Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

[Listening]

How do you know it isn't a popularity contest.

It's fashionable to promote special interest drones.

And Harvard is not above bowing to such PC forces.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How do you know it isn't a popularity contest.

It's fashionable to promote special interest drones.

And Harvard is not above bowing to such PC forces.

It's arguably the most prestigious law review in the US, if not the world. Their reputation is much more valuable than current political fashion. (And Harvard doesn't run the Law Review, it's a separate organization)

Ask any lawyer if Law Review editorships are given out for "affirmative action".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Did you not source the quote so you could avoid people finding out the next sentence?

Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review's affirmative action policy.

That quote comes from the comments to an article on Politico, not from the Harvard Law Revue. Here is what they actually say about themselves.

The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2000 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations.

Harvard Law Review: About

How about that, students make all the editorial and organizational decisions. Tell me something, if there is no one to tell the students who the editor in chief should be, how do they pick him, or her, a Magic 8 Ball, or an election?

Here is a brief history of the Harvard Law revue that talks all about the elections. The only editors who are not elected are the first year editors.

Harvard Law Review: The Harvard Law Review — Glimpses of Its History as Seen by an Aficionado

Please, keep trying to make it seem like winning an election is an achievement instead of a popularity contest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you know it isn't a popularity contest.

It's fashionable to promote special interest drones.

And Harvard is not above bowing to such PC forces.

It's arguably the most prestigious law review in the US, if not the world. Their reputation is much more valuable than current political fashion. (And Harvard doesn't run the Law Review, it's a separate organization)

Ask any lawyer if Law Review editorships are given out for "affirmative action".

Arguable according to whom? It is a student newspaper that focuses on law, it is not arguably anything more than that to anyone that actually understands the facts.

As for the affirmative action question, the Harvard Law Revue itself says that editor positions are given out on the basis of affirmative action, why should I ask a lawyer?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

America cannot take 4 more years of this guy in the white house. This fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug. He is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.

how exactly should the fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug traitor be dealt with?

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

America cannot take 4 more years of this guy in the white house. This fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug. He is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.

how exactly should the fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug traitor be dealt with?

Tell him "Quit whining bitch".

 

[L.K.Eder]

America cannot take 4 more years of this guy in the white house. This fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug. He is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.

how exactly should the fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug traitor be dealt with?

Tell him "Quit whining bitch".

that's quite lax treatment for gangbanging thug traitors.

are you sure you are not a commie?

 

[mudwhistle]

how exactly should the fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug traitor be dealt with?

Tell him "Quit whining bitch".

that's quite lax treatment for gangbanging thug traitors.

are you sure you are not a commie?

I'm not in a habit of kicking someone when he's down.

Obama's pissed about the way it went, and like the punk that he is he chose to insult them.

It was his way of lashing out at the adults in Washington. He's into this victimization thing.

 

[Liability]

How do you know it isn't a popularity contest.

It's fashionable to promote special interest drones.

And Harvard is not above bowing to such PC forces.

It's arguably the most prestigious law review in the US, if not the world. Their reputation is much more valuable than current political fashion. (And Harvard doesn't run the Law Review, it's a separate organization)

Ask any lawyer if Law Review editorships are given out for "affirmative action".

Harvard Law Review is run by Harvard Law STUDENTS. Harvard Law Review: About

 

[Intense]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

America cannot take 4 more years of this guy in the white house. This fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug. He is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.

how exactly should the fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug traitor be dealt with?

Let Bill Cosby deal with Him. A few days of Jello Torture, and De-programing should do it. If not we could send the Son of Africa back.

 

[L.K.Eder]

How do you know it isn't a popularity contest.

It's fashionable to promote special interest drones.

And Harvard is not above bowing to such PC forces.

It's arguably the most prestigious law review in the US, if not the world. Their reputation is much more valuable than current political fashion. (And Harvard doesn't run the Law Review, it's a separate organization)

Ask any lawyer if Law Review editorships are given out for "affirmative action".

Harvard Law Review is run by Harvard Law STUDENTS. Harvard Law Review: About

"The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations."

 

[Liability]

It's arguably the most prestigious law review in the US, if not the world. Their reputation is much more valuable than current political fashion. (And Harvard doesn't run the Law Review, it's a separate organization)

Ask any lawyer if Law Review editorships are given out for "affirmative action".

Harvard Law Review is run by Harvard Law STUDENTS. Harvard Law Review: About

"The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations."

Harvard law students are not really all that independent of Harvard Law School even if the school is not responsible for the content or membership since one must BE a Harvard law student to be on the Harvard law Review.

So, are we emphatic agreement?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservative hypocrisy is further compounded by the fact that extreme rightists and libertarians reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, as well as the interpretive authority of the Supreme Court with regard to what the Constitution means.

Clearly they’ll cheer on the Court as it violates judicial restraint and ignores the will of the people when it concerns a law they disapprove of, particularly when they perceive the invalidation as a political blow to a democratic president they loathe.

For liberals this isn’t an issue, of course – they understand the law, the Court’s interpretive authority, and that judicial review predates the Constitution and Federal government. It was part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition during the Foundation Era and before that during the Colonial period.

Liberals may not agree with the Court when it strikes down the ACA, but unlike conservatives they understand the ruling is now the Law of the Land, that this is what the Constitution says on the issue, and only those ignorant of the law would content that the Court was ‘wrong’ or lacks the authority to review and invalidate a law to begin with.

 

[Vast LWC]

America cannot take 4 more years of this guy in the white house. This fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug. He is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.

Wow, seriously Reb? Racism and Libel in the same post? And you wonder why the Tea Party gets a bad name...

 

[L.K.Eder]

Harvard Law Review is run by Harvard Law STUDENTS. Harvard Law Review: About

"The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations."

Harvard law students are not really all that independent of Harvard Law School even if the school is not responsible for the content or membership since one must BE a Harvard law student to be on the Harvard law Review.

So, are we emphatic agreement?

that's why they used the word "formally".

i guess we are agreement, mon. emphatic, even.

now we go drink mucho bier?

 

[percysunshine]

I am betting that Liability could kick Obamas ass 'one on one' at B-ball.

He might have to use the guitar.

 

[Ava]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

4/3/12 SNIP:

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

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


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

 

[Vast LWC]

4/3/12 SNIP:

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

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


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

Yeah, the Justice Department can safely ignore that crap.

LOL.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservative hypocrisy is further compounded by the fact that extreme rightists and libertarians reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, as well as the interpretive authority of the Supreme Court with regard to what the Constitution means.

Wow, just wow. I have seen exactly two post alleging that the court does not have the power to review laws, both made by the same person. The funny thing is that the only people that came in and corrected the posts were people from the right, the left ignored them.

Clearly they’ll cheer on the Court as it violates judicial restraint and ignores the will of the people when it concerns a law they disapprove of, particularly when they perceive the invalidation as a political blow to a democratic president they loathe.

Clearly, what you said, doesn't make sense, even if we assume your first statement is true.

For liberals this isn’t an issue, of course – they understand the law, the Court’s interpretive authority, and that judicial review predates the Constitution and Federal government. It was part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition during the Foundation Era and before that during the Colonial period.

I guess that means you think Obama is a conservative.

Liberals may not agree with the Court when it strikes down the ACA, but unlike conservatives they understand the ruling is now the Law of the Land, that this is what the Constitution says on the issue, and only those ignorant of the law would content that the Court was ‘wrong’ or lacks the authority to review and invalidate a law to begin with.

Which explains why no one, including Obama, ever said anything derogatory after the court ruled in Citizen's United.

Idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

4/3/12 SNIP:

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

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


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

Yeah, the Justice Department can safely ignore that crap.

LOL.

Ignore an order from the court in a case they are involved in? Not unless they want to face contempt charges and a default judgement for the other side.