More blowback from Obama's Supreme Ct. threat

[SFC Ollie]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

You deny that he made the statement?

 

[Liability]

Scalia and Thomas are nutters. Period.

Wrong on both counts, of course.

YOU however are fucking certifiable, LonelyLaughable.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liarbility................you still cupping my balls? How's about a reach-around?

 

[Katzndogz]

Larry Tribe said Obama's a fucking moron

Lawrence Tribe was obama's con law professor!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Scalia and Thomas are nutters. Period.

What's a matter have they ruled against what you want to be true?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

I agree it was not a threat, per say, but his comment was most certainly meant to intimidate them.

 

[Peach]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

I agree it was not a threat, per say, but his comment was most certainly meant to intimidate them.

He should have refrained from discussing the case, I agree.

 

[BlindBoo]

Obviously with audio tape of the proceedings being released the veneer has been stripped off the Supreme Court. They are people, fallible like all the rest of us. The partisan divide is apparent. With that said the President has every right to say what he said.

Lets open up the show to videos!

A sitting POTUS threatening the SCOTUS before a verdict is rendered is just plain wrong.

Obama needs to grow one of those little totalitarian mustaches to complete the effect.

Do tell. What did the President threaten them with? Harse word that he co-opt from the republicans?

 

[Liability]

Liarbility................you still cupping my balls? How's about a reach-around?

LoneyLaughable.

Your projection and your quiffy motivation is duly noted.

But, as always, you and your application stand rejected.

Muddle on little bitch. Muddle on.

 

[Jarhead]

Scalia and Thomas are nutters. Period.

Very mature

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liarbility................you still cupping my balls? How's about a reach-around?

LoneyLaughable.

Your projection and your quiffy motivation is duly noted.

But, as always, you and your application stand rejected.

Muddle on little bitch. Muddle on.

You're still upset from the time I wouldn't honor the safe word, aren't you? I'm sure the bruises have healed by now.

 

[Jarhead]

Obviously with audio tape of the proceedings being released the veneer has been stripped off the Supreme Court. They are people, fallible like all the rest of us. The partisan divide is apparent. With that said the President has every right to say what he said.

Lets open up the show to videos!

A sitting POTUS threatening the SCOTUS before a verdict is rendered is just plain wrong.

Obama needs to grow one of those little totalitarian mustaches to complete the effect.

Do tell. What did the President threaten them with? Harse word that he co-opt from the republicans?

Nope.

He questioned and therefore threatened the integrity and thus the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

We expect such from pundits and talking heads and usually write off their opinions as nothing more than those of pundits and talking heads that get paid to create controversy.

We do not expect it from the President of the United States.

Of course...unless it is Obama...the teflon President.

He can do anything!

 

[Liability]

Liarbility................you still cupping my balls? How's about a reach-around?

LoneyLaughable.

Your projection and your quiffy motivation is duly noted.

But, as always, you and your application stand rejected.

Muddle on little bitch. Muddle on.

You're still upset from the time I wouldn't honor the safe word, aren't you? I'm sure the bruises have healed by now.

Man, you really suck at this. You suck here and you suck in the mens' rooms along the Jersey turnpike.

LonelyLaughable, again, your projections are pitiably transparent. But you will always find my response to you the same: derisive dismissal.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

You deny that he made the statement?

Nope. He made a statement. I deny that it was a threatening statement.

Or, more specifically, I am asking "conservatives" to prove it was a threatening statement, as they are claiming.

 

[Jarhead]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

You deny that he made the statement?

Nope. He made a statement. I deny that it was a threatening statement.

Or, more specifically, I am asking "conservatives" to prove it was a threatening statement, as they are claiming.

I explained it in post 32 and you ignoired it.

 

[Liability]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

You deny that he made the statement?

Nope. He made a statement. I deny that it was a threatening statement.

Or, more specifically, I am asking "conservatives" to prove it was a threatening statement, as they are claiming.

It was not -- on its face -- a threat.

But every statement is made for a purpose.

What exactly was the purpose of the President lobbying for the Court to make the call "his" way?

Will public opinion persuade the SCOTUS at this point?

Or, is it possible that the President IS sending a message (ala FDR and the Court packing scheme)? Send up that first balloon and see if anyone takes the hint?

 

[Jarhead]

You deny that he made the statement?

Nope. He made a statement. I deny that it was a threatening statement.

Or, more specifically, I am asking "conservatives" to prove it was a threatening statement, as they are claiming.

It was not -- on its face -- a threat.

But every statement is made for a purpose.

What exactly was the purpose of the President lobbying for the Court to make the call "his" way?

Will public opinion persuade the SCOTUS at this point?

Or, is it possible that the President IS sending a message (ala FDR and the Court packing scheme)? Send up that first balloon and see if anyone takes the hint?

He sent up that balloon a few years back when he said the suprme court got it wrong.
He noticed that the media was more interested in reporting on what Palins daughters were doing than questioning what his motives were and he realized he can do it again when it really matters.

And so he did.

And the beat goes on.

 

[koshergrl]

Obviously with audio tape of the proceedings being released the veneer has been stripped off the Supreme Court. They are people, fallible like all the rest of us. The partisan divide is apparent. With that said the President has every right to say what he said.

Lets open up the show to videos!

A sitting POTUS threatening the SCOTUS before a verdict is rendered is just plain wrong.

Obama needs to grow one of those little totalitarian mustaches to complete the effect.

Do tell. What did the President threaten them with? Harse word that he co-opt from the republicans?

"

The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them. "

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

 

[DontBeStupid]

You deny that he made the statement?

Nope. He made a statement. I deny that it was a threatening statement.

Or, more specifically, I am asking "conservatives" to prove it was a threatening statement, as they are claiming.

I explained it in post 32 and you ignoired it.

Questioning is not threatening.

Try again.

 

[Jarhead]

Nope. He made a statement. I deny that it was a threatening statement.

Or, more specifically, I am asking "conservatives" to prove it was a threatening statement, as they are claiming.

I explained it in post 32 and you ignoired it.

Questioning is not threatening.

Try again.

either you did not read my post or you did not understand it.

When one branch questions the integrity of another branch it threatens the credibility of that branch in the eys of the people.

We saw it with congress and Bush...making it difficult for Bush to govern efficiently

We see it with congress and Obama....making it difficult for Obama to govern efficiently.

However......we can NOT have it with the Supreme Court for they are the final word.