Constitution that aren't there, basically interpreting the Constitution to mean what they think it should mean as opposed to what it actually says. In this case, it's the opposite: the government finding the Constitution to say something it likely does not, and the Court serving as the correction. As for the claims about it passing by a solid majority, that's nonsense (they had to ram it through, and came close to using that "deem-and-pass" method), and then implying that it being passed by Congress means that it should not be struck down, well by that standard no legislation would be struck down, as all legislation passes via Congress.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I fail to see the inconsistency of the right's position in this matter.

TR

[Sigaba]

The CBS Evening News offered the president's viewpoint without analysis.

The editors may as well have just let the man speak entirely for himself.

On the plus side, Two Broke Girls will air on the west coast after the NCAA championship game--for those looking for something to cushion the blow of the game's outcome, smooth out any misgivings about CBS's reporting of the president's comments, or simply smother themselves in half an hour of comedy fun.

[cbtengr]

As usual he looked presidential but certainly did not sound presidential, if he said uh once he said it 100 times. He would have been better off to not have commented at all. We really do not deserve him.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by cbtengr

He would have been better off to not have commented at all.

Alternately, he could have expressed a quiet confidence about his team's performance in squaring the legislation with the constitution from its drafting to Donald Verrilli's appearance before the court, and he could have given an indication of respect for those Americans who question its propriety, and expressed faith in the judiciary to sort things out.

Instead, he reached into his pocket, pulled out his asshat, and put it on.

I really really really really really like that guy. And not just a little.

[The Reaper]

A trained eye sees things that others do not.

Is it possible that we have sunk to the point where the majority of the voters in this country think he is a nice guy who is watching out for them, and is in fact, Presidential looking, even after the monumental assaults on our liberties over the past three years?

All the magician needs is to divert the eye for a monent.

Fifty percent of the electorate, plus one is all he needs to fool.

If you think the past 38 months have been a continual assault on our liberties, as free citizens, you wait till he no longer has to worry about another election, or the SCOTUS.

We may very well get to choose between dying on our feet, or living on our knees.

Panem et circenses, indeed.

TR

[craigepo]

I have not determined whether this president is either so dense that he doesn't understand the Constitution, or has so much disdain for this country that he purposely tries to subvert it. Either way, the end result is the same.

That this presidential election could even be close, after watching this train wreck of an administration the last three years, scares the hell out of me. We have a lot of people voting in this country who don't give a damn about the country.

I read a quote last week from a writer who noted that this was the first nation in history formed by thought, not by a sword, his point being that the Founding Fathers thought our country through at its inception. How the hell did we have such outstanding Founders over two centuries ago, and today we elect Obama?

[mark46th]

He does have disdain for this country. He feels he is above the law. This reminds me of the scene in "Amistad" When the young queen of Spain is bouncing on a bed and says,"What is the use of having a court if it won't do what you want?"