Obama: 'judicial activism' if healthcare law is overturned [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obama: 'judicial activism' if healthcare law is overturned


sbhaven
04-02-2012, 14:31
Obama, during a White House news conference today said that it would be 'judicial activism' to strike down Obamacare.
In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law.
He stated; “We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,”

Obama: Supreme Court won’t overturn health care law
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html

Chuche2
04-02-2012, 15:09
He's lost it.

coastal4974
04-02-2012, 15:19
This is probably an indication on how the court voted Friday since I’m sure his plant reported back to him how it went down.

Obama is a street thug Communist agitator, this is how he rolls.

I saw a nice bumper sticker the other day:

Did you vote for Obama?
Thanks a lot *******.

cowboywannabe
04-02-2012, 15:22
if they voted one way or the other friday why do we have to wait months for the results?

sopdan
04-02-2012, 15:30
if they voted one way or the other friday why do we have to wait months for the results?

Because that's not the end of the process, it was only a preliminary vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Decision

muzzledown42
04-02-2012, 15:33
if they voted one way or the other friday why do we have to wait months for the results?

It's only an initial vote. The senior justice for the majority gets to appoint the writer of the opinion and I think it works the same way for the minority. In the meantime, opinions may change both before and after the first drafts of the opinions are issued.
In many cases, there are separate dissents or concurrences especially in cases of this magnitude. It is a deliberate, time consuming process by design, as it should be.

cowboywannabe
04-02-2012, 15:33
Because that's not the end of the process, it was only a preliminary vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Decision

so they get to vote, then after a while maybe change their vote?

DOC44
04-02-2012, 15:34
He's lost it.

the boy is getting threatening and desperate or is it just his god syndrome kicking in.

Doc44

sopdan
04-02-2012, 15:43
so they get to vote, then after a while maybe change their vote?

Yes, after seeing the other opinions and viewpoints. As muzzledown said, that's how it should be, IMO.

CourtCop
04-02-2012, 15:46
Doc,
I am no fan of Obama, but you just can't refer to a black man as boy and expect people to hear anything else you're saying.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

snerd
04-02-2012, 15:47
The Taranto Principle..........

".... This may be the first-ever (if unwitting) presidential acknowledgment of the Taranto Principle, which holds that the liberal media work against the interests of liberal politicians by misleading them into thinking that "everybody" (or "all thinking people") sees the world the way they do. The principle was very much in evidence in the commentary late last week about the left's shocked reaction to the Supreme Court's taking the arguments against ObamaCare seriously......."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577319691519829240.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

muzzledown42
04-02-2012, 15:50
This is probably an indication on how the court voted Friday since I’m sure his plant reported back to him how it went down.

Obama is a street thug Communist agitator, this is how he rolls.

I saw a nice bumper sticker the other day:

Did you vote for Obama?
Thanks a lot *******.

The Supreme Court is famous for its ability to prevent leaks of any kind to anybody for any reason. Obama in all probability does not have a "plant" in the SCOTUS nor do any of the Congressional leaders. The Justices are keenly aware that their status in the eyes of the American people would be severely compromised if not destroyed if they became enmeshed in the politics of issuing leaks or even allowing leaks."

As for the statement: "Obama is a street thug Communist agitator", this is pure nonsense and hyperbole.

snerd
04-02-2012, 15:56
....... The Justices are keenly aware that their status in the eyes of the American people would be severely compromised if not destroyed if they became enmeshed in the politics of issuing leaks or even allowing leaks.......
A wise Latino could pull it off. :whistling:

OldArcher
04-02-2012, 15:57
As several of TOM's characters have opined, it's time to "Lock and Load!"

We're not quite to the point of "Fix Bayonets!"

The way things are going, however, it could well be soon...

The "New" South will be made-up of people who revere the U.S. Constitution, and will no longer brook the nonsense of the mentally diseased Liberals... The South, fighting tyranny since 1861...

OA, out...

cowboywannabe
04-02-2012, 15:59
how dare anybody suggest that kegan and soto share socialist views with obama that contradict the u s constitution. and to suggest that one of them might let obama know how they voted? come on.

Mrs. Tink
04-02-2012, 16:03
As for the statement: "Obama is a street thug Communist agitator", this is pure nonsense and hyperbole.

Well--of course it's hyperbole. People have a tendency to do that when there is a history of bullying and threats. The insult-to-injury keeps piling up. Remember when Obama rebuked the Supreme Court during the State of the Union last year? That was outrageous. Now he's chiding them again with a tone that is almost like a warning. Could it be perceived as a threat to the Court? Not that he has any power to do so, but he sure talks tough.

The more outrageous Obama's behavior gets, the more you can expect to see hyperbole among the American people. I am seeing it among my rank-and-file friends, neighbors and colleagues.

snerd
04-02-2012, 16:04
how dare anybody suggest that kegan and soto share socialist views with obama that contradict the u s constitution. and to suggest that one of them might let obama know how they voted? come on.

http://hireducationpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/sand.jpg

wjv
04-02-2012, 16:11
Quote: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

WHAT A SCUMBAG! He is so arrogant to think that his opinion supersedes the Supreme Court. For a "Constitutional expert" he doesn't seem to know squat about the Constitution. . .

Running to the courts to overturn laws is the favorite past-time of liberals. But now when it's their fat in the fire, it becomes judicial activism. :steamed: What a two-faced SOB. .

Here in WA state we have had several voter passed laws overturned by liberal judges because of lawsuits sponsored by lib groups.

Statements like this from him makes me think that their "inside info" from the court is not looking good for them. Smells like panic.

DonGlock26
04-02-2012, 16:12
I'd say he's panicking over his legacy going up in flames.


-

Brucev
04-02-2012, 16:17
The Supreme Court is famous for its ability to prevent leaks of any kind to anybody for any reason. Obama in all probability does not have a "plant" in the SCOTUS nor do any of the Congressional leaders. The Justices are keenly aware that their status in the eyes of the American people would be severely compromised if not destroyed if they became enmeshed in the politics of issuing leaks or even allowing leaks."

As for the statement: "Obama is a street thug Communist agitator", this is pure nonsense and hyperbole.

The sc has no status in the eyes of America. From warren forward, the sc has degraded itself. The appointments made by Bush to some degree redeemed the sc. The squatter's two political hacks were of course to be expected... fully in line with his own non-existant understanding of the Constitution.

The squatter a "street thug Communist agitator?" Brilliantly blunt and precisely on target.

wjv
04-02-2012, 16:18
As for the statement: "Obama is a street thug Communist agitator", this is pure nonsense and hyperbole.

I have seen nothing to disprove that statement. .

He isn't even a good politician. He looks good when things are going good and the media is kissing his ***. . But as soon at things fall apart (economy, debt, wars, O-care) he starts sputtering and making statements like an amateur.

Shut off the pre-written, pre-prepared, choreographed speeches and events and he sticks his foot in his mouth 9 out of 10 times. Even after the east coast Henry Louis Gates incident where he looked like a total idiot, he still couldn't refrain from spouting off about the Zimmerman/Martin incident well before all the facts were known.

He is nowhere near as brilliant as the media wants us to believe.

DOC44
04-02-2012, 16:18
Doc,
I am no fan of Obama, but you just can't refer to a black man as boy and expect people to hear anything else you're saying.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

if the use of the word "boy" causes some people not to listen then I don't care because I am not talking to them anyway, boy.

Doc44

cowboywannabe
04-02-2012, 16:23
yeah, how can you have home boys without boys?

G17Jake
04-02-2012, 16:44
This is probably an indication on how the court voted Friday since I’m sure his plant reported back to him how it went down.

Obama is a street thug Communist agitator, this is how he rolls.


I saw a nice bumper sticker the other day:

Did you vote for Obama?
Thanks a lot *******.

I agree.

cowboywannabe
04-02-2012, 17:25
he has officially warned the supreme court to not side with the constitution.

Little Joe
04-02-2012, 17:41
He's planting the seed that it's somebody else's fault when it gets shot down.

callihan_44
04-02-2012, 17:42
Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law

wouldnt this also be the case if they ruled it "constitutional"...I hope these justices b-slap our young boy pres.

coastal4974
04-02-2012, 17:48
The Supreme Court is famous for its ability to prevent leaks of any kind to anybody for any reason. Obama in all probability does not have a "plant" in the SCOTUS nor do any of the Congressional leaders. The Justices are keenly aware that their status in the eyes of the American people would be severely compromised if not destroyed if they became enmeshed in the politics of issuing leaks or even allowing leaks."

As for the statement: "Obama is a street thug Communist agitator", this is pure nonsense and hyperbole.

That would be Kagan. You don't think she ran to the Obama last Friday to report in on how the vote went? :rofl:

The street thug communist agitator smiles upon you.

aircarver
04-02-2012, 17:50
.....The squatter a "street thug Communist agitator?" Brilliantly blunt and precisely on target.

Nailed it, exactly .......:thumbsup:

.

KING-PIN
04-02-2012, 17:51
Doc,
I am no fan of Obama, but you just can't refer to a black man as boy and expect people to hear anything else you're saying.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

So, gentlemen who may be older (or not since I don't know DOC44's age) than the gentlemen they are referring to may no longer use a simple, harmless term to indicate that they are senior to whom they are referencing because it can be interpreted as racist...

Well, if they are offended by that, then I will from then on know to treat and refer to them as the "Boy" they are, by their own admittance.

:wavey:

ChuteTheMall
04-02-2012, 17:52
Doc,
I am no fan of Obama, but you just can't refer to a black man as boy and expect people to hear anything else you're saying.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

All boys are created equal, and black culture does not have the right to destroy my language. No hable eubonics.

Even if he was entirely white, he would properly be referred to as the "boy-president" based upon his immature behavior, his lack of experience, and his propensity to go out and play while there is work to be done.

I used to be a boy, and I was proud of it.

http://i39.tinypic.com/w7zd60.gif

G29Reload
04-02-2012, 17:54
how dare anybody suggest that kegan and soto share socialist views with obama that contradict the u s constitution. and to suggest that one of them might let obama know how they voted? come on.

I dare. Well, I did after getting in line with countless others.

I'll bet as soon as session was over saturday, Kagan was on the phone to him. Have no doubt.

Bruce H
04-02-2012, 18:01
The bellboy better study what he is supposed to be the head of. The will of congress is immaterial if it flys in the face of the original document the country is supposed to be run from.

G29Reload
04-02-2012, 18:02
Levin was on this tonight as well as I saw some of the online news stories…

Obama "warns" Supreme Court…

Punk ain't warning anyone.

HTF does one co-equal branch "warn" another one?

Whatchoo gonna do about it, punk?

If Roberts and the Justices wern't so dignified, I'd say he should hold a presser and tell Boy Wonder to suck it. You don't tell us how to do our job when you can't even do yours, so put a sock in it.

When the law is overturned it will be because they're doing their job. As far as the congress being democratically elected, where are they now? That's right, they got run out of town in 2010. For putting up an unconstitutional law. That 26 States are suing for!

If the SCOTUS shouldn't be overturning laws, WTF do they exist for? To rubber stamp your skinny butt? Eat me.

KING-PIN
04-02-2012, 18:04
Levin was on this tonight as well as I saw some of the online news stories…

Obama "warns" Supreme Court…

Punk ain't warning anyone.

HTF does one co-equal branch "warn" another one?

Whatchoo gonna do about it, punk?

If Roberts and the Justices wern't so dignified, I'd say he should hold a presser and tell Boy Wonder to suck it. You don't tell us how to do our job when you can't even do yours, so put a sock in it.

When the law is overturned it will be because they're doing their job. As far as the congress being democratically elected, where are they now? That's right, they got run out of town in 2010. For putting up an unconstitutional law. That 26 States are suing for!

If the SCOTUS shouldn't be overturning laws, WTF do they exist for? To rubber stamp your skinny butt? Eat me.

Outstanding.

muzzledown42
04-02-2012, 18:05
Well--of course it's hyperbole. People have a tendency to do that when there is a history of bullying and threats. The insult-to-injury keeps piling up. Remember when Obama rebuked the Supreme Court during the State of the Union last year? That was outrageous. Now he's chiding them again with a tone that is almost like a warning. Could it be perceived as a threat to the Court? Not that he has any power to do so, but he sure talks tough.

The more outrageous Obama's behavior gets, the more you can expect to see hyperbole among the American people. I am seeing it among my rank-and-file friends, neighbors and colleagues.

Why is it outrageous? Obama is entitled to his opinion and the conservative justices to theirs. He didn't say anything demeaning personally to the justices, just that he disagreed with their decision that allows monied interests to have so much more say in politics. Republican presidents have certainly expressed their disagreement with the Supreme Court's decisions and conservatives have made it part of their mantra that liberal courts and justices are ruining America. The difference is that Obama's criticisms were couched in reasonable language that has underlying logic to it, even if you don't agree with the logic. What I see on GT is a lot of people using intemperate language and name calling even suggesting citizens should resort to armed force to resist the government. We have the voting booth as our primary tool for working out differences. That's what a democracy is all about.

coastal4974
04-02-2012, 18:25
Why is it outrageous? Obama is entitled to his opinion and the conservative justices to theirs. He didn't say anything demeaning personally to the justices, just that he disagreed with their decision that allows monied interests to have so much more say in politics. Republican presidents have certainly expressed their disagreement with the Supreme Court's decisions and conservatives have made it part of their mantra that liberal courts and justices are ruining America. The difference is that Obama's criticisms were couched in reasonable language that has underlying logic to it, even if you don't agree with the logic. What I see on GT is a lot of people using intemperate language and name calling even suggesting citizens should resort to armed force to resist the government. We have the voting booth as our primary tool for working out differences. That's what a democracy is all about.

You must have us confused with the DU, I've never seen that here.

We are still a Republic, it's the Communist agitator and the Democrat party that want to change that using mob rule. Check the new Black Panther party if you want to see a Democracy. You might know them as Holder's "people".

Ruble Noon
04-02-2012, 18:58
You must have us confused with the DU, I've never seen that here.

We are still a Republic, it's the Communist agitator and the Democrat party that want to change that using mob rule. Check the new Black Panther party if you want to see a Democracy. You might know them as Holder's "people".

Seems to be a lot of wayward DU patrons around here lately.

Mrs. Tink
04-02-2012, 20:42
Why is it outrageous? Obama is entitled to his opinion and the conservative justices to theirs. He didn't say anything demeaning personally to the justices, just that he disagreed with their decision that allows monied interests to have so much more say in politics. Republican presidents have certainly expressed their disagreement with the Supreme Court's decisions and conservatives have made it part of their mantra that liberal courts and justices are ruining America. The difference is that Obama's criticisms were couched in reasonable language that has underlying logic to it, even if you don't agree with the logic. What I see on GT is a lot of people using intemperate language and name calling even suggesting citizens should resort to armed force to resist the government. We have the voting booth as our primary tool for working out differences. That's what a democracy is all about.

Obama is being intellectually dishonest. He talked about a "strong majority" having voted Obamacare through Congress, when in reality the majority was extremely narrow, and talked about "an unelected group of people" should uphold the law "because it should be upheld." Really? I'm not thinking that those words are going to be taken as "temperate" or "reasonable." If someone doesn't know what actually transpired during the Obamacare vote in Congress, he might sound reasonable on that front, but taking swipes at "an unelected group of people" when referring to the highest court in the land? Criticizing them during the SOTU? I don't recall Republican presidents doing that; it's bad form.

And you really cannot be serious in comparing the sitting President to a group of citizens on an internet gun forum in terms of the level of discourse. Of course you will see intemperate people on GT. Within the bounds of the forum owner's permission, they are free to stuff their dialogue with hyperbole and to be as gleefully contemptuous as they'd like. We expect more from the president.

By the way, I am sure you know this and have heard it before--but the United States is a constitutional Republic. :wavey:

cowboywannabe
04-02-2012, 21:03
obama has a man (or woman in this case) on the inside giving him the nod. thats why hes so bold with his warnings. after all, whos going to beat him in november?

kenpoprofessor
04-02-2012, 21:12
Seems to be a lot of wayward DU patrons around here lately.

Yea, I'm noticing that as well, much more than usual.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

QNman
04-02-2012, 21:21
Levin was on this tonight as well as I saw some of the online news stories…

Obama "warns" Supreme Court…

Punk ain't warning anyone.

HTF does one co-equal branch "warn" another one?

Whatchoo gonna do about it, punk?

If Roberts and the Justices wern't so dignified, I'd say he should hold a presser and tell Boy Wonder to suck it. You don't tell us how to do our job when you can't even do yours, so put a sock in it.

When the law is overturned it will be because they're doing their job. As far as the congress being democratically elected, where are they now? That's right, they got run out of town in 2010. For putting up an unconstitutional law. That 26 States are suing for!

If the SCOTUS shouldn't be overturning laws, WTF do they exist for? To rubber stamp your skinny butt? Eat me.

You're avatar is absolutely perfect. I can't read your posts without hearing them spoken by "mayhem".

/off-topic

Excellent points, by the way. And well stated.

juggy4711
04-02-2012, 21:30
He is nowhere near as brilliant as the media wants us to believe.

Say what one will about Clinton but Clinton was a billion times the politician that Obama is. Barrack can be considered black and that is the best thing he has going for him.

G17Jake
04-02-2012, 21:39
Say what one will about Clinton but Clinton was a billion times the politician that Obama is. Barrack can be considered black and that is the only thing he has going for him.

I'm no fan of Clinton, but I agree with this.

janice6
04-02-2012, 21:40
Obama: 'judicial activism' if healthcare law is overturned

Whining...........

G29Reload
04-02-2012, 22:57
You're avatar is absolutely perfect. I can't read your posts without hearing them spoken by "mayhem".

/off-topic

Excellent points, by the way. And well stated.

And to think I'm commenting on a story about mandating insurance. :rofl:

Big Mad Dawg
04-03-2012, 00:11
That's what a democracy is all about.

We are a Republic and we have the seconded amendment of the United States Constitution to prevent any government (especially the obama) from infringing on our rights under the Republic.

Toyman
04-03-2012, 05:19
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the case:

1. He has a problem with the unelected Supreme Court overturning the law, based on the Constitution, which is their job.

2. He has NO problem with unelected, administration appointed departments creating new regulations with the full power of the law.

3. He does not understand that the United States is not a "majority rules" democracy, but a Republic constrained by the Constitution.

Do I have that correct?

fortyofforty
04-03-2012, 05:23
We have the voting booth as our primary tool for working out differences. That's what a democracy is all about.

Occupy Wall Street. Street agitation. Violent demonstrations. Protests at the homes of executives. Targeting the children of executives. Busing rent-a-protestors around to various sites. Community activists stirring up trouble. Death threats. Need I go on?

Is that what democracy is all about, then? Or is that sort of thing OK because it's done by the left?

And perhaps Odumbo is making a thinly veiled threat to bring the busses full of protestors to the homes of Supreme Court justices that vote against his wishes.

The Machinist
04-03-2012, 05:40
Seems to be a lot of wayward DU patrons around here lately.
A lot of members from Obama's "Truth Squad" trying to squelch dissent.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 05:46
Obama is being intellectually dishonest. He talked about a "strong majority" having voted Obamacare through Congress, when in reality the majority was extremely narrow, and talked about "an unelected group of people" should uphold the law "because it should be upheld." Really? I'm not thinking that those words are going to be taken as "temperate" or "reasonable." If someone doesn't know what actually transpired during the Obamacare vote in Congress, he might sound reasonable on that front, but taking swipes at "an unelected group of people" when referring to the highest court in the land? Criticizing them during the SOTU? I don't recall Republican presidents doing that; it's bad form.

And you really cannot be serious in comparing the sitting President to a group of citizens on an internet gun forum in terms of the level of discourse. Of course you will see intemperate people on GT. Within the bounds of the forum owner's permission, they are free to stuff their dialogue with hyperbole and to be as gleefully contemptuous as they'd like. We expect more from the president.

By the way, I am sure you know this and have heard it before--but the United States is a constitutional Republic. :wavey:


"Cornhusker Kickback" plus other back-room deals in the middle of the night...

Congressional Democrats pushing through a bill without the "severability clause" as voted by the Senate, and not putting it back in, because they knew they wouldn't get a revised bill through against mounting resistance and national disapproval...

Yeah -- that was democracy and "will of the people" at its finest... :upeyes:


.

FifthFreedom
04-03-2012, 10:14
This is probably an indication on how the court voted Friday since I’m sure his plant reported back to him how it went down.

Obama is a street thug Communist agitator, this is how he rolls.

I saw a nice bumper sticker the other day:

Did you vote for Obama?
Thanks a lot *******.



I saw that sticker too....:rofl:

Ian Moone
04-03-2012, 11:12
All boys are created equal, and black culture does not have the right to destroy my language. No hable eubonics.

Even if he was entirely white, he would properly be referred to as the "boy-president" based upon his immature behavior, his lack of experience, and his propensity to go out and play while there is work to be done.

I used to be a boy, and I was proud of it.

http://i39.tinypic.com/w7zd60.gif

Looking at your Sarah Palin avatar while reading the words "I used to be a boy" just gave me the willies. *pun intended*

Ruble Noon
04-03-2012, 11:16
"Cornhusker Kickback" plus other back-room deals in the middle of the night...

Congressional Democrats pushing through a bill without the "severability clause" as voted by the Senate, and not putting it back in, because they knew they wouldn't get a revised bill through against mounting resistance and national disapproval...

Yeah -- that was democracy and "will of the people" at its finest... :upeyes:


.

All from the "Most ethical congress in history"

marchboom
04-03-2012, 11:16
Doc,
I am no fan of Obama, but you just can't refer to a black man as boy and expect people to hear anything else you're saying.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

That's not how I read Doc's statement. Don't make his statement a racial thing. That's obama's field of expertise.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 11:25
All from the "Most ethical congress in history"


Yep -- when Pelosi talked about "draining the swamp," I guess she meant draining the last ounce of integrity out of that cesspool...


.

engineer151515
04-03-2012, 11:25
he has officially warned the supreme court to not side with the constitution.

That's the way I read it.


This may explain why Obama wanted a quick review and decision. So, upon loosing the court case, he would still have time in his lame duck term to enact as much through Presidential Executive Order as possible.

muzzledown42
04-03-2012, 11:53
The sc has no status in the eyes of America. From warren forward, the sc has degraded itself. The appointments made by Bush to some degree redeemed the sc. The squatter's two political hacks were of course to be expected... fully in line with his own non-existant understanding of the Constitution.

The squatter a "street thug Communist agitator?" Brilliantly blunt and precisely on target.

The Supreme Court has a great deal of status in the United States, aside, that is, from the extreme right, which thinks that every decision must be decided according to their wishes.

To call Obama a "street thug Communist agitator" is like calling George W. Bush a special education, racist, war-mongering panderer to the rich. If it serves to assuage your anger, go ahead. But if you're this angry now, think what it will be like when Obama is reelected.

Bren
04-03-2012, 12:04
Well, the good news I heard at a meeting today is that, if Obamacare is upheld, it will cover nearly all prison inmates, allowing states to shift prison medical budgets onto the federal healthcare/medicaid budget. Every cloud has a silver lining.:rofl:

wjv
04-03-2012, 12:44
The Supreme Court has a great deal of status in the United States, aside, that is, from the extreme right, which thinks that every decision must be decided according to their wishes.

No. . ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!

You remember that document?

The supreme law of the land.

If you don't like what the Constitution says, then change it through appropriate means. But don't bypass it via liberal judges.

series1811
04-03-2012, 12:47
Say what one will about Clinton but Clinton was a billion times the politician that Obama is. Barrack can be considered black and that is the best thing he has going for him.

I didn't like much of what Clinton stood for, but there was no doubt he was fairly brilliant as a politician, had a solid base of executive and leadership experience, and was genius level smart.

I feel the same way about Obama except for him not being any good at politics (except getting elected), not having any experience, and pretty much being as dumb as a box of rocks.

Mrs. Tink
04-03-2012, 12:51
Clinton would have found a way to spin any result of the Supreme Court ruling into a win for himself. He would never have been out there like Obama is, with "warnings" and "strongly worded admonitions" to the Court. Obama is so rigid, he thinks the very fact that he exists and the force of his personality should be the reason why people should do what he wants. His answer is the only right answer and if you don't agree, then he regards you as a puzzling anomaly and gets impatient when you try to challenge him. Clinton was a master at manipulation and knew how to work almost any situation to his advantage. Obama lacks this quality and it is showing.

aircarver
04-03-2012, 12:59
Obamao is squaring off with a bulldozer .....

.

muzzledown42
04-03-2012, 13:04
No. . ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!

You remember that document?

The supreme law of the land.

If you don't like what the Constitution says, then change it through appropriate means. But don't bypass it via liberal judges.

You think the constitution cannot be interpreted in different ways? Of course it can. A prime example is the 2nd Amendment, specifically, whether the right to bear arms should be read in context with the militia clause or allowed to stand alone. In 5-4 decisions, the justices decided it should be read to stand alone giving us gun owners protection from state laws that would take some of these rights away. A conservative interpretation of this Amendment would have resulted in different outcomes in the Heller and McDonald cases since previous decisions had tended to side with the two clauses taken together. Judicial activism is a two edged sword just as "strict construction" is. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. What I hear more from the right than from the left is that when a decision goes down they don't like, they call it judicial activism. When it goes down their way, they call it strict construction.

KING-PIN
04-03-2012, 13:07
Well, the good news I heard at a meeting today is that, if Obamacare is upheld, it will cover nearly all prison inmates, allowing states to shift prison medical budgets onto the federal healthcare/medicaid budget. Every cloud has a silver lining.:rofl:

Wow.

I never thought of that. I mean, taxpayers already cover all those costs, but the fact that the funds will now be taken out of the federal budget is just funny.

When I first started, I worked in the jail for several years and it is absolutely unbelievable at the medical procedures that these inmates demand once incarcerated.

Everyone who lives on the streets, whether they be homeless, or a street thug, comes to jail and suddenly has to have a special diet made for them for all 3 meals. You go from eating leftovers out of a trash can but come to jail and you have to have everything just so so because you have "excessive indigestion" or need to make sure you have a "healthy heart" meal.

It's the same thing with their medical problems.

Lived on the streets for years, but get locked up, and suddenly you're getting to go to the dentist, and getting every little thing you ever thought was even the slightest bit wrong looked at and spending days/weeks in the hospital while the taxpayers pay for every bit of it.

We even had a guy take his girlfriend hostage and SWAT shoot him 6, yes 6, times in the chest with a .223 AR-15 and he didn't die. Laid in the hospital for like 6 months and had a medical bill for over $3,000,000 by the time he was discharged, and that's not counting the bi-weekly follow-ups with the "specialists" at the hospital, all on the taxpayers dime.

That's too funny. If this thing isn't thrown out, this will be a very sturdy nail in the coffin of the good ol' USA. But hey, at least maybe that will free up enough cash in my area to give us our raises back.

The Machinist
04-03-2012, 13:35
When it goes down their way, they call it strict construction.
Liberals have never made a decision that could be mistaken as strict construction.

Little Joe
04-03-2012, 14:02
Limbaugh has an interesting take on this.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/03/obama_puts_out_bounty_on_supreme_court

series1811
04-03-2012, 14:06
. What I hear more from the right than from the left is that when a decision goes down they don't like, they call it judicial activism. When it goes down their way, they call it strict construction.

You hear it that way because you are part of the left.

Lethaltxn
04-03-2012, 14:16
You hear it that way because you are part of the left.

There ya go.

tgmr05
04-03-2012, 15:13
A wise Latino could pull it off. :whistling:

Don't you mean a 'white' Latino? No, wait, first wise, then white, ...no wait... what???

muzzledown42
04-03-2012, 15:40
Liberals have never made a decision that could be mistaken as strict construction.

They did just that in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

muzzledown42
04-03-2012, 15:49
You hear it that way because you are part of the left.

It's no secret that most of the complaints about judicial activism have come from the right.

muzzledown42
04-03-2012, 15:58
Occupy Wall Street. Street agitation. Violent demonstrations. Protests at the homes of executives. Targeting the children of executives. Busing rent-a-protestors around to various sites. Community activists stirring up trouble. Death threats. Need I go on?

Is that what democracy is all about, then? Or is that sort of thing OK because it's done by the left?

And perhaps Odumbo is making a thinly veiled threat to bring the busses full of protestors to the homes of Supreme Court justices that vote against his wishes.

The Obama Administration is not synonymous with Occupy Wall Street. He has said little about the movement preferring to keep his distance from such a loosely organized group. As to the tactics used by OWS, they are simply taking a page out of the right's play book. Do you think the right didn't bus people in to disrupt town hall meetings when the health care debate was going on? Do you think the right didn't stage a violent protest to try to stop the Florida recount? Have you heard of doctors providing abortions being hounded, stalked and shot? Or is only when the left uses these tactics that you are indignant?

Mrs. Tink
04-03-2012, 16:04
The Obama Administration is not synonymous with Occupy Wall Street. He has said little about the movement preferring to keep his distance from such a loosely organized group. As to the tactics used by OWS, they are simply taking a page out of the right's play book. Do you think the right didn't bus people in to disrupt town hall meetings when the health care debate was going on? Do you think the right didn't stage a violent protest to try to stop the Florida recount? Have you heard of doctors providing abortions being hounded, stalked and shot? Or is only when the left uses these tactics that you are indignant?

I notice you're pretty careful with how you phrase those accusations veiled as questions. Are you stating that the right did, in fact, bus people in to health care town halls? I attended several and saw no buses; I did, however, see leftist groups who told me with their own mouths that they were paid to be there. If you are stating that they did, and/opr that the right did stage protests with the express stated purpose to try to stop the Florida recount, please provide proof. Proof that does not involve opinions or obscure blogs.

If you are as concerned with facts as you say, then I think it's appropriate to keep this conversation grounded in them. While we're on facts, OWS's "play book" (first you say they are "loosely organized," then suddenly they have a "play book"--which is it?) is taken from Rules for Radicals, which is most certainly not a right-wing publication.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 16:04
The Obama Administration is not synonymous with Occupy Wall Street. He has said little about the movement preferring to keep his distance from such a loosely organized group. As to the tactics used by OWS, they are simply taking a page out of the right's play book. Do you think the right didn't bus people in to disrupt town hall meetings when the health care debate was going on? Do you think the right didn't stage a violent protest to try to stop the Florida recount? Have you heard of doctors providing abortions being hounded, stalked and shot? Or is only when the left uses these tactics that you are indignant?


You clearly have no practical idea about what you're talking about. Parroting some leftist talking points you read at the Democrat Underground do not constitute a knowledgeable basis for espousing viewpoints.


.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 16:06
I notice you're pretty careful with how you phrase those accusations veiled as questions. Are you stating that the right did, in fact, bus people in to health care town halls? I attended several and saw no buses; I did, however, see leftist groups who told me with their own mouths that they were paid to be there. If you are stating that they did, and/opr that the right did stage protests with the express stated purpose to try to stop the Florida recount, please provide proof. Proof that does not involve opinions or obscure blogs.

If you are as concerned with facts as you say, then I think it's appropriate to keep this conversation grounded in them. While we're on facts, OWS's "play book" (first you say they are "loosely organized," then suddenly they have a "play book"--which is it?) is taken from Rules for Radicals, which is most certainly not a right-wing publication.


Right on, Mrs. Tink.

That bozo is lying and/or has no practical basis for voicing its opinions.


.

Mrs. Tink
04-03-2012, 16:08
Right on, Mrs. Tink.

That bozo is lying and/or has no practical basis for voicing its opinions.


.

Hey J, haven't seen you around in a while. Or maybe our paths just have not crossed in the same threads. :beer:

JFrame
04-03-2012, 16:10
Hey J, haven't seen you around in a while. Or maybe our paths just have not crossed in the same threads. :beer:


:cheers:

Just had to take a moment or two to get my second wind... :supergrin:


.

wjv
04-03-2012, 16:16
You think the constitution cannot be interpreted in different ways? Of course it can. A prime example is the 2nd Amendment.

Anybody who:

1) Read documents by the founding fathers that described their intent.

2) Has a rudimentary grasp of how the term "regulated" was used back in the 1700s.

3) Has a rudimentary grasp of English sentence structure, punctuation, and paragraph parsing. (as in the many English language experts who parsed the 2nd and found the two clauses to be independent)

Knew that there was only one valid and legitimate interpretation possible.

muzzledown42
04-03-2012, 16:41
I notice you're pretty careful with how you phrase those accusations veiled as questions. Are you stating that the right did, in fact, bus people in to health care town halls? I attended several and saw no buses; I did, however, see leftist groups who told me with their own mouths that they were paid to be there. If you are stating that they did, and/opr that the right did stage protests with the express stated purpose to try to stop the Florida recount, please provide proof. Proof that does not involve opinions or obscure blogs.

If you are as concerned with facts as you say, then I think it's appropriate to keep this conversation grounded in them. While we're on facts, OWS's "play book" (first you say they are "loosely organized," then suddenly they have a "play book"--which is it?) is taken from Rules for Radicals, which is most certainly not a right-wing publication.

Google Brooks Brothers riot and you'll find the information to substantiate the facts that it was 1) violent, 2) orchestrated by the right wing with 3) the purpose of stopping the recount.

Will you also contest the fact that doctors providing abortions have been stalked and shot? This goes way beyond the death threats mentioned in the previous post.

I don't know if OWS has a playbook but it is obvious that some of them are using rough tactics. I don't condone targeting CEO's and their families - I think that's despicable. But the point is that these tactics are used by both sides. Also, an organization can be loosely organized and still have some guidelines about how they want to pursue their agenda.

Finally, in response to a commenter on your post, I have never called anyone a "Bozo" on GT because I think their opinions are wrong. I try to stick to the issues. Of course, I am going to get a lot of disagreement since I don't agree with much of the conservative thrust of GT followers. I'm ok with that even if it makes a "Bozo" in the eyes of some.

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 16:48
The Obama Administration is not synonymous with Occupy Wall Street. He has said little about the movement preferring to keep his distance from such a loosely organized group. As to the tactics used by OWS, they are simply taking a page out of the right's play book. Do you think the right didn't bus people in to disrupt town hall meetings when the health care debate was going on? Do you think the right didn't stage a violent protest to try to stop the Florida recount? Have you heard of doctors providing abortions being hounded, stalked and shot? Or is only when the left uses these tactics that you are indignant?

I find your views fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 16:49
The Obama Administration is not synonymous with Occupy Wall Street. He has said little about the movement preferring to keep his distance from such a loosely organized group. As to the tactics used by OWS, they are simply taking a page out of the right's play book. Do you think the right didn't bus people in to disrupt town hall meetings when the health care debate was going on? Do you think the right didn't stage a violent protest to try to stop the Florida recount? Have you heard of doctors providing abortions being hounded, stalked and shot? Or is only when the left uses these tactics that you are indignant?

Most of the people here are hypocrites. They see what they want to see and ignore the rest. You'll notice how they changed the context of Obama's comment, which was accurate because the right does spend a lot of time whining about 'judicial activism'. They have no compunction against framing an argument any way they see fit and then complaining loudly when the other side does the same.

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 16:52
I find your views fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

This guy is a perfect example. If someone talked about a republican woman the same way he talked about Sandra Fluke he would be apoplectic.

muzzledown42
04-03-2012, 16:54
Anybody who:

1) Read documents by the founding fathers that described their intent.

2) Has a rudimentary grasp of how the term "regulated" was used back in the 1700s.

3) Has a rudimentary grasp of English sentence structure, punctuation, and paragraph parsing. (as in the many English language experts who parsed the 2nd and found the two clauses to be independent)

Knew that there was only one valid and legitimate interpretation possible.

If that were the case, the would never be any need for any constitutional cases coming before the court. Anyone with any knowledge of our history of judicial decisions, knows that there have been many disagreements on what the constitution means and how it should be adapted to changing times. One of the primary reasons for having a Supreme Court is to reconcile lower court opinions on many issues, including constitutional ones.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 16:54
Google Brooks Brothers riot and you'll find the information to substantiate the facts that it was 1) violent, 2) orchestrated by the right wing with 3) the purpose of stopping the recount.

Will you also contest the fact that doctors providing abortions have been stalked and shot? This goes way beyond the death threats mentioned in the previous post.

I don't know if OWS has a playbook but it is obvious that some of them are using rough tactics. I don't condone targeting CEO's and their families - I think that's despicable. But the point is that these tactics are used by both sides. Also, an organization can be loosely organized and still have some guidelines about how they want to pursue their agenda.

Finally, in response to a commenter on your post, I have never called anyone a "Bozo" on GT because I think their opinions are wrong. I try to stick to the issues. Of course, I am going to get a lot of disagreement since I don't agree with much of the conservative thrust of GT followers. I'm ok with that even if it makes a "Bozo" in the eyes of some.


I will retract my "bozo" comment.

You tried to draw moral relativism between OWS and Obamacare townhall debates, but I will submit with absolute certitude that you never attended a single such townhall, and are voicing opinion based on fabrications of your leftist echo chamber.


.

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 17:01
This guy is a perfect example. If someone talked about a republican woman the same way he talked about Sandra Fluke he would be apoplectic.

"Someone" did and the Leftists wringing their hands about civility in the public square were curiously silent. And the targets of their wrath weren't even talking about spending $3k on birth control.

Besides, I expressly said that it was very wrong to get up there and say Sandra Fluke has seen more dick than a Bewitched marathon.

aircarver
04-03-2012, 17:30
Goalie has been delivering succinct and accurate political discourse here for years ..... :thumbsup:

.

wjv
04-03-2012, 17:33
Google Brooks Brothers riot and you'll find the information to substantiate the facts that it was 1) violent, 2) orchestrated by the right wing with 3) the purpose of stopping the recount.

What people were protesting was the METHOD of the recount that allowed the election judges almost free rein in how to "interpret" the "intent" of the voter.

You do know that the lawsuit didn't actually stop the recount.

The lawsuit ONLY stated that ALL QUESTIONABLE BALLOTS HAD TO BE EVALUATED USING THE SAME STANDARD IN ALL OF THE COUNTIES.

Once the Democrats heard this, they threw up their hands in defeat because it meant that they couldn't apply their own rules for interpreting ballots in Democratic run Counties.

Bush was not "selected". He was elected and don't forget that a "recount" by three of FL largest and Liberal newspapers after the election, in an attempt to invalidate Bush's election resulted in an admission that that Bush actually won FL.

wjv
04-03-2012, 17:35
Hmmm. .

Lot's of low post count people suddenly posting pro-O stuff here. . .

JFrame
04-03-2012, 17:40
Hmmm. .

Lot's of low post count people suddenly posting pro-O stuff here. . .


It's a perceptible cycle -- like locust swarms.


.

wjv
04-03-2012, 17:47
If that were the case, the would never be any need for any constitutional cases coming before the court. Anyone with any knowledge of our history of judicial decisions, knows that there have been many disagreements on what the constitution means and how it should be adapted to changing times. One of the primary reasons for having a Supreme Court is to reconcile lower court opinions on many issues, including constitutional ones.

Didn't say there was no need for the Court to review this. . . SPECIFICALLY so they could put an end to bad rulings by lower courts.

I said that people not driven by agendas, who look at the facts, could only come up with one decision.

When you base your rulings on a political agenda instead of the Constitution, you end up like the 9th Circus Court. Known for their liberal interpretations gets reversed 79% of the time. . .

Ruble Noon
04-03-2012, 17:54
Hmmm. .

Lot's of low post count people suddenly posting pro-O stuff here. . .

Obama truth squad.

http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team?source=20120213_sc_misc&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=20120213_sc_misc

Lethaltxn
04-03-2012, 18:09
Obama truth squad.

http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team?source=20120213_sc_misc&utm_medium=email&utm_source=obama&utm_campaign=20120213_sc_misc

Oxymoron. :supergrin:

JFrame
04-03-2012, 18:11
Oxymoron. :supergrin:


:supergrin: :supergrin:

I just LOVE the way leftists have appropriate the words "truth," "fairness," and "justice."


.

aircarver
04-03-2012, 18:30
:supergrin: :supergrin:

I just LOVE the way leftists have appropriate the words "truth," "fairness," and "justice."


.

Orwell-speak.

.

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 18:33
:supergrin: :supergrin:

I just LOVE the way leftists have appropriate the words "truth," "fairness," and "justice."


.

I'm just curious... after nearly 100 posts, why has no one addressed Obama's comments in their original context?

JFrame
04-03-2012, 18:43
I'm just curious... after nearly 100 posts, why has no one addressed Obama's comments in their original context?


Good grief -- hasn't that doofus' idiotic rantings already been debunked over the past three pages ago? :headscratch:


.

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 18:45
I'm just curious... after nearly 100 posts, why has no one addressed Obama's comments in their original context?

Why haven't you?

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 18:46
Good grief -- hasn't that doofus' idiotic rantings already been debunked over the past three pages ago? :headscratch:


.

That's ok, I didn't really expect a reasonable or considered answer from you.

fortyofforty
04-03-2012, 18:46
We know brownshirt, leftwing tactics when we see them. The Natsos will stop at nothing, and turn to violence and threats of violence to get power. It hasn't changed since Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and the other leftwing Socialist thugs of the 1930s, except now they use social media to communicate rather than posting bills.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 18:49
That's ok, I didn't really expect a reasonable or considered answer from you.


:rofl:

One of us needs a course in remedial reading -- and it isn't me... :supergrin:


.

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 18:55
Why haven't you?

I did:

You'll notice how they changed the context of Obama's comment, which was accurate because the right does spend a lot of time whining about 'judicial activism'.

Here's Obama's original comment for anyone interested in moving past the right wing spin:

Obama Defends Health Care Law From 'Judicial Activism' - YouTube

Now go and compare that with all the nonsense that got posted and went unchallenged. For example, comments like this:

We know brownshirt, leftwing tactics when we see them. The Natsos will stop at nothing, and turn to violence and threats of violence to get power. It hasn't changed since Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and the other leftwing Socialist thugs of the 1930s, except now they use social media to communicate rather than posting bills.

fortyofforty
04-03-2012, 19:00
The Obama Administration is not synonymous with Occupy Wall Street. He has said little about the movement preferring to keep his distance from such a loosely organized group. As to the tactics used by OWS, they are simply taking a page out of the right's play book. Do you think the right didn't bus people in to disrupt town hall meetings when the health care debate was going on? Do you think the right didn't stage a violent protest to try to stop the Florida recount? Have you heard of doctors providing abortions being hounded, stalked and shot? Or is only when the left uses these tactics that you are indignant?

And this.

fortyofforty
04-03-2012, 19:01
Most of the people here are hypocrites. They see what they want to see and ignore the rest. You'll notice how they changed the context of Obama's comment, which was accurate because the right does spend a lot of time whining about 'judicial activism'. They have no compunction against framing an argument any way they see fit and then complaining loudly when the other side does the same.

Or this.

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 19:02
And it isn't activism to overturn a law that is repugnant to the Constitution...yes, I'm certain I read that phrasing somewhere. So "strong majorities" of two votes don't matter if the law itself isn't grounded on solid constitutional law, and there's a good argument that ACA isn't.

Activism is the judiciary inventing rights and policy out of whole cloth, for instance the ever-ephemeral "right to privacy" under those emanations and penumbras. I'd have thought Lecturer Obama would have known that, but perhaps he was too busy indoctrinating his students with Critical Race Theory and Derrick Bell books to be bothered with minor things like the philosophical groundings behind judicial review.

So I think it's less about you addressing Obama "in context" (to which the question is always "what about the omitted context changes the meaning of the statement?") and more about you failing to do so convincingly or even logically.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 19:03
I did:



Here's Obama's original comment for anyone interested in moving past the right wing spin:

Obama Defends Health Care Law From 'Judicial Activism' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH3E6lL61dw)

Now go and compare that with all the nonsense that got posted and went unchallenged. For example, comments like this:


What I find amusing is that you seem to find anything compelling in what Obama said...

Mrs. Tink adequately addressed the inanity of his comments two pages ago.

Saying that a lot of "Constitutional scholars" ( :upeyes: ) agrees with him makes it so...?

Honestly -- you find even a shred of substance in Obama's empty rhetoric? Are you that far gone a leftist?

As an additional note: it should be noted that today, Obama backtracked on what he said yesterday. Really compelling stuff, huh?

.

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 19:07
:rofl:

One of us needs a course in remedial reading -- and it isn't me... :supergrin:


.

Ok, so I went back and skimmed through the thread. Not a single person (other than me) addressed the original context of Obama's remarks.

There were a few mini-tantrums, some pointless finger pointing, and the usual name calling but they were all in the context of the spin that you wanted to hear: that Obama was 'warning' and 'threatening' the Supreme Court.

I wonder how people can be so ignorant or hypocritical as to ignore the obvious truth of Obama's comments; that conservative commentators have spent a lot of time claiming 'judicial activism' about court decisions they dislike, then recast that observation as a threat. It's absurd.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 19:09
I wonder how people can be so ignorant or hypocritical as to ignore the obvious truth of Obama's comments


http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-hysterical.gif
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-LOL.gif
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-ROFL.gif

The "truth" of Obama's comments yesterday was so compelling that he felt the need to back off on them today? :rofl:

It must be so hard trying to prop up an empty suit... :supergrin:


.

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 19:14
I wonder how people can be so ignorant or hypocritical as to ignore the obvious truth of Obama's comments; that conservative commentators have spent a lot of time claiming 'judicial activism' about court decisions they dislike, then recast that observation as a threat. It's absurd.
How much of that time was spent complaining about a case before an opinion was reached but shortly after the prelim vote was supposedly taken? Bonus points if any of that time criticizing a co-equal branch was performed in front of two foreign leaders.

I rather think it is more hypocritical to complain about judicial review and activism given that it is responsible for much of the implementation of the Left's agenda. Obama's faulty reasoning is just icing on the cake.

Ruble Noon
04-03-2012, 19:22
Ok, so I went back and skimmed through the thread. Not a single person (other than me) addressed the original context of Obama's remarks.

There were a few mini-tantrums, some pointless finger pointing, and the usual name calling but they were all in the context of the spin that you wanted to hear: that Obama was 'warning' and 'threatening' the Supreme Court.

I wonder how people can be so ignorant or hypocritical as to ignore the obvious truth of Obama's comments; that conservative commentators have spent a lot of time claiming 'judicial activism' about court decisions they dislike, then recast that observation as a threat. It's absurd.


The 'judicial activism' ploy
by
Thomas Sowell

In recent years, a brand-new definition of "judicial activism" has been created by the political left, so that they can turn the tables on critics of judicial activism.

The new definition of "judicial activism" defines it as declaring laws unconstitutional.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1290660

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 19:25
And it isn't activism to overturn a law that is repugnant to the Constitution...yes, I'm certain I read that phrasing somewhere. So "strong majorities" of two votes don't matter if the law itself isn't grounded on solid constitutional law, and there's a good argument that ACA isn't.

Activism is the judiciary inventing rights and policy out of whole cloth, for instance the ever-ephemeral "right to privacy" under those emanations and penumbras. I'd have thought Lecturer Obama would have known that, but perhaps he was too busy indoctrinating his students with Critical Race Theory and Derrick Bell books to be bothered with minor things like the philosophical groundings behind judicial review.

So I think it's less about you addressing Obama "in context" (to which the question is always "what about the omitted context changes the meaning of the statement?") and more about you failing to do so convincingly or even logically.

Yes, it's apparent that context is quite ephemeral for those that don't want to address what someone actually said and instead want to become enraged about another issue. I would assume your position on this is 'flexible'.

In any case, I offer this for your perusal:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf

It's a list of Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional from 1789 to 2002. Fairly interesting considering the scope of the ACA and it's penalty feature. Considering it's legal to tax, withhold and in many other contexts require persons to purchase a thing, I would guess that finding that part of the ACA unconstitutional would be unprecedented. I doubt we'll hear an answer this year though.

Lethaltxn
04-03-2012, 19:26
.

I wonder how people can be so ignorant or hypocritical as to ignore the obvious truth of Obama's comments; that conservative commentators have spent a lot of time claiming 'judicial activism' about court decisions they dislike, then recast that observation as a threat. It's absurd.

So how does one become as enlightened as you?

JFrame
04-03-2012, 19:31
So how does one become as enlightened as you?


MSNBC
Rolling Stone magazine
BarbraStreisand.com

Also, listening to Michael Moore doesn't hurt...


.

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 19:34
Yes, it's apparent that context is quite ephemeral for those that don't want to address what someone actually said and instead want to become enraged about another issue. I would assume your position on this is 'flexible'.

In any case, I offer this for your perusal:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf

It's a list of Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional from 1789 to 2002. Fairly interesting considering the scope of the ACA and it's penalty feature. Considering it's legal to tax, withhold and in many other contexts require persons to purchase a thing, I would guess that finding that part of the ACA unconstitutional would be unprecedented. I doubt we'll hear an answer this year though.

Except the argument for the government's own lawyer is that the mandate penalty is not a tax. So your precedence argument has been refuted by the very people trying to defend the law.

The problem you're having here is that before the Court you aren't allowed to just cherry pick things if and when they suit your arguments...they need to have a logical and consistent flow to be persuasive. Since the government's argument is faulty as to the constitutionality of the ACA, it would hardly be unprecedented to overturn it...as demonstrated by your list.

Lethaltxn
04-03-2012, 19:34
MSNBC
Rolling Stone magazine
BarbraStreisand.com

Also, listening to Michael Moore doesn't hurt...


.

:rofl:

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 19:35
How much of that time was spent complaining about a case before an opinion was reached but shortly after the prelim vote was supposedly taken? Bonus points if any of that time criticizing a co-equal branch was performed in front of two foreign leaders.

I rather think it is more hypocritical to complain about judicial review and activism given that it is responsible for much of the implementation of the Left's agenda. Obama's faulty reasoning is just icing on the cake.

Well at least you acknowledged what Obama was actually doing even though your conclusion was reached reductio ad absurdum.

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 19:41
Except the argument for the government's own lawyer is that the mandate penalty is not a tax. So your precedence argument has been refuted by the very people trying to defend the law.

The problem you're having here is that before the Court you aren't allowed to just cherry pick things if and when they suit your arguments...they need to have a logical and consistent flow to be persuasive. Since the government's argument is faulty as to the constitutionality of the ACA, it would hardly be unprecedented to overturn it...as demonstrated by your list.

There's a lot of declarative statements in there that I don't think you fully understand. Believing something to be so, no matter hard you believe it, does not make it true. To wit: it isn't unconstitutional despite your statement because 9 people haven't ruled on it yet. However you are correct in your understanding of the penalty mandate (which probably makes you unique here at GTPI). Perhaps you could point out a similar case where you could demonstrate the reasoning as to why SCOTUS would declare this unconstitutional.

G-19
04-03-2012, 19:47
Obama knows that if Obamacare goes down in flames, it will mean he has absolutely accomplished nothing in his 4 years.

I think if the courts decided against him, he will not stand a chance in November.

I will be glad to see him go.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 19:49
Obama knows that if Obamacare goes down in flames, it will mean he has absolutely accomplished nothing in his 4 years.


Unfortunately, he will still have accomplished a LOT -- hardly any of it good or beneficial to this country.


.

The Machinist
04-03-2012, 19:51
Since Obama hasn't read the bill, how could state that overturning the law would constitute judicial activism? Furthermore, why is he trying to browbeat a co-equal branch of the federal government? Obama is a stooge, and way out of his league.

rgregoryb
04-03-2012, 19:52
There's a lot of declarative statements in there that I don't think you fully understand. Believing something to be so, no matter hard you believe it, does not make it true. To wit: it isn't unconstitutional despite your statement because 9 people haven't ruled on it yet. However you are correct in your understanding of the penalty mandate (which probably makes you unique here at GTPI). Perhaps you could point out a similar case where you could demonstrate the reasoning as to why SCOTUS would declare this unconstitutional.

rabidus ut a outhouse rat

Goaltender66
04-03-2012, 19:53
There's a lot of declarative statements in there that I don't think you fully understand. Believing something to be so, no matter hard you believe it, does not make it true. To wit: it isn't unconstitutional despite your statement because 9 people haven't ruled on it yet. However you are correct in your understanding of the penalty mandate (which probably makes you unique here at GTPI). Perhaps you could point out a similar case where you could demonstrate the reasoning as to why SCOTUS would declare this unconstitutional.

Inre your latter, I will after you pay my retainer.

Inre the former, well, something can actually be unconstitutional even though the SCOTUS disagrees. And since the crux of Obama's statement is that he believes the ACA is constitutional because, well, he believes it and cites a vote total to support his assertion, perhaps your admonition against believing something is true based on wish power is better targeted against the current administration.

JFrame
04-03-2012, 20:05
the crux of Obama's statement is that he believes the ACA is constitutional because, well, he believes it and cites a vote total to support his assertion


A House vote of 220 to 215, with 39 Democrats voting "against," and one Republican voting "for" -- as Obama said, a "strong majority," yes? :upeyes:


.

Flintlocker
04-03-2012, 20:14
Inre your latter, I will after you pay my retainer.

Inre the former, well, something can actually be unconstitutional even though the SCOTUS disagrees. And since the crux of Obama's statement is that he believes the ACA is constitutional because, well, he believes it and cites a vote total to support his assertion, perhaps your admonition against believing something is true based on wish power is better targeted against the current administration.

Which of the following is governmental actions is unconstitutional: tax its citizens, withhold earnings, levy fines and penalties, seize private property, require professional accreditation from private organizations, require membership to private organizations in order to access and view public laws, require insurance, or take private property for public purposes?

I certainly agree that Obamacare is incrementalism that restricts freedom and grows government. Nearly every law does that by definition. However I will be hard to convince that the individual mandate can be considered unconstitutional given our countries history.

And really, if this had passed 18 years ago when Republicans first suggested it, this group would have hardly complained about it at all.

engineer151515
04-03-2012, 20:43
Obama knows that if Obamacare goes down in flames, it will mean he has absolutely accomplished nothing in his 4 years.

I think if the courts decided against him, he will not stand a chance in November.

I will be glad to see him go.

Actually, Obama has accomplished one thing.

He has added more debt in the shortest time than any President in US history.

OFAIL

cowboywannabe
04-03-2012, 20:51
what obama and his water carriers dont understand is that you must change the constitution first for this law to be acceptable under it.

the laws dont make the constitution, its the other way around, idiots the lot of them.

The Machinist
04-03-2012, 20:52
However I will be hard to convince that the individual mandate can be considered unconstitutional given our countries history.
Our history of forcing people into purchasing something just because they breathe? Can the federal government force us to buy a house?

engineer151515
04-03-2012, 20:55
Which of the following is governmental actions is unconstitutional: tax its citizens, withhold earnings, levy fines and penalties, seize private property, require professional accreditation from private organizations, require membership to private organizations in order to access and view public laws, require insurance, or take private property for public purposes?

I certainly agree that Obamacare is incrementalism that restricts freedom and grows government. Nearly every law does that by definition. However I will be hard to convince that the individual mandate can be considered unconstitutional given our countries history.

And really, if this had passed 18 years ago when Republicans first suggested it, this group would have hardly complained about it at all.



Obama claims the penalty is not a tax.
Nothing incremental at all about his .govt grab of healthcare.
His plan doesn't address tort reform. A major cost contributor.

Nothing Constitutional at all about requiring an individual to enter into a profit driven, corporate contract as a condition of citizenship.
In fact, the Democrats clearly over reached Constitutional bounds then Pelosi got greedy, making it all or nothing by removing the separability clause.
That may turn out to have been a blessing in disguise. . . tossing the Democrat hope of incrementally enforcing this health care disaster that has already raised rates and contributed to shortages of some vital genaric drugs.

QNman
04-03-2012, 21:19
Hmmm. .

Lot's of low post count people suddenly posting pro-O stuff here. . .

Weird, huh...

QNman
04-03-2012, 21:20
It's a perceptible cycle -- like locust swarms.


.

Excellent analogy!

QNman
04-03-2012, 21:22
I'm just curious... after nearly 100 posts, why has no one addressed Obama's comments in their original context?

Go for it, bub. We've heard the whole thing, in full context, on the talkie-box. Please correct us - put it back into "context" for us.

QNman
04-03-2012, 21:28
Yes, it's apparent that context is quite ephemeral for those that don't want to address what someone actually said and instead want to become enraged about another issue. I would assume your position on this is 'flexible'.

In any case, I offer this for your perusal:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf

It's a list of Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional from 1789 to 2002. Fairly interesting considering the scope of the ACA and it's penalty feature. Considering it's legal to tax, withhold and in many other contexts require persons to purchase a thing, I would guess that finding that part of the ACA unconstitutional would be unprecedented. I doubt we'll hear an answer this year though.

How do you breathe with your head that far up there?

Sgt127
04-03-2012, 21:50
Its actually pretty devious. If, for some reason, the Supreme court sides with obama, its a win for obama. If he can convince voters that they were originally going to vote against him, he gets street creds for being a bad "A" thug and getting the Supreme Court to change thier mind. Trnaslated to: "See? Nobody better mess with the obama!"

If they decide against him, its an obvious attack against poor people that obama has been fighting for and, calls for a renewed attack against the establishment and a renewed interest in getting o re-elected so he can keep fighting for "the little people."

JFrame
04-04-2012, 05:32
How do you breathe with your head that far up there?


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


.

Snowman92D
04-04-2012, 05:53
MSNBC
Rolling Stone magazine
BarbraStreisand.com

Also, listening to Michael Moore doesn't hurt...


.

Don't forget "High Times". :whistling:

certifiedfunds
04-04-2012, 06:14
Comments like Obama's are incredibly un-Presidential. I think people have forgotten what Presidential decorum used to be like.

The correct response is more along the lines of, "Our Constitution vests certain authority and duty in the Supreme Court. The justices have a job to do and I am certain they will do so with the utmost prudence."

Goaltender66
04-04-2012, 06:14
Which of the following is governmental actions is unconstitutional: tax its citizens, withhold earnings, levy fines and penalties, seize private property, require professional accreditation from private organizations, require membership to private organizations in order to access and view public laws, require insurance, or take private property for public purposes?

I certainly agree that Obamacare is incrementalism that restricts freedom and grows government. Nearly every law does that by definition. However I will be hard to convince that the individual mandate can be considered unconstitutional given our countries history.

And really, if this had passed 18 years ago when Republicans first suggested it, this group would have hardly complained about it at all.

So with your last statement, you're defending the ACA on political grounds, just like the President?

You're confusing government powers with purpose of power. Tax argument aside (since again, the Solicitor General has said the mandate is not a tax), it is quite legal for the government to, for example, seize property...in reasonable circumstances and only after due process.

Point being, you are looking at the actions themselves without accounting for the enumerated powers that constrain those actions. That's where the government's arguments fell apart last week, because the SG couldn't persuasively identify any limits on those enumerated powers in the wake of the ACA being upheld.

I think this speaks to the particular viewpoint of our government that the Left has, evidenced by Obama's remarks. It's apparent they view government power as plenary, with the exception of what is in the Bill of Rights and other similar amendments. But outside of that small sphere, anything goes. However, that is not the case, and going back to Marbury, the entire purpose of judicial review is to ensure that majorities (whether popular or Congressional, and whether strong or weak) are tied to the enumerated powers within the Constitution. In other words, even if ACA passed unanimously, that still wouldn't matter one whit in terms of judicial review. Something doesn't become valid simply because a majority wants it to be, after all (ad popularum).

So really, after hearing the President on Monday, the "context" you are complaining about leaves one reasonably thinking he's lecturing the Court in advance of an opinion release, which is itself quite novel. After all, what's unprecedented here is not the Court perhaps striking down the ACA, but the existence of the ACA to begin with. Obama is acting politically here. With apparent dismay at the weakness of his SG's arguments, he's attempting to plant the seed in the minds of the people that striking down the ACA will be the most sensational, activist, crazy decision in the history of the Supreme Court in the hopes that people will rally to him in response. Trouble is, the ACA is pretty unpopular among the hoi polloi too and would likely receive a ruling vacating the law with relief and rejoicing.

JFrame
04-04-2012, 06:32
Comments like Obama's are incredibly un-Presidential. I think people have forgotten what Presidential decorum used to be like.

The correct response is more along the lines of, "Our Constitution vests certain authority and duty in the Supreme Court. The justices have a job to do and I am certain they will do so with the utmost prudence."


...Which is more in line with what Obama said on Day 2:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/politics/obama-health-care/index.html

You know that when one says something in the context of, "What I meant to say was...", that he knows he screwed the pooch the first time.


.

series1811
04-04-2012, 08:02
Which of the following is governmental actions is unconstitutional: tax its citizens, withhold earnings, levy fines and penalties, seize private property, require professional accreditation from private organizations, require membership to private organizations in order to access and view public laws, require insurance, or take private property for public purposes?

I certainly agree that Obamacare is incrementalism that restricts freedom and grows government. Nearly every law does that by definition. However I will be hard to convince that the individual mandate can be considered unconstitutional given our countries history.

And really, if this had passed 18 years ago when Republicans first suggested it, this group would have hardly complained about it at all.

Do you even own a gun, much less a Glock?

(When you got assigned to Glocktalk as a Truth Squadder, did you even wonder what a Glock was?)

ChuteTheMall
04-04-2012, 09:34
However I will be hard to convince that the individual mandate can be considered unconstitutional given our countries history.



How many countries are we talking about here? :headscratch:

wjv
04-04-2012, 09:52
I wonder how people can be so ignorant or hypocritical as to ignore the obvious truth of Obama's comments; that conservative commentators have spent a lot of time claiming 'judicial activism' about court decisions they dislike, then recast that observation as a threat. It's absurd.

Do you not know the difference between

commentators

and

President of the United States?

Apple, meet Orange. . .

Commentators are paid to COMMENT

The POTUS is paid to set National Policies that set the direction for the country.

If George Wills says "Let's nuke Iran", no one cares.

If the POTUS says "Let's nuke Iran", planes are in the air and subs start warming up missiles.

sbhaven
04-04-2012, 12:43
Justice Scalia turns down chance to respond to Obama ‘judicial restraint’ warning
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/219917-justice-scalia-says-nope-when-asked-if-hed-comment-on-obamas-judicial-activism-warning
When asked at a Long Island breakfast event whether he wanted to comment on Obama's argument, Scalia quickly replied, "Nope."

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who was sitting next to Scalia at the Federalist Society breakfast, relayed that story to reporters, according to Capital New York. "He just sort of smiled when I said it," King said.

stsai465
04-04-2012, 13:23
Do you even own a gun, much less a Glock?
OT: To be fair, I'm thinking of ditching my G34 (which would leave me Glock-less) for a CZ75 SP-01 for Steel and IPDA :tongueout:.

Bruce H
04-04-2012, 19:15
What will we do for entertainment when the one puts on his hoodie, grabs his basketball and goes home?

QNman
04-04-2012, 19:20
What will we do for entertainment when the one puts on his hoodie, grabs his basketball and goes home?

Begin the slow turn around? :dunno:

DOC44
04-04-2012, 19:58
How many countries are we talking about here? :headscratch:

:rofl::rofl:

Doc44

certifiedfunds
04-04-2012, 20:19
Do you even own a gun, much less a Glock?

(When you got assigned to Glocktalk as a Truth Squadder, did you even wonder what a Glock was?)

Are you trying to insinuate that bilateral cryptorchid liberals don't own Glocks?

QNman
04-04-2012, 21:24
Are you trying to insinuate that bilateral cryptorchid liberals don't own Glocks?

Yes... I believe he is. :rofl:

janice6
04-04-2012, 21:50
What will we do for entertainment when the one puts on his hoodie, grabs his basketball and goes home?


You're all invited to a beer party celebration at my house when that happens. I'll get back to you all on the time and place.