Author Topic: Is Obama predicting a loss at the SC? Shameless attack on court today.  (Read 5138 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/obama_supreme_court_striking_down_obamacare_would_be_judicial_activism.html



Obama is a fucking joke.   I can not believe a supposed con law scholar would say what he did today.   Just fucking pathetic.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
It's not judicial activism when they do what he wants, though. Yawn. Same old song and dance from this guy. It's everyone else's fault but his. So much for all the retards that praise his "constitutional law" background.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-methodically-rips-apart-obamas-scotus-intimidation-argument


Great takedown sentence by sentence on obamas con law illiteracy. 

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
What a fucking joke.
I like how he says that it was passed with an "overwhelming majority of elected officials"
But leaves out that they didnt know what was in it, were told they "had to pass it to find out"
AND MOST IMPORTANT,
That the citizens they represent are "overwhelmingly" opposed to it.

Douche of the highest order.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
I think Kagan or her staff leaked the results of some sort of the vote.  no way Obama would use code words like he did today unless he was tipped off.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law
Yahoo News ^ | 4/2/2012 | Stephen Collinson
Posted on April 2, 2012 9:38:31 PM EDT by pterional

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...




Code words.      This communist dictator tyrant is making plans now that kagan probably leaked that MengleCare is going down. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law
Yahoo News ^ | 4/2/2012 | Stephen Collinson
Posted on April 2, 2012 9:38:31 PM EDT by pterional

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...




Code words.      This communist dictator tyrant is making plans now that kagan probably leaked that MengleCare is going down. 
I would sure hope that the judges cut themselves off from the outside world, cause things like this can sway people if they feel threatened, it doesnt take much to change somebodies minds on something like this.
I wish the Justices would be isolated amongst themsevles after the courtroom hearings, it would seem wrong that they would be able to be influenced by outside sources such as political intimidation once theyve heard all the arguments and are deliberating.
Seems very wrong. Itd be like a jury getting paid a visit by the offender while theyre trying to decide his fate.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
his statement today was beyond offensive for anyone concerned w law, civics, etc

MM2K

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
The Democrats are a pathetic bunch, and this is the most pathetic President we have had in the modern era. For him to attack the Supreme Court is anti Contsitutional and anti- democratic. Has he ever heard of Seperation of Powers?  It is not the President's place to speak about this. When the Supreme Court strikes down this disasturous law, it is his place to accept it and deal with it. Not to criticise the Supreme Court. When the SC ruled that evidence had to be presented at Military Tribunals (which was seen as a huge setback in the War on Terror) , Bush took it like a man and followed the SC's decision. Bush never criticised the Court for it. Its pathetic that man child liberals critisize Bush, when Bush has more class in one finger than Obama does in his entire loser polititican body. THe man sucks. He is a failure. A poser. A one hit wonder. How do liberals look at themselves in the mirror and defend this guy? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Liberals have no self awareness at all. Those man children cant look at themselves objectively.
Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The Democrats are a pathetic bunch, and this is the most pathetic President we have had in the modern era. For him to attack the Supreme Court is anti Contsitutional and anti- democratic. Has he ever heard of Seperation of Powers?  It is not the President's place to speak about this. When the Supreme Court strikes down this disasturous law, it is his place to accept it and deal with it. Not to criticise the Supreme Court. When the SC ruled that evidence had to be presented at Military Tribunals (which was seen as a huge setback in the War on Terror) , Bush took it like a man and followed the SC's decision. Bush never criticised the Court for it. Its pathetic that man child liberals critisize Bush, when Bush has more class in one finger than Obama does in his entire loser polititican body. THe man sucks. He is a failure. A poser. A one hit wonder. How do liberals look at themselves in the mirror and defend this guy? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Liberals have no self awareness at all. Those man children cant look at themselves objectively.


Bingo.    liberals have sold their souls to defend this communist tyrant.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
 Print      Close
Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
Published April 02, 2012 | FoxNews.com

ADVERTISEMENT
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld. 

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress. 

"I'm 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. 

The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace. 

Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care. 

"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional." 

Republican lawmakers slammed the president for his Supreme Court comments. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused the president of misrepresenting the implications of a ruling against the law. 

"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist,'" he said in a statement. "Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals' purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional." 

The president spoke following meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Until the heath care case remarks, the press conference was focused mostly on economic issues, as well as the war on drugs. 

The leaders vowed a new effort to boost North American trade and cut needless regulation that stifles it. "Our three nations are going to sit down together, go through the books and simplify and eliminate more regulations that will make our joint economies stronger," Obama said. 

Obama noted trade among the three neighbors now tops $1 trillion a year, and he wants to see that number rise. 

But notable by its absence from the post-summit news conference in the Rose Garden was the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Obama shelved the plan pending further review -- and has endured ferocious GOP attacks ever since, with Republicans calling the move a blow to job creation and U.S. energy needs. He maintains GOP leaders in Congress forced his hand by insisting on a decision before an acceptable pipeline route was found. 

Harper has voiced disappointment with Obama's decision. He also visited China in February to explore alternatives. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves -- more than 170 billion barrels -- after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health


Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.




This is your president assholes! 

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
I would sure hope that the judges cut themselves off from the outside world, cause things like this can sway people if they feel threatened, it doesnt take much to change somebodies minds on something like this.
I wish the Justices would be isolated amongst themsevles after the courtroom hearings, it would seem wrong that they would be able to be influenced by outside sources such as political intimidation once theyve heard all the arguments and are deliberating.
Seems very wrong. Itd be like a jury getting paid a visit by the offender while theyre trying to decide his fate.

The president could anger some of those that had approved the law. It can backfire on him. There might be a justice who may have voted in favor of the law, who after hearing the stupid comments by the president, might change his/her vote.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The president could anger some of those that had approved the law. It can backfire on him. There might be a justice who may have voted in favor of the law, who after hearing the stupid comments by the president, might change his/her vote.



The best part is that in 2 minutes yesterday, when off his scripted teleprompter, Obama shows himself to again be completely ignorant of constitutional law and basic civics. 

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
I think Kagan or her staff leaked the results of some sort of the vote.  no way Obama would use code words like he did today unless he was tipped off.



Drudge inquires if he was tipped off. It wouldn't surprise me. Respect for the process is extinct.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison

The President needs a remedial course in judicial review.




President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?

That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "I'm 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," he declared.

Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.

As it happens, probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act. Readers may recall that the law was dragooned through a reluctant Senate without a single GOP vote and barely the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Despite a huge Democratic majority in the House, it passed by only 219-212.

One reason the law may be overturned is because it was rushed through Congress without a standard "severability" clause that says that the rest of the law stands if one part is judged unconstitutional. Congress jammed it into law because it became ever more unpopular the more the public looked at it. The law is even less popular today than it was on the day it passed in 2010.

Mr. Obama's remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the Justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law. As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama's inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.

A version of this article appeared April 3, 2012, on page A14 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Has Kagan or another liberal Justice leaked SCOTUS Friday Obamacare vote to Obama?
Bluegrass Pundit ^ | April 2, 2012 | Bluegrass Pundit




President Obama has taken a very risky course if the Supreme Court voted Friday to uphold Obamacare. If he believed that were true, he would likely have said he has confidence in the judgement of the Supreme Court Justices. If he were unsure, he would also tread lightly. Instead, he fired a verbal barrage at the Court.



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.

In a highly combative salvo on a case which could have a critical impact on his reelection chances, Obama warned that health care for millions of people was at stake, even as nine Supreme Court justices deliberate the arguments.

"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.

The US Supreme Court held compelling legal arguments on the health reform law, the centerpiece of Obama's political legacy, last week, amid a flurry of commentary predicting the law will ruled unconstitutional.

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example. Read more here...

Justices rarely change their opinion after the initial vote, but it does happen. Justice Kennedy has been known to switch sides on major cases after the initial opinions are written.  President Obama may be hoping to pressure him to do so again. If he doesn't, President Obama has laid the groundwork for using this to motivate his base this November. It looks like he has been tipped off and the news wasn't good for him. If Obama was tipped off, many would suspect Kagan who was Obama's Solicitor General and an Obamacare supporter before her SCOTUS appointment.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Ex Parte Obama

Editorial of The New York Sun | April 2, 2012

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/ex-parte-obama/87772


 

It’s been a long time since we’ve heard a presidential demarche as outrageous as President Obama’s warning to the Supreme Court not to overturn Obamacare. The president made the remarks at a press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. It was an attack on the court’s standing and even its integrity in a backhanded way that is typically Obamanian. For starters the president expressed confidence that the Court would “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.”

Reuters’ account noted that conservative leaders say the law was an overreach by Obama and the Congress. It characterized the president as having “sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.” Quoth the president: “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

It is outrageous enough that the president’s protest was inaccurate. What in the world is he talking about when he asserts the law was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act barely squeaked through the Congress. In the Senate it escaped a filibuster by but a hair. The vote was so tight in the house — 219 to 212 — that the leadership went through byzantine maneuvers to get the measure to the president’s desk. No Republicans voted for it when it came up in the House, and the drive to repeal the measure began the day after Mr. Obama signed the measure.

It is the aspersions the President cast on the Supreme Court, though, that take the cake. We speak of the libel about the court being an “unelected group of people” who might “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This libel was dealt with more than two centuries ago in the newspaper column known as 78 Federalist and written by Alexander Hamilton. It is the essay in which Hamilton, a big proponent of federal power, famously described the Court as “the weakest of the three departments of power.” It argued that the people could never be endangered by the court — so long as the judiciary “remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.”

It was precisely the separation of the courts from the other two branches, Hamilton argued, that gives the court its legitimacy. He asserted that “the natural feebleness of the judiciary” puts it in “continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches” and wrote it’s “permanency in office” — meaning life tenure for judges —  was “an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.” Continued he: “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.” Then the famous sentences:

“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable. There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. ”

Eventually the Supreme Court itself, in the case known as Marbury v. Madison, spelled out the logic of judicial review. We’ve always felt it was important to note that the Court’s authority does not stem from the Court’s own assertion of its own powers. It is deeper down, in the writings of the Founders themselves, and part of the American bedrock. It exists at the Federal level and in the constitutions of the states. The idea of separated powers was first put down in plain language in our laws in the constitution of Massachusetts, which noted that the aim was to have a government of laws rather than of men. It is a mark of our cynical age that Mr. Obama would challenge these assumptions. One can attribute the error of judgment to the fear that once the Court gets its back up and decides to hold the Congress to the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, it’s not just Obamacare that is in danger but the whole regime of runaway power in Washington.



dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
What can Obama do to the Supreme Court if they rule the entire law unconstitutional?

All he can do is demonize them politically. That's about it. He can't throw them out. They are in the supreme court until they decide to leave.

There is nothing that the Supreme Court justices need to fear because Obamatheclown is a joke.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
What can Obama do to the Supreme Court if they rule the entire law unconstitutional?

All he can do is demonize them politically. That's about it. He can't throw them out. They are in the supreme court until they decide to leave.

There is nothing that the Supreme Court justices need to fear because Obamatheclown is a joke.
Unless they have something to lose on the downlow, something Obama may have.promised them under.the table.  :-X

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Unless they have something to lose on the downlow, something Obama may have.promised them under.the table.  :-X

Baby Doc Barack went full gangster yesterday.  The worst part was that it was in the front of two foregin leaders. 

He hates this country and only the delusional drones like we have on this board don't realize it. 

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Baby Doc Barack went full gangster yesterday.  The worst part was that it was in the front of two foregin leaders. 

He hates this country and only the delusional drones like we have on this board don't realize it. 
I think he hates the fact that he doesn't have the power to just change.whatever he wants by executive decree, he hates that his.decisions are subject to the citizens, cause he knows what's best for us and we just get in his way.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
I think he hates the fact that he doesn't have the power to just change.whatever he wants by executive decree, he hates that his.decisions are subject to the citizens, cause he knows what's best for us and we just get in his way.

Watch these two and ask yourself what Baby Doc Barack thinks of this country: