Obama threatens 'unelected' Supreme Court over health care reform

Onceler said:
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?
Click to expand...

this is a natural development of a 'managed' economy, especially from 435 ill educated individuals who think they know what's best for the commoners.
 
OpinionJournal had this to say about Obama's comments. I'm open to hearing where they are mistaken if they are.


President Obama made a statement today whose ignorance is all the more stunning for his once having been a part-time professor of constitutional law. National Journal has the report:

Obama said he was confident Monday that the healthcare reform law will be upheld by the Supreme Court because it is constitutional.

"Ultimately 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 told reporters in the Rose Garden.

Unprecedented? Even Linda Greenhouse would mock him for saying that. Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison?

For that matter, did he sleep through his own 2010 State of the Union Address, in which he upbraided the Supreme Court for striking down portions of the Taft-Hartley and McCain-Feingold laws, both of which passed Congress by wider margins than ObamaCare did?

Come to think of it, ObamaCare passed the House by just 219-212. If Obama thinks that's a "strong majority," he must've slept through arithmetic class at Punahou.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...9829240.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
 
cawacko said:
OpinionJournal had this to say about Obama's comments. I'm open to hearing where they are mistaken if they are.


President Obama made a statement today whose ignorance is all the more stunning for his once having been a part-time professor of constitutional law. National Journal has the report:

Obama said he was confident Monday that the healthcare reform law will be upheld by the Supreme Court because it is constitutional.

"Ultimately 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 told reporters in the Rose Garden.

Unprecedented? Even Linda Greenhouse would mock him for saying that. Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison?

For that matter, did he sleep through his own 2010 State of the Union Address, in which he upbraided the Supreme Court for striking down portions of the Taft-Hartley and McCain-Feingold laws, both of which passed Congress by wider margins than ObamaCare did?

Come to think of it, ObamaCare passed the House by just 219-212. If Obama thinks that's a "strong majority," he must've slept through arithmetic class at Punahou.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...9829240.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Click to expand...


Who really gives a shit what the hacks on the Wall Street Journal editorial board think about it? Is anyone surprised at what they said?
 
cawacko said:
OpinionJournal had this to say about Obama's comments. I'm open to hearing where they are mistaken if they are.


President Obama made a statement today whose ignorance is all the more stunning for his once having been a part-time professor of constitutional law. National Journal has the report:

Obama said he was confident Monday that the healthcare reform law will be upheld by the Supreme Court because it is constitutional.

"Ultimately 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 told reporters in the Rose Garden.

Unprecedented? Even Linda Greenhouse would mock him for saying that. Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison?

For that matter, did he sleep through his own 2010 State of the Union Address, in which he upbraided the Supreme Court for striking down portions of the Taft-Hartley and McCain-Feingold laws, both of which passed Congress by wider margins than ObamaCare did?

Come to think of it, ObamaCare passed the House by just 219-212. If Obama thinks that's a "strong majority," he must've slept through arithmetic class at Punahou.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...9829240.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's Constitutional. I am not a Constitutional scholar. I know a lot of people here are. I await with interest the written decisions. I also have read that there is concern among cons that if they overturn this it could be used to prevent privatization of Social Security. Wouldn't that be funny? Since I am not a fan of the mandate, I'm not on the edge of my seat over this. Then there was some speculation that in order to prevent this case from being cited as precident in any eventual challenge to any presumed future privatization of SS, the court could pull a Bush V Gore - This decision is for this case only and never to be cited as a Precedent". And I know all of the cons here soooooo concerned about judicial overreach would have no problem if in fact, they did so something that outrageous...you know, again.

However, I do know a threat. The title of this thread is "Obama threatens Supreme court".

And Obama did no such thing. As long as we are all clear on that we are free to move on to the latest diversion from the OP fail.
 
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...

The Hunger Games was a good movie. But it is more along the lines of what Obama wants than what STY wants. Obama wants that type of federal power.
 
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...

I'm taking my niece to see it this weekend.
 
cawacko said:
Are they wrong?
Click to expand...

That is Dung's way of debating. Attacking the people who wrote it rather than addressing anything they wrote. For debating him, your response should be:

"Who gives a shit what Dung thinks." ... and leave it at that. Otherwise he will divert the thread into a discussion on why he hates the Journal.
 
Superfreak said:
Wasn't the vote in the House 219-212???... do you really think that is a strong majority?

In the Senate it passed 60-39... on a pure partisan vote.

The House most certainly was not a strong majority. The Senate was.
Click to expand...

So if the SC overturned it by one vote, would that be a strong majority?
 
Superfreak said:
That is Dung's way of debating. Attacking the people who wrote it rather than addressing anything they wrote. For debating him, your response should be:

"Who gives a shit what Dung thinks." ... and leave it at that. Otherwise he will divert the thread into a discussion on why he hates the Journal.
Click to expand...


This is pretty ironic coming from the guy who spews more ad homs than any other poster. Fucking moron.

The Journal editorial board is the go to source for right-wing red meat. Let's not pretend otherwise. It's completely uninteresting. It's like posting stuff from the DNC or RNC. Why bother? You all can carry on as you wish and discuss what the Republican establishment has to say about Obama's comments. I'm personally not interested.

Apparently, the answer to my question is that right-wingers care what the WSJ editorial board thinks. I guess you need your marching orders. Enjoy!
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...
STY is just trying to set up the frame work to rationalize conservative judicial activism.
 
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...
Sniff, sniff....is it me or does anyone else smell burning straw?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
This is pretty ironic coming from the guy who spews more ad homs than any other poster. Fucking moron.

The Journal editorial board is the go to source for right-wing red meat. Let's not pretend otherwise. It's completely uninteresting. It's like posting stuff from the DNC or RNC. Why bother? You all can carry on as you wish and discuss what the Republican establishment has to say about Obama's comments. I'm personally not interested.

Apparently, the answer to my question is that right-wingers care what the WSJ editorial board thinks. I guess you need your marching orders. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Actually I readily admit I am not a constitutional scholar. I wish I knew and understood more but I don't. So therefore I am not afraid to ask others their opinion. If that makes me an idiot then so be it. As I stated when I posted this I am open to hearing where they are mistaken here if they are.
 
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 how virtually all laws are passed. So, are you going to answer the question? What in your opinion is a strong majority?
 
it's almost funny watching some of you people not only beg for slavery, but also appear to be extremely grateful as it comes. well, maybe not funny, more like pitiful.
 
Derp Derp said:
That's how virtually all laws are passed. So, are you going to answer the question? What in your opinion is a strong majority?
Click to expand...

one could consider a strong majority defined as a party losing it's own majority based on the vote of a single act, like obamacare. how many dems retired or lost their seat in 2010?
 
Onceler said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's a step in the right direction. The American people will figure it out. Our health is not something to be traded upon to maximize prophets for some financial institutions. That is what is truly irrational about our system. The market has it's place and maximizing prophets on commodities is one of them. However, my health and yours is not, nor ever should be, considered a commodity. That is both immoral and unethical. A persons health is more important than a companies right to maximise its prophets. That isn't a "socialist" believe. This is a common sense right thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top