Obama threatens 'unelected' Supreme Court over health care reform

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
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.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

"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.
Click to expand...

while most liberals will probably applaud the so called 'courage' of a president threatening the courts, it will most likely be a vulgar display of historical ignorance.

Thomas Jefferson warned about a government with too much power. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

We're getting steps closer to that everyday. I'm sure the liberals will say 'that can't happen here', like they still think they are in control. LOL
 
challenged not to overturn the law. not that he could do anything......within the law that is. I'm sure something will be attempted, lots of rhetoric about judicial activism. more divisiveness between left and right. closer to civil war, or totalitarian police state. it's all going downhill, so stock up on guns and ammo.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
challenged not to overturn the law. not that he could do anything......within the law that is. I'm sure something will be attempted, lots of rhetoric about judicial activism. more divisiveness between left and right. closer to civil war, or totalitarian police state. it's all going downhill, so stock up on guns and ammo.
Click to expand...

So it wasn't a threat like you first said, it was a "challenge"? Which is what the author of the article you posted named it (sometimes called "editorializing") Here is Obama's statement, reads like a prediction to me.

"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," the president concluded. "And I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that 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. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Definitely no threat so let's just end that right here. A challenge? If you mean that word in the sense of he is calling into question the wisdom of overturning the law, then that seems accurate. And so??

But that's an inflammatory word, often it brings to mind "challenged him to a fight" or "challenged him to a duel". If you mean it in that sense, then no.

Bottom line - there's no there there.
 
He wants the SC to suspend the US Constitution so he and his followers can dictate to the population what they MUST do under force of law.....
In this case....to buy what he tells them to buy.
Like one of Justices said, "If they can do this, what CAN'T they do ?"
 
bravo said:
He wants the SC to suspend the US Constitution so he and his followers can dictate to the population what they MUST do under force of law.....
In this case....to buy what he tells them to buy.
Like one of Justices said, "If they can do this, what CAN'T they do ?"
Click to expand...

that's all part of the liberals plan though, according to darla. A STRONG central government, one that can force any state or any person to do whatever it is that they feel is needed for the good of society. the idea of individual freedom should be dead soon, which is right in line with the establishment plan.
 
bravo said:
He wants the SC to suspend the US Constitution so he and his followers can dictate to the population what they MUST do under force of law.....
In this case....to buy what he tells them to buy.
Like one of Justices said, "If they can do this, what CAN'T they do ?"
Click to expand...


He wants the Supreme Court to follow its precedent. Shocking stuff.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's all part of the liberals plan though, according to darla. A STRONG central government, one that can force any state or any person to do whatever it is that they feel is needed for the good of society. the idea of individual freedom should be dead soon, which is right in line with the establishment plan.
Click to expand...

Boo!

You should see "Hunger Games." I caught it a few days ago - it's STY's perfect vision for that kind of gov't.

In reality, of course, we actually have more freedom today than pretty much any culture or country in the history of civilization.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's all part of the liberals plan though, according to darla. A STRONG central government, one that can force any state or any person to do whatever it is that they feel is needed for the good of society. the idea of individual freedom should be dead soon, which is right in line with the establishment plan.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is step VI(J)(323)(zz)(xii) in the Liberal Plan. Still have quite a few steps left.
 
Onceler said:
Boo!

You should see "Hunger Games." I caught it a few days ago - it's STY's perfect vision for that kind of gov't.

In reality, of course, we actually have more freedom today than pretty much any culture or country in the history of civilization.
Click to expand...

this is a bullshit argument. since we're the most free of all the nations in the world, we should be happy? tell me something, if all the other nations incarcerated their people, should we all be considered 'free' because we're jailed in our homes?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is a bullshit argument. since we're the most free of all the nations in the world, we should be happy? tell me something, if all the other nations incarcerated their people, should we all be considered 'free' because we're jailed in our homes?
Click to expand...

No - but since the trend is overwhelmingly toward more freedom, and since your paranoid rants like this one about some nebulous Presidential "threat" are bogus, and since there is nothing to indicate that the idea of individual freedom will be "dead soon"...well you get the picture...
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
What percentage amounts to a "strong majority" in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Almost no "strong majority" takes the arm twisting nonsense that passed this law. It takes special spin to call that popular let alone pretend that it was a "strong majority" that passed the law. Seat after seat lost to pissed constituents, including my very own brand new Congressman Cory Gardner (yeah, the democratic legislators in CO have seen fit to include him in a solid republican seat now, redistricting you know, after he beat Markey).
 
Damocles said:
Almost no "strong majority" takes the arm twisting nonsense that passed this law. It takes special spin to call that popular let alone pretend that it was a "strong majority" that passed the law. Seat after seat lost to pissed constituents, including my very own brand new Congressman Cory Gardner (yeah, the democratic legislators in CO have seen fit to include him in a solid republican seat now, redistricting you know, after he beat Markey).
Click to expand...


That's not responsive to the question. Any number from 1 to 100 will do.
 
Onceler said:
No - but since the trend is overwhelmingly toward more freedom, and since your paranoid rants like this one about some nebulous Presidential "threat" are bogus, and since there is nothing to indicate that the idea of individual freedom will be "dead soon"...well you get the picture...
Click to expand...

naturally, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, until used by a liberal for things like abortion or lax gun laws.
 
I'd only add this: I don't like Obamacare and the hasty way it was done. However, do you consider someone more "free" if they can't afford health insurance, and they aren't able to get even basic preventative care?

What concept of "freedom" does that fit under? The freedom to be poor and have no access to quality, affordable healthcare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top