Author Topic: Appellate Court hits back at Baby Doc Barack - demands answers on Marbury v Madi  (Read 2415 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Skip to comments.

Federal judge fires back after Obama health care comments
The Daily Caller ^
Posted on April 3, 2012 8:00:17 PM EDT by Sub-Driver

Federal judge fires back after Obama health care comments 5:53 PM 04/03/2012

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals escalated the increasingly public battle between President Barack Obama and the judiciary on Tuesday, ordering the Department of Justice to write and submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon on Thursday explaining whether the administration acknowledges that the courts have the right to overturn federal laws.

The order, CBS News reported, follows the president’s historically inaccurate claim Monday that a Supreme Court decision striking down the so-called “individual mandate” in his health care overhaul law “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress.” Obama suggested that because of this, the Supreme Court would opt not to overturn the law. (RELATED: Full coverage of Obamacare)

A Tuesday opinion essay in the Wall Street Journal corrected the president’s history, noting the famous Marbury v. Madison case.

“In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review,” the Journal’s editors wrote. “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.”

Noting that Obama “is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago,” the essay adds that the president’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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
(Credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Updated 6:55 p.m. ET

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" 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."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.

UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."

Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.

"Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.

And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.

UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith's order to DOJ, is available here.

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."

The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."

CBSNews.com








Can even one Obama supporter defend this bullshit from Baby Doc Barack? 

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
At first, I didn't believe this story was true. Judge Smith is respected and it struck me as highly unlikely that the reporting was accurate. And yet, it was. Having read the transcripts, I was floored. Personally I find it to be very, very, very embarrassing. Judges should not go wildly outside the record and hand out counsel "homework" to examine and comment on press releases or statements made by politicians.

Now, as far as Obama's comment is concerned... I don't care for ACA or Obama's politics, but I try to evaluate things rationally and to avoid relying on partisan invective. So I decided to listen to what it was that triggered this whole thing. And I think that anyone who actually heard what Obama said can see that Obama didn't suggest that the Courts didn't have the authority to strike down law on Constitutional grounds.

But I guess it's open season and everyone is trying to score cheap political points. Even Judges.  :o

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
At first, I didn't believe this story was true. Judge Smith is respected and it struck me as highly unlikely that the reporting was accurate. And yet, it was. Having read the transcripts, I was floored. Personally I find it to be very, very, very embarrassing. Judges should not go wildly outside the record and hand out counsel "homework" to examine and comment on press releases or statements made by politicians.

Now, as far as Obama's comment is concerned... I don't care for ACA or Obama's politics, but I try to evaluate things rationally and to avoid relying on partisan invective. So I decided to listen to what it was that triggered this whole thing. And I think that anyone who actually heard what Obama said can see that Obama didn't suggest that the Courts didn't have the authority to strike down law on Constitutional grounds.

But I guess it's open season and everyone is trying to score cheap political points. Even Judges.  :o



False - what Obama said was factually total bullshit meant for his idiotic delusional uneducated drone base.   There is not one single case in the history of this nation that anyone can cite to where the supreme court endorsed the idea the federal govt can create commerce in order to regulate. 


The ObamaCare mess was barely passed in the congress and done so in the dead of night.   And second, so the fuck what that it was passed by congress?  If the congress passed a law requiring us all to go to church every week by a wide margin, under obama's demented delusional deranged way of thinking that is sufficient to pass constitutional muster? 

 
Face it, you voted for a fraud and tailor made lie.     

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
False - what Obama said was factually total bullshit meant for his idiotic delusional uneducated drone base.   There is not one single case in the history of this nation that anyone can cite to where the supreme court endorsed the idea the federal govt can create commerce in order to regulate.

Of course, all that is completely unrelated to anything I said or anything that Judge Smith said.


The ObamaCare mess was barely passed in the congress and done so in the dead of night.   And second, so the fuck what that it was passed by congress?  If the congress passed a law requiring us all to go to church every week by a wide margin, under obama's demented delusional deranged way of thinking that is sufficient to pass constitutional muster?

Again, you're misrepresenting what Obama said. But that's par for the course for you.
 
Face it, you voted for a fraud and tailor made lie.

I did? Huh... I was sure I didn't vote for Obama. But now that some loser on the Internet says otherwise, I'm starting to have my doubts.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Of course, all that is completely unrelated to anything I said or anything that Judge Smith said.


Again, you're misrepresenting what Obama said. But that's par for the course for you.
 
I did? Huh... I was sure I didn't vote for Obama. But now that some loser on the Internet says otherwise, I'm starting to have my doubts.



I didnt misrepresent anything obama said.    Obama spouted pure bullshit that even 5th graders know to be utterly fals.e   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Did Obama pass the Bar?

April 4, 2012 by Don Surber

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/53723

 


President Obama’s little temper tantrum over the Supreme Court voting down his unconstitutional takeover of the health insurance industry may have awakened a sleeping giant — the Judiciary. Good lawyers know better than to tick off judges. And your common graduate of Cleveland State University knows the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law. Apparently a Harvard education was wasted on the president because on Monday, the president said it was “unprecedented” for a “group of unelected people” to tell him no. Instead of studying John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Barack Obama must have been poring over George Wallace’s tirades against that “group of unelected people” in Washington.

Like I said, don’t tick off the judge.

President Obama did and U.S. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, a 25-year veteran of the bench, gave the president a figurative dressing down.

From Fox News:

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.

Cut to the chase:

“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered “yes” to that question.

A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was “referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect … that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress.”

“That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority,” Smith said. “And that’s not a small matter.”

The president’s animosity toward the Constitution is well-known among conservatives, who said this in a 2001 radio interview:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

What sort of 40-year-old American who is not a socialist blathers on about “negative liberties”? He wants unlimited government. That’s socialism. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith called him on that perverted view of constitutional government. Expect more of these confrontations, not less as Barack Obama has chosen anger, hate and spite as his re-election theme.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
This is what happens when you get the man off script. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
This is what happens when you get the man off script. 

When off script, obama is a fumbling bumbling moron completely untethered to reality.   

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
At first, I didn't believe this story was true. Judge Smith is respected and it struck me as highly unlikely that the reporting was accurate. And yet, it was. Having read the transcripts, I was floored. Personally I find it to be very, very, very embarrassing. Judges should not go wildly outside the record and hand out counsel "homework" to examine and comment on press releases or statements made by politicians.

Now, as far as Obama's comment is concerned... I don't care for ACA or Obama's politics, but I try to evaluate things rationally and to avoid relying on partisan invective. So I decided to listen to what it was that triggered this whole thing. And I think that anyone who actually heard what Obama said can see that Obama didn't suggest that the Courts didn't have the authority to strike down law on Constitutional grounds.

But I guess it's open season and everyone is trying to score cheap political points. Even Judges.  :o


Ahhhhh, NO.

Everyone heard his comments within context. He clearly stated that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to declare enacted laws unconstitutional. He mentioned that when it comes to economic policies that the Supreme Court should leave such matters to Executive and Legislative branches, even if such policies are unconstitutional. He lied about the health care reform being overwhelmingly accepted by Congress (219-212 barely being passed).

He is setting the groundwork to go after all conservatives.

Anyone and I MEAN ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE HIS OR HER HEAD ALL THE WAY UP OBAMA'S REAR END, understood exactly what he meant. The only person who misunderstood what he said and is blind to his attempt at influencing the Supreme Court is you. Why? Because you have YOUR HEAD ALL THE WAY UP OBAMA'S REAR END.

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
At first, I didn't believe this story was true. Judge Smith is respected and it struck me as highly unlikely that the reporting was accurate. And yet, it was. Having read the transcripts, I was floored. Personally I find it to be very, very, very embarrassing. Judges should not go wildly outside the record and hand out counsel "homework" to examine and comment on press releases or statements made by politicians.

Now, as far as Obama's comment is concerned... I don't care for ACA or Obama's politics, but I try to evaluate things rationally and to avoid relying on partisan invective. So I decided to listen to what it was that triggered this whole thing. And I think that anyone who actually heard what Obama said can see that Obama didn't suggest that the Courts didn't have the authority to strike down law on Constitutional grounds.

But I guess it's open season and everyone is trying to score cheap political points. Even Judges.  :o


One more thing. Why is it embarrassing for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue by having the Justice Department explain Obama's stance?

The only embarrassment is obamatheclown, who is supposedly a constitutional scholar, lying to the people as to the role of the Supreme Court and hoping that there are enough fools out there who believe him. What is embarrassing is him thinking that his laws are all above judicial review.

You are an embarrassment for defending him and attacking Judge Smith. You are representative of the morons that will believe anything Obama says and will happily vote for him.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Everyone heard his comments within context. He clearly stated that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to declare enacted laws unconstitutional. He mentioned that when it comes to economic policies that the Supreme Court should leave such matters to Executive and Legislative branches, even if such policies are unconstitutional.

He said, and I quote: "We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal."

Now, you can argue whether health care is an economic issue that most people would consider commerce (I wouldn't), but he's right that the Court hasn't overturned any laws on economic issues since Lochner.

He lied about the health care reform being overwhelmingly accepted by Congress (219-212 barely being passed).

That was a dumb statement to make. But what do you expect a politician to say anyways?


He is setting the groundwork to go after all conservatives.

LOL... do you all you guys get your HGH laced with Conspiratrol or something?


Anyone and I MEAN ANYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE HIS OR HER HEAD ALL THE WAY UP OBAMA'S REAR END, understood exactly what he meant. The only person who misunderstood what he said and is blind to his attempt at influencing the Supreme Court is you. Why? Because you have YOUR HEAD ALL THE WAY UP OBAMA'S REAR END.

Yell a little more dario. It will make your ridiculous and completely bogus statements seem more credible.


One more thing. Why is it embarrassing for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue by having the Justice Department explain Obama's stance?

Because it is not appropriate for Appeals Court Judges to ask counsel on cases before them to go outside the record and assign homework on the statements of politicians. I would say the exact same thing if a, say, Clinton appointee had ordered the Bush Justice Department to explain a statement by Bush.

The only embarrassment is obamatheclown, who is supposedly a constitutional scholar, lying to the people as to the role of the Supreme Court and hoping that there are enough fools out there who believe him. What is embarrassing is him thinking that his laws are all above judicial review.

Seriously? Who cares what Obama gets the people to believe? Even if Obama claimed laws passed were above judicial review so what? The role of the Court and judicial review are firmly established and a Gallup poll doesn't mean diddlysquat. How is Obama's statement a threat to the authority of the Court? Is there anything that he can do to coerce them into voting his way? Can he just disband the Court? What is it that you think that Obama can do to control and manipulate the Court?


You are an embarrassment for defending him and attacking Judge Smith.

Even if what Obama said was completely wrong -- even if it was a blatant lie -- do you really think that it is appropriate for Appeals Court Judges, who only examine matters that are on the record, to ask counsel on cases to go outside the record to comment on statements by politicians? Really?

You are representative of the morons that will believe anything Obama says and will happily vote for him.

As for who and what you think I represent... do you honestly think I give an iota of a fuck what some oveweight schmoe on getbig thinks I represent?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
My understanding is that the case before Smith did involve obamacare in some respect. 

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
My understanding is that the case before Smith did involve obamacare in some respect.

Obama's comments were not on the record. Appeals Courts only examine the record. What is so difficult to understand?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama's comments were not on the record. Appeals Courts only examine the record. What is so difficult to understand?

I grasp that and it did seem odd, but many in the legal community are really shocked by his statements as of late, especially coming from someone who was shoved on the public as being a con law scholar and the smartest person ever to become POTUS. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Holder to Respond to Judge on Obama’s Health Law Remarks

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/holder-to-respond-to-judge-on-obamas-health-law-remarks





The United States attorney general says he’ll comply with a federal judge’s request to type three single-spaced pages recognizing the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress.

Obama said at a press conference on Monday that the Supreme Court declaring the health care law unconstitutional “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Attorney General Eric Holder defended Obama’s comments today, calling them “appropriate” when he was asked by reporters if he’ll respond to the request for a written explanation by Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the appeals court.

“And 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 – that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said.

Holder said today that “what the president said a couple days ago was appropriate.”

“The courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of the people in Congress pass,” he told reporters in Chicago.

Holder repeated that the administration thinks the Supreme Court will uphold the health care law as constitutional.



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

Obama said at a press conference on Monday that the Supreme Court declaring the health care law unconstitutional “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.  

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
I guess Repubs only have a problem with "activist judges" when they turn over stuff they like such as Prop 8 in CA

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
I guess Repubs only have a problem with "activist judges" when they turn over stuff they like such as Prop 8 in CA


Straw - please show me one case in the history of this country where the court upheld the idea that congress can create commerce in order to regulate it.


Just one case will do.   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana

Straw - please show me one case in the history of this country where the court upheld the idea that congress can create commerce in order to regulate it. Just one case will do.   

how about examples where it's in place and no one challenged it - hence no court case

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
how about examples where it's in place and no one challenged it - hence no court case

Like what?   When had the federal government EVER forced people into a contract with a private party at terms dictated by the federal government a a condition of birth every single year of that persons' life? 


Straw - just ask yourself this - if a President santorum tried such bullshit - would you have supported it?   I for one would NEVER support such crap.   

You liberals have sold your collective souls to support this communist thug in the WH

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Like what?   When had the federal government EVER forced people into a contract with a private party at terms dictated by the federal government a a condition of birth every single year of that persons' life? 


Straw - just ask yourself this - if a President santorum tried such bullshit - would you have supported it?   I for one would NEVER support such crap.   

You liberals have sold your collective souls to support this communist thug in the WH

yes or no

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
yes or no

No!   there has never been a law like obamacare in our history of such magnitude and scope compelling commerce like this! 

Do you leftists still not get this?  You little babies live in a liberal bubble and are fucking beyond clueless to the actual issues at play.     

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
No!   there has never been a law like obamacare in our history of such magnitude and scope compelling commerce like this! 

Do you leftists still not get this?  You little babies live in a liberal bubble and are fucking beyond clueless to the actual issues at play.     

dude -can't you ever calm the fuck down and just talk like a normal adult

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
dude -can't you ever calm the fuck down and just talk like a normal adult

I am sick of reading all this utter crap on HP, TNR, NYT, the leftist blogs, etc all decrying the SC for taking up this case when in fact Obamacare represents one of the worst abridgments of economic and civil rights in our history.

Many of us have laid out the exact issues from Day 1 on the mandate and the leftists just scoffed it off as meaningless since they bought in to the lies they told each other, as well as the lies they accepted from obama and pelosi. 

There is not a single case in history COMPELLING COMMERCE like this.  For you to not grasp what a tremendous overreach this is speaks volumes.   If Obamacare is upheld it will worse than Kelo v. New London by a factor of 1000