Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[sealybobo]

First -- why don;t you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie about Obamacare being passed with a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

Second -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His inane assertion regarding the impropriety of the court striking a law that was so passed?

Third -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie that doing so would be unprecedented and extraordinary?

First - It's not a lie.
Second - It's not an "inane" assertion.
Third - He's absolutely right.

Yes. It was a lie.

It may or may not be an insane assertion to claim that striking such a law is unprecedented, but it is flatly false. And to say that in this land where we have a long history of such laws getting voided like that -- a claim made by a lawyer who once taught course about Constitutional law -- is pretty fucking close to insane.

And no. He was not absolutely right. He wasn't right at all. He wasn't even close to right. It is fully precedent-ed. He was absolutely wrong and bluntly dishonest.

The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign or retire.

Not just Citizens United, but a lot of the Supreme Courts decisions since Alito and Roberts have gotten in have been suspect to say the least. Citizens United should have been the straw that broke the camels back, but maybe its going to take them overturning Obamacare for it to happen. If they overturn it, they can expect the Dems to come after them in 2013 when we control the House, Senate and White House.

Look at how Clarance Thomas won't recuse himself in a case where his wife is a lobbyist. This Supreme Court is run by people as corrupt as Alberto Gonzalez, Chaney and Bush.

This was why Bush needed to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections. They now have the ultimate say with the Supremes leaning right now. And they are the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench. You would have to be blind or a liar not to admit it.

 

[Liability]

First - It's not a lie.
Second - It's not an "inane" assertion.
Third - He's absolutely right.

Yes. It was a lie.

It may or may not be an insane assertion to claim that striking such a law is unprecedented, but it is flatly false. And to say that in this land where we have a long history of such laws getting voided like that -- a claim made by a lawyer who once taught course about Constitutional law -- is pretty fucking close to insane.

And no. He was not absolutely right. He wasn't right at all. He wasn't even close to right. It is fully precedent-ed. He was absolutely wrong and bluntly dishonest.

No..it isn't a lie. It passed the Senate TWICE. TWICE.

So what? It's still a fucking lie to say that it passed with a strong majority. It fucking took outright bribery to get it enacted. And the fact that it had ANY majority (big or small) is irrelevant. EVERY law ever enacted that has ever been voided had been passed by a majority.

And it won a majority in the house.

OF COURSE it had a majority in each House or it would not have been enacted. That remains irrelevant. A majority is not necessarily a strong one. And getting passed at all is not sufficient reason to reject the prospect of voiding a law.

And..no it's not flatly false. They haven't overturned commerce law since Lochner.

Also irrelevant. it was flatly false to say that voiding a law passed by Congress is "unprecedented." It isn't. And to the extent that it was allegedly a "commerce" law that got voided, it also doesn't matter that it hasn't happened in a while. No RECENT precedent is not the same as UNprecedented. And it wasn't a commerce law anyway. That canard is falsified by the fact that inactivity is not activity.

And yeah..the court has become an adjunct of the congress. Which is sad.

That makes zero sense. If SCOTUS was just an adjunct of Congress, it wouldn't void any act.

 

[Sallow]

Yes. It was a lie.

It may or may not be an insane assertion to claim that striking such a law is unprecedented, but it is flatly false. And to say that in this land where we have a long history of such laws getting voided like that -- a claim made by a lawyer who once taught course about Constitutional law -- is pretty fucking close to insane.

And no. He was not absolutely right. He wasn't right at all. He wasn't even close to right. It is fully precedent-ed. He was absolutely wrong and bluntly dishonest.

No..it isn't a lie. It passed the Senate TWICE. TWICE.

So what? It's still a fucking lie to say that it passed with a strong majority. It fucking took outright bribery to get it enacted. And the fact that it had ANY majority (big or small) is irrelevant. EVERY law ever enacted that has ever been voided had been passed by a majority.



OF COURSE it had a majority in each House or it would not have been enacted. That remains irrelevant. A majority is not necessarily a strong one. And getting passed at all is not sufficient reason to reject the prospect of voiding a law.

And..no it's not flatly false. They haven't overturned commerce law since Lochner.

Also irrelevant. it was flatly false to say that voiding a law passed by Congress is "unprecedented." It isn't. And to the extent that it was allegedly a "commerce" law that got voided, it also doesn't matter that it hasn't happened in a while. No RECENT precedent is not the same as UNprecedented. And it wasn't a commerce law anyway. That canard is falsified by the fact that inactivity is not activity.

And yeah..the court has become an adjunct of the congress. Which is sad.

That makes zero sense. If SCOTUS was just an adjunct of Congress, it wouldn't void any act.

Come back to me when you have relevant arguments.

Starting with the fact that when a law gets over the high hurdle of cloture then passes both the senate and house..it isn't a "strong" majority.

 

[bodecea]

Yahoo! News

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.




Obama gonna lose his security blanket or binkey on this one?

Where does the "stomping feet" come in?

 

[GWV5903]

First - It's not a lie.
Second - It's not an "inane" assertion.
Third - He's absolutely right.

Yes. It was a lie.

It may or may not be an insane assertion to claim that striking such a law is unprecedented, but it is flatly false. And to say that in this land where we have a long history of such laws getting voided like that -- a claim made by a lawyer who once taught course about Constitutional law -- is pretty fucking close to insane.

And no. He was not absolutely right. He wasn't right at all. He wasn't even close to right. It is fully precedent-ed. He was absolutely wrong and bluntly dishonest.

No..it isn't a lie. It passed the Senate TWICE. TWICE.

And it won a majority in the house.

And..no it's not flatly false. They haven't overturned commerce law since Lochner.

Lochner era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yeah..the court has become an adjunct of the congress. Which is sad.

So when the majority passed Prop 8 in California and the California State Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional, where was Papa Obama?

He is a pitiful excuse of a POTUS, that's all he proved yesterday...

But, you will support anything this idiot says or does, now who is the political hack???

 

[M14 Shooter]

They have been practicing....

I'm sorry -- I didnt see an answer to my question.

I shall ask again:

Were you lying, or just talking out your ass?

Like Obama I was stating a valad opinion.

Valid opinion? That contradicts itself?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

First -- why don;t you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie about Obamacare being passed with a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

Second -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His inane assertion regarding the impropriety of the court striking a law that was so passed?

Third -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie that doing so would be unprecedented and extraordinary?

You are right. We wanted Single Payer Government Run Healthcare....

Still waiting for you to answer the questions:

First -- why don;t you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie about Obamacare being passed with a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

Second -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His inane assertion regarding the impropriety of the court striking a law that was so passed?

Third -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie that doing so would be unprecedented and extraordinary?

 

[bodecea]

I failed to see any feet stomping going on.

Tantrum?

Aren't we being a bit overly dramtic.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington issued the 37-page opinion by Judge Laurence H. Silberman. In the opinion, Judge Silberman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, described the law as part of the fundamental tension between individual liberty and legislative power.

“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local — or seemingly passive — their individual origins,” he wrote. The fact that Congress may have never issued an individual mandate to purchase something before, a central argument for many opposing the law, “seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations,” he wrote.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/health/policy/appeals-court-upholds-health-care-law.html

Yes it was an exagerated attention grabbing title. The same damn thing the left does every day on here. Problem?

So you lied to get attention.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

First -- why don;t you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie about Obamacare being passed with a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

First - It's not a lie.

Its not?
The Obama was not aware of the fact that Obamacare passed with 279 votes out of 535?
If He is unaware of that fact, it makes Him grossly incompetent; if He is aware, then it makes Him a liar.

Or do you -really- think that 52.1% is a "strong" majority?
If so, doesn't that make 55.56% (5 of 9) an even stronger strong majority?
That is, you'll concede that all 5-4 SCotUS decisions were made by a "strong" majority?

Second -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His inane assertion regarding the impropriety of the court striking a law that was so passed?

Second - It's not an "inane" assertion

It is to anyone that understand the US legal and political system.

By defintion, ALL legislation is passed by a majority, supposdely reflecting the will of the people.
By the argument put out by The Obama - and blindy supportted by his bigoted partisan fluffers such as yourself - then NO legislation is subject to judicial review.
Inane? In spades.

Third -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie that doing so would be unprecedented and extraordinary?

Third - He's absolutely right.

Puhleze. Legislation is struck, in whole and in part, by the courts, supreme or otherwise, alll the time. There is -huge- precedent for it and iti is -entirely- ordinary. The Obama knows this, and so His statement is a lie.

So, are you going to borrow some integrity and take The Obama to task for His deliberate idiocy and dishonesty, or are you going to remain of His more useful of useful idiots?

 

[M14 Shooter]

First - It's not a lie.
Second - It's not an "inane" assertion.
Third - He's absolutely right.

OK, so... are YOU lying or talking out of your ass?

You didn't answer my question.

You're about 6 questions behind, sport.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First - It's not a lie.
Second - It's not an "inane" assertion.
Third - He's absolutely right.

OK, so... are YOU lying or talking out of your ass?

You're a partisan hack...

As the desert said to the grain of sand.

 

[Sallow]

First -- why don;t you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie about Obamacare being passed with a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

First - It's not a lie.

Its not?
The Obama was not aware of the fact that Obamacare passed with 279 votes out of 535?
If He is unaware of that fact, it makes Him grossly incompetent; if He is aware, then it makes Him a liar.

Or do you -really- think that 52.1% is a "strong" majority?
If so, doesn't that make 55.56% (5 of 9) an even stronger strong majority?
That is, you'll concede that all 5-4 SCotUS decisions were made by a "strong" majority?


It is to anyone that understand the US legal and political system.

By defintion, ALL legislation is passed by a majority, supposdely reflecting the will of the people.
By the argument put out by The Obama - and blindy supportted by his bigoted partisan fluffers such as yourself - then NO legislation is subject to judicial review.
Inane? In spades.

Third -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie that doing so would be unprecedented and extraordinary?

Third - He's absolutely right.

Puhleze. Legislation is struck, in whole and in part, by the courts, supreme or otherwise, alll the time. There is -huge- precedent for it and iti is -entirely- ordinary. The Obama knows this, and so His statement is a lie.

So, are you going to borrow some integrity and take The Obama to task for His deliberate idiocy and dishonesty, or are you going to remain of His more useful of useful idiots?

You're really stretching here.

Especially given that republicans call failed measures they try to get through..strongly bi-partisan.

Obamacare passed some pretty high hurdles.

And passed. Which is extraordinary given this country has been trying to get this done for over a century.

And everything else..I posted was dead on..and complete with links.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First - It's not a lie.

Its not?
The Obama was not aware of the fact that Obamacare passed with 279 votes out of 535?
If He is unaware of that fact, it makes Him grossly incompetent; if He is aware, then it makes Him a liar.

Or do you -really- think that 52.1% is a "strong" majority?
If so, doesn't that make 55.56% (5 of 9) an even stronger strong majority?
That is, you'll concede that all 5-4 SCotUS decisions were made by a "strong" majority?


It is to anyone that understand the US legal and political system.

By defintion, ALL legislation is passed by a majority, supposdely reflecting the will of the people.
By the argument put out by The Obama - and blindy supportted by his bigoted partisan fluffers such as yourself - then NO legislation is subject to judicial review.
Inane? In spades.

Third - He's absolutely right.

Puhleze. Legislation is struck, in whole and in part, by the courts, supreme or otherwise, alll the time. There is -huge- precedent for it and iti is -entirely- ordinary. The Obama knows this, and so His statement is a lie.

So, are you going to borrow some integrity and take The Obama to task for His deliberate idiocy and dishonesty, or are you going to remain of His more useful of useful idiots?

You're really stretching here.

I see you've chosen to remain a useful idiot. Good thing no one took my bet.

Everyting I said was 100% spot on, as evidenced by your complete lack of substantive rebuttal.

Disagree? Show how I am wrong.

 

[regent]

This court case while appearing to be a debate about the legality of a law is political process not a legal one. The Justices are appointed to support either a conservative or liberal point of view and to hell with the Constitution. The Justices will vote, write their opinions and the outcome can almost be predicted to the man. Once in a while, however, a president appoints a justice and the justice takes the position seriously. It has happened, and it drives the appointing political party nuts they call the justice traitor and so on. The only question today is will one of the Justices end up a traitor?

 

[Intense]

First - It's not a lie.
Second - It's not an "inane" assertion.
Third - He's absolutely right.

Yes. It was a lie.

It may or may not be an insane assertion to claim that striking such a law is unprecedented, but it is flatly false. And to say that in this land where we have a long history of such laws getting voided like that -- a claim made by a lawyer who once taught course about Constitutional law -- is pretty fucking close to insane.

And no. He was not absolutely right. He wasn't right at all. He wasn't even close to right. It is fully precedent-ed. He was absolutely wrong and bluntly dishonest.

No..it isn't a lie. It passed the Senate TWICE. TWICE.

And it won a majority in the house.

And..no it's not flatly false. They haven't overturned commerce law since Lochner.

Lochner era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yeah..the court has become an adjunct of the congress. Which is sad.

Yeah Right. So what happens next??? Let me Guess.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeldwfOwuL8]I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse - YouTube[/ame]
I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avER-t6GL4U]the godfather . scene from the horse's head in bed . francis ford coppola - YouTube[/ame]
the godfather . scene from the horse's head in bed . francis ford coppola

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHzh0PvMWTI&feature=related]Leave the gun Take the cannoli - YouTube[/ame]
Leave the gun Take the cannoli

 

[thereisnospoon]

When his one term is up Obama should move and start his own country taking his loyal followers with him

I would like nothing more than to have the Blue and Red states split up. You middle class Republicans would soon come running back to us begging to forgive you and looking for a good paying job with affordable healthcare.

But you would have to buy products that are made in our country. No more buying from China. And the rich don't run our government/banks and country. They pay their fair share in taxes too. And we don't go bankrupt on war. And you don't get social security or medicare. Trust me, 99% of you will die broke with a free unregulated economy. No unions so wages are really low. But Walmart will have everything you ever need including furnature because that will be all you can afford.

Your states would turn into fiscally bankrupt socialist utopias.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In a bizarre re-writing of American history, Scalia advocated the new conservative doctrine he calls "originalism," to which he and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas subscribe. According to Scalia and Thomas, the government gives us rights. And, they say, if rights weren't explicitly written into the Constitution, they don't exist.

Do you agree with that?

In his belief that we get our rights from our government, Scalia is more closely following the logic of dictators and theocrats than of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton.

Until Scalia and Thomas came along, modern Supreme Court justices generally understood that we don't get our rights from laws. Civil and human rights don't even come from the Constitution - as the Declaration of Independence notes, they pre-existed it.

("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...")


Bush & Scalia: "You want privacy rights? Pass a law!" -- A BuzzFlash Guest Contribution

And who determines what those rights are ?

If you believe there is a right to privacy....pass a law.

The Supreme Court beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy.

And as for Obamacare being constitutional:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ United States Declaration of Independence (written by Thomas Jefferson)

So I have the right to life? Then Healthcare should be a right in this country.

You have the right to seek out medical care. Doctors must "Do no harm"....
You do not have the right to compel others to pay for your medical care.
Oh, you and Justice Sotomayor should go bowling together. Because both you and her are unaware that the public hospitals MUST treat all patients regardless of insurance status.
Stupid cannot be fixed..You know that I mean?

 

[thereisnospoon]

They have been practicing....

I'm sorry -- I didnt see an answer to my question.

I shall ask again:

Were you lying, or just talking out your ass?

Like Obama I was stating a valad opinion. This isn't A Few Good Men. The Supreme Court hacks are not Jack Nicholson and this is not the military. And if it is, Obama is the Commmander and Chief?

Remember Bush said he was the Decider? Now Obama is, not the unelected legislatures on the activist bench.

Now let me ask you one question since you have repeated one talking point over and over to me all day. Is your right to privacy an inherent right or one that is given to you by the government? I ask all you righties this question.

There is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right to privacy"..
If there is....Go find it and post it here.

Now...It is clear you are uninformed on matters Constitution..And of course the structure of the federal government.
There are three separate and independent branches of the government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial....The purpose of this the Framers thought was to prevent any one part of the government from having more power than the others.
You appear to believe the President has the right and the power to influence the SCOTUS.
Because you do not like the possibility that the SCOTUS will strike down ACA?...
On the other hand, do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade? Same thing. State legislatures outlawed abortions. The SCOTUS overturned state's laws.
So why not what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
I know.,...You libs are perpetually entitled. You believe you should get to have everything both ways.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This court case while appearing to be a debate about the legality of a law is political process not a legal one.

False. It is legal process that may or may not have political facets.