Obama's Coming Campaign Against The Supreme Court [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Coming Campaign Against The Supreme Court


sbhaven
06-26-2012, 08:42
If the Supreme Court strikes down portions or all of Obamacare, will Obama shift his reelection campaign to wage war against the Supreme Court, in particular Justice Kennedy?

Obama's Coming Campaign Against The Supreme Court
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/25/if-Obamacare-loses-Obama-wins
So far, President Obama, recognizing the respect in which the Supreme Court is held, has edged away from directly attacking the Supreme Court – although he did attack the Supreme Court directly during his 2010 State of the Union address over their Citizens United decision, and he recently and idiotically said it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare. He has instead leveled his most direct criticism at Congress, which he says is holding up his agenda.

All that may change if Obamacare loses in the Supreme Court. He won’t attack the institution as a whole. Instead, he’ll do something truly unprecedented: he’ll attack Justice Kennedy.

azatrox
06-26-2012, 15:32
He'll just ignore the law, as he does with so many others.

JBnTX
06-26-2012, 15:38
He'll sign an executive order that same day that will overrule the Supreme Court.

His presidential legacy is the national healthcare bill, and he's not going to give it up without a fight.

..

Brucev
06-26-2012, 18:49
Only the bastardization of the COTUS by Mabury vs. Madison now allows the sc to pretend that it has the power to decide the constitutionality of this or any act of congress. Jefferson rightly understood the outrageous implications of such overreach by the sc. Now it is a proven fact. The congress and even this squatter should tell the sc that they appreciate whatever suggestions the sc wants to offer, but that they will not pay any attention to the sc as though it were the royal house of the U.S. Let those old men and women spit and sputter all they want. Ignore them just like Jackson ignored marshall. Good move on his part.

Gundude
06-26-2012, 18:59
Only the bastardization of the COTUS by Mabury vs. Madison now allows the sc to pretend that it has the power to decide the constitutionality of this or any act of congress. Jefferson rightly understood the outrageous implications of such overreach by the sc. Now it is a proven fact. The congress and even this squatter should tell the sc that they appreciate whatever suggestions the sc wants to offer, but that they will not pay any attention to the sc as though it were the royal house of the U.S. Let those old men and women spit and sputter all they want. Ignore them just like Jackson ignored marshall. Good move on his part.I think you'll need to wait til Thursday afternoon before people decide if they agree with you or not.

Come Thursday, the SC will either be the greatest thing since sliced bread or it'll be a bunch of unelected communist tyrants.

azatrox
06-26-2012, 19:00
Come Thursday, the SC will either be the greatest thing since sliced bread or it'll be a bunch of unelected communist tyrants.

Yep...

Ruble Noon
06-26-2012, 19:19
So far, President Obama, recognizing the respect in which the Supreme Court is held, has edged away from directly attacking the Supreme Court

I guess his threats leveled at the SC over obamacare were respectful. :dunno:

DOC44
06-26-2012, 19:45
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Doc44

cowboywannabe
06-26-2012, 19:58
respect for the law is something the current admin does not have.

i believe that only part of the coerced health care tax will be struck down, letting both sides claim a victory.

Brucev
06-26-2012, 22:09
If the squatter is smart, he'll defy the sc, i.e., regardless of what they say, he should tell them to get a nap and that they are without any constitutional authority to review any law written by congress including the healthcare act. That would embolden his supporters. Of course it would also really bring his opponents out of the woodwork... perhaps all the way to the ballot box! Cool.

Of course that is the reason he will not defy the sc. He is not going to do anything that will help solidify opposition to his getting another four years to advance his agenda of destruction to America. Still, it would be a real hoot to see him do it... and to see the people who would all of a sudden not find it difficult at all to vote against him!

cowboy1964
06-26-2012, 22:29
He can "wage war" all he wants against the Supremes but he can't do anything except pick a replacement if one retires, and hopefully BHO will be gone by then.

Cavalry Doc
06-27-2012, 04:39
...

Come Thursday, the SC will either be the greatest thing since sliced bread or it'll be a bunch of unelected communist tyrants.

Unless it's a unanimous decision, it will still be a little of both.

series1811
06-27-2012, 05:46
It will be interesting to see if O-Nothing will go as far a Roosevelt did, to push his socialist agenda through without a valid Supreme Court review.


http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history/CourtPacking.cfm

kirgi08
06-27-2012, 09:53
tagged.

JK-linux
06-27-2012, 11:22
.....

Bren
06-27-2012, 11:34
Only the bastardization of the COTUS by Mabury vs. Madison now allows the sc to pretend that it has the power to decide the constitutionality of this or any act of congress. Jefferson rightly understood the outrageous implications of such overreach by the sc. Now it is a proven fact. The congress and even this squatter should tell the sc that they appreciate whatever suggestions the sc wants to offer, but that they will not pay any attention to the sc as though it were the royal house of the U.S. Let those old men and women spit and sputter all they want. Ignore them just like Jackson ignored marshall. Good move on his part.

Huh?:upeyes:

What do you think the supreme court's purpose is, then, if not deciding the constitutionality of government laws and actions?

kirgi08
06-27-2012, 11:59
:headscratch:

aircarver
06-27-2012, 13:01
Huh?:upeyes:

What do you think the supreme court's purpose is, then, if not deciding the constitutionality of government laws and actions?
... Just a tenured retirement program for old lawyers, I reckon ....






:outtahere::supergrin:

,

hyperstyx
06-27-2012, 17:12
He can "wage war" all he wants against the Supremes but he can't do anything except pick a replacement if one retires, and hopefully BHO will be gone by then.

Should Present obama win or steal a 2nd term, and the Dems get both houses of Congress, he could try for a Congressional Act that would authorize him to pack the expanded court with cronies. It would then look much more like a Looney Tunes lineup.

Kablam
06-27-2012, 17:40
Only the bastardization of the COTUS by Mabury vs. Madison now allows the sc to pretend that it has the power to decide the constitutionality of this or any act of congress. Jefferson rightly understood the outrageous implications of such overreach by the sc. Now it is a proven fact. The congress and even this squatter should tell the sc that they appreciate whatever suggestions the sc wants to offer, but that they will not pay any attention to the sc as though it were the royal house of the U.S. Let those old men and women spit and sputter all they want. Ignore them just like Jackson ignored marshall. Good move on his part.

I'm pretty sure what you've stated is not actually correct. Mabury vs. Madison is considered by many the first example of judicial review by the SCOTUS, but the founders clearly made reference to judicial review while crafting the constitution and in the Federalist Papers. They stated, among other things to the same effect, that federal judges could declare an unconstitutional law null and void (words to that effect). In general, the members of the constitutional convention felt that the power of the federal court to declare laws unconstitutional, thereby null and void, was important to separation of powers. Makes sense if you think about it. It reels in the legislative branch. Also, there is no indication that any state delegates during the ratification process for the COTUS felt that the federal judges would not have the power of judicial review.

So, the Mabury vs. Madison decision clearly did not bastardize the original inteny of the COTUS. Just sayin...

Brucev
06-27-2012, 18:15
Huh?:upeyes:

What do you think the supreme court's purpose is, then, if not deciding the constitutionality of government laws and actions?

The purpose of the sc is not to be a quasi-royal house deciding apart from the voters what will and will not be done in the name of the COTUS. Given the very political standing of the sc members, they are nothing more than hacks voting to please their handlers. True, it may not have been that way in the beginning of our nation's history, but that is now the way it is.

The power of marshalls vision of the sc to make the COTUS a plastic irrelevance is exactly what so greatly concerned Jefferson. If the current overreach of the sc is not problematic, then why are partisans on either side of the political divide equally concerned at how many and who will be appointed to the sc by the next president? Hum?

Kablam
06-27-2012, 19:48
Judicial review may have turned into something as you describe. Seems that way possibly. But, to say that the the function of the supreme court, in part, is not to void unconstitutional legislation is simply incorrect. The legislature has an obligation to legislate within the confines of the constitution as well.

Brucev
06-28-2012, 06:27
I'm pretty sure what you've stated is not actually correct. Mabury vs. Madison is considered by many the first example of judicial review by the SCOTUS, but the founders clearly made reference to judicial review while crafting the constitution and in the Federalist Papers. They stated, among other things to the same effect, that federal judges could declare an unconstitutional law null and void (words to that effect). In general, the members of the constitutional convention felt that the power of the federal court to declare laws unconstitutional, thereby null and void, was important to separation of powers. Makes sense if you think about it. It reels in the legislative branch. Also, there is no indication that any state delegates during the ratification process for the COTUS felt that the federal judges would not have the power of judicial review.

So, the Mabury vs. Madison decision clearly did not bastardize the original inteny of the COTUS. Just sayin...

I do not argue that the sc has a constitutional role in the affairs of govt., but that that role is limited. That the sc should be able to command govt. as a quasi-royal house is beyond all intent of the COTUS.

While Jefferson was one of the actual founding fathers, etc., Marshall was only a political appointee. That is all. The excess and overreach in the claim of Marshall that the sc had the power to allow/disallow any act of the executive or legislative branch is reflected in the reaction of Jefferson to Marshall's partisan federalist perspective. Jefferson stated, "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." The truth of what Jefferson wrote is now evident as the current sc holds the nation by the throat and rules/overrules as it will, guided by the partisan interest of the individual members acting under the cloak of the COTUS. This is demonstrated in two glaring examples... Row vs. Wade, Citizens United, etc.

aircarver
06-28-2012, 06:43
Should Present obama win or steal a 2nd term, and the Dems get both houses of Congress, he could try for a Congressional Act that would authorize him to pack the expanded court with cronies. It would then look much more like a Looney Tunes lineup.
Pelosi, Bwany Fwank, Chuck-U Schoomer, Chas. Rangel, Diane Feinstein, D. Wasserman-Schultz, Al Franken, Maxine Waters, Jimmee Cah-tuh .....

:alex::alex::alex::alex::alex::alex:

.

tcruse
06-28-2012, 06:43
Congress has a method to change the constitution if they do not like the courts response. So, fear of the SC being too powerful has some limits. Now, the last two appointments are not individuals that I think should be on the court. Actually, I would think that congress should have done a better job of confirmation review.

HarlDane
06-28-2012, 06:44
The purpose of the sc is not to be a quasi-royal house deciding apart from the voters what will and will not be done in the name of the COTUS. Given the very political standing of the sc members, they are nothing more than hacks voting to please their handlers. True, it may not have been that way in the beginning of our nation's history, but that is now the way it is.

The power of marshalls vision of the sc to make the COTUS a plastic irrelevance is exactly what so greatly concerned Jefferson. If the current overreach of the sc is not problematic, then why are partisans on either side of the political divide equally concerned at how many and who will be appointed to the sc by the next president? Hum?You didn't answer the question. If the SCotUS wasn't intended to have the power to rule an unconstitutional law void, what is their purpose? To give non-binding opinions?

aircarver
06-28-2012, 06:47
.....

Now, the last two appointments are not individuals that I think should be on the court. Actually, I would think that congress should have done a better job of confirmation review.

Rinos 'reaching across the aisle' and 'going along and getting along' .....:upeyes:

.

series1811
06-28-2012, 06:58
I agree. Instead of the Supreme Court, they should just call me whenever someone wants to know if a law is constitutional or not. I am much less partisan. :supergrin:

aircarver
06-28-2012, 07:29
I agree. Instead of the Supreme Court, they should just call me whenever someone wants to know if a law is constitutional or not. I am much less partisan. :supergrin:

You went on Obamao's ****list when you told him he wasn't getting a clearance .......:supergrin:

.