Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

[The T]

We dont know.... we have never seen his records.

Yeah...by the same folks that demanded bush show his against John F'Ing kerry (whom servedin 'Nam)...

Duplicity.

Obama HAS a record...WE are seeing it in action as Obama rights the perceived wrongs as he openly threatens sitting SCOTUS Judges in the way of Chavez, Castro...and a myriad of other Tyrants.

Glad he's on my black racist team.

Keep digging...

 

[Salt Jones]

I'd rather HELP YOU make yours.

Capiche?

It doesn't bother me if he's a black racist, I think that's good for America.

Keep digging. I won't stop you from illustrating Obama's Tyrant slant...

Great exercise...to get the truth out...

Nothing to dig. He will still be reelected with ease and then the fun begins.

 

[The T]

It doesn't bother me if he's a black racist, I think that's good for America.

You think a black racist is good for America?

Really?

Blatently obvious don't you think?

America is BAD...Obama is here as a saviour to save it from itself and racist Courts...

 

[The Infidel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiSOVFUiXy4]"Vote MLK Values" - Consequences.org - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

It doesn't bother me if he's a black racist, I think that's good for America.

Keep digging. I won't stop you from illustrating Obama's Tyrant slant...

Great exercise...to get the truth out...

Nothing to dig. He will still be reelected with ease and then the fun begins.

Dream on as Obama's Economy will be his undoing...but for another topic.

WHY is Obama threatening the SCOTUS in your mind?

Will there be reprisals IF the law is struck down?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is exactly what Asshole is challenging. Constitutional Scholar My Ass.

Indeed We need to review his college grades. His action would show he has never sit inside a law school classroom

And yet he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

I bet you were never in the Marines. Where are your boot camp test scores?

I almost hate to burst your bubble, but, academically, being law review editor is the same as being student body president. You don't get the position because of your grades, you get it because you run for it, and get elected by fellow students.

 

[The Infidel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiJQlzQSTZ4]Obama is NOTHING like Martin Luther King Jr. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

Salt-Peter has left the building...that's two for two when engaged...

Back on topic...

WHY is Obama openly threatening the Court?

Where is it in the media?

This should scare the HELL out of every American that values Freedom...Liberty...the RULE of law...The Constitution...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

lol...

And what exactly is Obama going to ‘threaten’ them with.

It’s conservatives and republicans like Gingrich who want to lock up judges/justices as a consequent of their rulings.

 

[The T]

Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

lol...

And what exactly is Obama going to ‘threaten’ them with.

It’s conservatives and republicans like Gingrich who want to lock up judges/justices as a consequent of their rulings.

Deflection and another non answer from a Statist...

 

[Listening]

Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

No.

He’s simply reminding conservatives that when in the past the Court has struck down laws the right approves of – such as laws limiting individual liberty and expanding the power of the state – republicans have whined that those rulings manifested ‘judicial activism’ where judges are ‘legislating from the bench.’

And he would be wrong, just as you are in your explantion. Conservatives complain about legislating from the bench when judges somehow find ways to uphold laws that can't be justified through the constitions of the Federal or State governments. An example would be Roe v. Wade. There is no legal reasoning in the decision. And Blackmun has never offered up any since that time. It was all about what "was right" according to Blackmun and thus his own views trumped the constition. That is legislating from the bench.

In this case, the justices asked good questions and will kill this law for very sound reasons. That is nothing like Obama is saying.

Not only is Obama an embarassment as a president, but once again he violates the most basic of principles in the our legal system.

How you people find him so attractive is beyond me.

[In such cases conservatives further complain that the court has failed to exercise judicial restraint and exhibits disrespect for the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

I hope you are not serious. If the will of the people is to shoot all people with red hair...does that stand ? No. There are protections under the USC that specifically are to restrict a majority or mob from running the show. Popularity of a law has nothing to do with it. It is either constitional or it isn't. Is everyone on the left this stupid ?

[In order for conservatives to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, therefore, they’d be required to denounce the striking down of the ACA as well.

Not at all. What would be consistent would be to go back and go by the rulings of the SCOTUS before FDR put a bunch of ass kissing liberals on the bench. The prior group hadned down decisions the later group completely ignored.

Get a clue. The closest thing Obama is to a constitional scholar is that he reads it every morning before he uses it to wipe his skinny ass.

Un believable

 

[Listening]

Indeed We need to review his college grades. His action would show he has never sit inside a law school classroom

And yet he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

I bet you were never in the Marines. Where are your boot camp test scores?

I almost hate to burst your bubble, but, academically, being law review editor is the same as being student body president. You don't get the position because of your grades, you get it because you run for it, and get elected by fellow students.

And affirmative action helps.

 

[Listening]

Judicial activism is legislating from the bench. Striking down laws that are unconstitutional is part of their duties as Supreme Court Justices.

Yet Roe V Wade still stands. It must be constitutional.

How will you feel when they rule Obamacare constitutional?

Here's a hint.

Roe v. Wade is no longer relevent. There is whole body of laws that have worked their away around it and states now restrict abortions to large degree in many instances.

You should read the decisions sometime. It has been cited by law professors (who agree with the outcome) as some of the worst judicial writing ever.

Obamacare is headed to the ash heap and Obama knows it.

 

[Listening]

Where do you fools get these ridiculous ideas?

Three plus years of watching Obama wipe his ass with the constitution.

Next question.

 

[Listening]

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to declare acts of Congress, nor State laws, nor acts of the president unconstitutional. The Supreme Court took that power upon themselves in a famous, perhaps the most famous, case, Marbury v. Madison. In that case the Court just assumed that power and that power is now accepted, some even believing it to be in the Constitution. It was perhaps the first and biggest form of judicial activism.

You are correct in th strictest sense.

However, even Robert Bork acknowledged that John Marshall did the right thing in declaring this. Recall at that time, he did not attempt to enforce it...he just set the stage for the future.

What is now so funny is that the left, which has been using the court for years to push it's liberal agend (which it can't legislate....hence the term activism) is now wanting the SCOTUS to not exercise the same power they've been using for decades.

Total loser hypocrites.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And yet he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

I bet you were never in the Marines. Where are your boot camp test scores?

I almost hate to burst your bubble, but, academically, being law review editor is the same as being student body president. You don't get the position because of your grades, you get it because you run for it, and get elected by fellow students.

And affirmative action helps.

On what do you base your claim?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Indeed We need to review his college grades. His action would show he has never sit inside a law school classroom

And yet he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

I bet you were never in the Marines. Where are your boot camp test scores?

I almost hate to burst your bubble, but, academically, being law review editor is the same as being student body president. You don't get the position because of your grades, you get it because you run for it, and get elected by fellow students.

That's not the slightest bit true.

Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.

No "election", and it's not a popularity contest.

 

[Listening]

I almost hate to burst your bubble, but, academically, being law review editor is the same as being student body president. You don't get the position because of your grades, you get it because you run for it, and get elected by fellow students.

And affirmative action helps.

On what do you base your claim?

Let's see....one of the ways to arrive at a conclusion is to eliminate all other possibilities.

He's not smart.
He's not knowlegable.
He's not principled.
He's not very studied.
He's not consistent.
He's black.

 

[Listening]

And yet he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

I bet you were never in the Marines. Where are your boot camp test scores?

I almost hate to burst your bubble, but, academically, being law review editor is the same as being student body president. You don't get the position because of your grades, you get it because you run for it, and get elected by fellow students.

That's not the slightest bit true.

Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.

No "election", and it's not a popularity contest.

Link please.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I almost hate to burst your bubble, but, academically, being law review editor is the same as being student body president. You don't get the position because of your grades, you get it because you run for it, and get elected by fellow students.

That's not the slightest bit true.

Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis.

No "election", and it's not a popularity contest.

Link please.

That quote was from Wikipedia.

From the Harvard Law Review website:

Membership in the Harvard Law Review is limited to second- and third-year law students who are selected on the basis of their performance on an annual writing competition. Harvard Law School students who are interested in joining the Review must write the competition at the end of their 1L year, even if they plan to take time off during law school or are pursuing a joint degree and plan to spend a year at another Harvard graduate school. Students who spend their 1L year at other law schools and are applying to transfer to Harvard Law School must write the competition in the spring before their 2L year and must be admitted to Harvard Law School to become a member of the Review.

Harvard Law Review: About