Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

[Trajan]

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...

he tried to walk back his comments today....fail. for a guy who is supposed ot be the most intelligent occupant of the WH evvvvah and a layer etc etc ...hes stepped all over himself, even respected left pundits etc. said same ........

 

[bodecea]

How is Tommy's presidential election run going? If he wins, he can pick the next Supreme Court justice and stop whining.

 

[regent]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down a law of Congress, or a state. This is a power the Court too upon itself with no Constitutional authority.
Presidents have battled with the Court, Jackson supposedly saying: Marshall [Chief Justice] made his decision now let him enforce it. Jefferson helping to impeach a member of the Supreme Court and of course FDR and his court plan.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down a law of Congress, or a state. This is a power the Court too upon itself with no Constitutional authority.
Presidents have battled with the Court, Jackson supposedly saying: Marshall [Chief Justice] made his decision now let him enforce it. Jefferson helping to impeach a member of the Supreme Court and of course FDR and his court plan.

What are checks and balance's? Dude it's 5th grade level civics.
Art 3 sec 2

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

he tried to walk back his comments today....fail. for a guy who is supposed ot be the most intelligent occupant of the WH evvvvah and a layer etc etc ...hes stepped all over himself, even respected left pundits etc. said same ........

He's a Constitutional lawyer

 

[Intense]

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

Great.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

 

[percysunshine]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down a law of Congress,....

You were the product of a public education system.

We can tell.

 

[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...

he tried to walk back his comments today....fail. for a guy who is supposed ot be the most intelligent occupant of the WH evvvvah and a layer etc etc ...hes stepped all over himself, even respected left pundits etc. said same ........

He's a Constitutional lawyer

He's a Bottom Feeder.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

What "case they are involved in"?

There is no case, there's just three jackasses who think they're more powerful than they are.

Only Congress has the power to subpoena a sitting president.

 

[JRK]

Obama for ever more has changed the office. His lack of respect to the constitution as well as the office will cost him the same in November

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

He might have to use the guitar.

I could and some white boys can jump

 

[Intense]

Controversies between the nation and its members or citizens, can only be properly referred to the national tribunals. Any other plan would be contrary to reason, to precedent, and to decorum. -Alexander Hamilton. Federalist Papers Index

 

[Ropey]

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

Great post. Thanks. I missed this so far. It's good to see the judiciary begin to step up and request clarification from the DOJ.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We all know that President Obama did not "threaten" the SCOTUS but still, I'd like to ask just what it is you rw's think he would threaten them with?

What an idiotic thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

he tried to walk back his comments today....fail. for a guy who is supposed ot be the most intelligent occupant of the WH evvvvah and a layer etc etc ...hes stepped all over himself, even respected left pundits etc. said same ........

I saw that. Funny thing is, one of the complaints Truman had against the court was they were gutting his efforts to regulate the economy. I had to look up some examples, not being a constitutional scholar, but they have actually overturned commerce clause laws based on economics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down a law of Congress, or a state. This is a power the Court too upon itself with no Constitutional authority.
Presidents have battled with the Court, Jackson supposedly saying: Marshall [Chief Justice] made his decision now let him enforce it. Jefferson helping to impeach a member of the Supreme Court and of course FDR and his court plan.

Negged for annoying me.

 

[Intense]

From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application. The same spirit which had operated in making them, would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges. Nor is this all. Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period. There is an absurdity in referring the determination of causes, in the first instance, to judges of permanent standing; in the last, to those of a temporary and mutable constitution. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity. -Hamilton

Federalist Papers Index

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What "case they are involved in"?

There is no case, there's just three jackasses who think they're more powerful than they are.

Only Congress has the power to subpoena a sitting president.

Hey, genius, the Justice Department lawyer was asked the question by a judge right after he started to argue a case before the appellate court. If you think they were there for fun you are even dumber than regent.

 

[Liability]

regent is a massive douche bag.

Accordingly it pains me greatly to agree with any part of the shit he says.

Nevertheless, the notion of judicial review is NOT stated in the Constitution.

It exists because the SCOTUS said it exists.

BUT ... even so, I realize that there is a fair and rational and reasonable interpretation of what the Constitution DOES say that makes the concept of judicial review perfectly appropriate.

It is difficult to imagine our system of checks and balances actually working if the Judicial Branch did not have the power which the Court claimed for itself in Marbury v. Madison.

If there were no such thing as Judicial Review, and Congress passed some nonsensical piece of shit legislation (prompted by some arrogant pinhead President) and the pinhead President then signed it into law, that law could not be voided as a violation of the Constitution. No check. No balance.

The system is imperfect, but it is nonetheless readily apparent that "judicial review" is certainly a component part of Checks and Balances.