Obama VS The Supreme Court

Why Obama Should Run Against the Supreme Court?

(Excerpt) But is the court political? Yes. Politics affects how justices are selected (by the elected president) and confirmed (by the elected Senate), and the justices' political ideologies affect their votes and reasoning. The Supreme Court is not applying neutral, non-political rules. If it were, there would be no 5-4 splits between the conservatives and the liberals on the court. There would be no Bush v. Gore.

There would also be no Citizens United where the Court decided 5-4 that Congress could not limit corporations' "speech" rights to spend unlimited sums buying elections. And the arguments in the health-care case would not have been four robed men who "seemed to adopt the Tea Party slogans"

The court is also political fair game because the court's 5-4 decisions, like other "political" decisions by government officials in a democracy, have had such a profound impact on the lives of Americans. Bush v. Gore gave us a president who lost the popular vote, eventually appointed two more justices, and led us into a war of choice while failing to regulate a financial system dependent on toxic mortgage-backed derivatives.

In Bush v. Gore, five justices had a partisan outcome in mind and then made up the judicial principle to justify it, while claiming that the decision would not be precedent for any future cases. If the five most conservative justices currently on the court strike down the health-care law's individual mandate, the law as a whole would likely be scrapped. That means that people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to get health care because of the court. Millions of young people cannot stay on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26. For millions more, getting sick will mean going bankrupt. These five justices would affect the health care of millions of people, men and women. They cannot change people's lives, "take away their health care," and then expect nobody to criticize them.

Finally, the court is political for a simple but fundamental reason: it sets the rules of our politics.

Both the American public and elected officials should not be afraid of subjecting the Supreme Court -- a decidedly political institution -- to the same political arguments and passions to which we subject the rest of Washington, D.C.

Obama should not shy away from the debate. (End)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-should-run-against-the-supreme-court/255497/

O---BA---MA :cheer: O---BA---MA :cheer:
 
Why Obama Should Run Against the Supreme Court?

(Excerpt) But is the court political? Yes. Politics affects how justices are selected (by the elected president) and confirmed (by the elected Senate), and the justices' political ideologies affect their votes and reasoning. The Supreme Court is not applying neutral, non-political rules. If it were, there would be no 5-4 splits between the conservatives and the liberals on the court. There would be no Bush v. Gore.

There would also be no Citizens United where the Court decided 5-4 that Congress could not limit corporations' "speech" rights to spend unlimited sums buying elections. And the arguments in the health-care case would not have been four robed men who "seemed to adopt the Tea Party slogans"

The court is also political fair game because the court's 5-4 decisions, like other "political" decisions by government officials in a democracy, have had such a profound impact on the lives of Americans. Bush v. Gore gave us a president who lost the popular vote, eventually appointed two more justices, and led us into a war of choice while failing to regulate a financial system dependent on toxic mortgage-backed derivatives.

In Bush v. Gore, five justices had a partisan outcome in mind and then made up the judicial principle to justify it, while claiming that the decision would not be precedent for any future cases. If the five most conservative justices currently on the court strike down the health-care law's individual mandate, the law as a whole would likely be scrapped. That means that people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to get health care because of the court. Millions of young people cannot stay on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26. For millions more, getting sick will mean going bankrupt. These five justices would affect the health care of millions of people, men and women. They cannot change people's lives, "take away their health care," and then expect nobody to criticize them.

Finally, the court is political for a simple but fundamental reason: it sets the rules of our politics.

Both the American public and elected officials should not be afraid of subjecting the Supreme Court -- a decidedly political institution -- to the same political arguments and passions to which we subject the rest of Washington, D.C.

Obama should not shy away from the debate. (End)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-should-run-against-the-supreme-court/255497/

O---BA---MA :cheer: O---BA---MA :cheer:
GO ES SEE! GO ES SEE! NO MORE TYRANNY! GO ES SEE!
 
It's simple, the court is not elected, not subject to "the public opinion" and can tell the president to shove it. How is this a bad thing? They're responsible for law and the constitution, not what "seems popular.


SUPREME COURT
 
I think it will be funny to see Obama take on the Court. It's a fight he cannot possibly win...

Regarding the Affordable Care Act (PPACA) if the Dems get a majority they could vote for a single payer/universal plan which is sort of like ObamaCare, anyway. If one has to spend X amount of dollars for health insurance it would be the same if taxes were raised proportionally. A long shot but it would be one kick in the a$$ for the health care business.
 
I'm not sure attacking the court on a populist stance will help him with independents. it'll probably gather up his retard prole base though.

The comments on the atlantic article say everything I need to say about obama going after the supreme court...
 
Note that this became a hot issue only after the SCOTUS arguments last week. The renewed alarm from the left has been based on the questions from SCOTUS and answers from the Solicitor General - not from any decision the Court has rendered. In other words, mere questions about a limiting principle, and a lack of a decent answer regarding the limits of Congressional power, has caused the left to detemine that it's time to wage a political campaign.


.
 
.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]


It shouldn't be surprising that nakedly partisan questioning from the right-wing justices, Scalia in particular, brought out the renewed alarm from liberals. Scalia even included a reference to the "Cornhusker Kickback," which isn't even in the law. It was a disgrace.
 
It shouldn't be surprising that nakedly partisan questioning from the right-wing justices, Scalia in particular, brought out the renewed alarm from liberals. Scalia even included a reference to the "Cornhusker Kickback," which isn't even in the law. It was a disgrace.

his questions were pretty pertinent. If you've sworn to uphold the constitution, you may in fact be biased in favor of said document.
 
his questions were pretty pertinent. If you've sworn to uphold the constitution, you may in fact be biased in favor of said document.

You need to understand Dung... it is only the 'right wing' judges that can be 'nakedly partisan'. The four 'liberal' judges who had no intention from the start of doing anything other than upholding Obama care... that is ok. But for the 'right wing' justices to ask questions is 'nakedly partisan'.
 
You need to understand Dung... it is only the 'right wing' judges that can be 'nakedly partisan'. The four 'liberal' judges who had no intention from the start of doing anything other than upholding Obama care... that is ok. But for the 'right wing' justices to ask questions is 'nakedly partisan'.


It's not the fact of asking questions, its the questions that they asked, particularly Scalia. I understand that you're a right-winger and that the questioning was done to appease you and to make you happy and to make you love Scalia (which it accomplished!) so I don't expect you to see it as I do, but let's get real here.

Let's take the "Cornhusker Kickback" question. How is that even defensible?
 
It's not the fact of asking questions, its the questions that they asked, particularly Scalia. I understand that you're a right-winger and that the questioning was done to appease you and to make you happy and to make you love Scalia (which it accomplished!) so I don't expect you to see it as I do, but let's get real here.

Let's take the "Cornhusker Kickback" question. How is that even defensible?

Your faux outrage is duly noted. I understand you are a left wing partisan hack. That has been long established. Please do go on with your faux outrage and straw man building.
 
Back
Top