RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 3:58:51 PM)

Beg all you want.
This is a BDSM adult site,begging is encouraged [:)]
Doesn't make you right...but it just might impress some of our more assertive posters...of both sexes.
Hell you might even get contacted on the other side.....you will still be wrong her,but who knows,maybe you get lucky later [:D]



Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 3:59:01 PM)

quote:

Warning the court to vote his way before they make a ruling isn't crossing the line? I beg to differ.


Then you're not familiar with how democracy works.

Now, if he threatened to arrest them if they didn't vote his way, that would cross the line.




subrob1967 -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 4:30:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Warning the court to vote his way before they make a ruling isn't crossing the line? I beg to differ.


Then you're not familiar with how democracy works.

Now, if he threatened to arrest them if they didn't vote his way, that would cross the line.




We'll see how legal his comment was on Thursday...
quote:

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.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1Uug4Fl



Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 4:35:02 PM)

What a circus.

Calling something "unprecedented" (accurately or not) is certainly legal, and that three Republican judges want an explanation changes nothing either--that's a misuse of judicial power right there...they aren't deciding anything, just tying up court time and making political hay.

What are they supposed to decide? Whether they agree? And whether they do or not, who cares? Nothing happens, nothing is changed.

Hopefully the administration will ignore this nonsense. It's not a legal matter brought to the court, and it's not a charge of anything. Pure political bullshit.

But this crap will make clear to independents why who appoints the judges is important.




dcnovice -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 4:44:36 PM)

FR

I agree with Ruth Marcus that the President's remarks were not his wisest utterance. He was posturing, and I'm not wild about that. But I don't see how he was "threatening" the Supreme Court.

Now FDR's court-packing scheme--that was threatening. Not his best moment either.

As for the three-judge panel--all, ahem, appointed by Republicans--that's pure political theater and a waste of everyone's time.




DomKen -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 5:08:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

It's ok to ignore the separation of power... As long as it's OUR guy in the executive office who's doing it.[8|]

Has the president ignored the Court's ruling? That would be damaging to seperation of powers. Simply stating disaproval with a ruling or possible ruling is not damaging unless you want to condemn Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all of whom condemned the Roe v Wade ruling.


Warning the court to vote his way before they make a ruling isn't crossing the line? I beg to differ.

You can beg all you want. your assertion remains nonsense.



DomKen -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 5:12:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Warning the court to vote his way before they make a ruling isn't crossing the line? I beg to differ.


Then you're not familiar with how democracy works.

Now, if he threatened to arrest them if they didn't vote his way, that would cross the line.




We'll see how legal his comment was on Thursday...
quote:

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.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1Uug4Fl


Now that, blatantly political, action by a court is damaging to seperation of powers and the DOJ should ignore the order and bring a complaint against all 3 judges to the full appelate court.



Owner59 -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 6:43:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

It's ok to ignore the separation of power... As long as it's OUR guy in the executive office who's doing it.[8|]

Has the president ignored the Court's ruling? That would be damaging to seperation of powers. Simply stating disaproval with a ruling or possible ruling is not damaging unless you want to condemn Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all of whom condemned the Roe v Wade ruling.


Warning the court to vote his way before they make a ruling isn't crossing the line? I beg to differ.


Ummmm...he`s asking the court to rule the way America did......when the law was passed.......democratically.

Not an unreasonable thing to ask the court go with the will of the people......yes?



DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 8:06:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Now, if he threatened to arrest them if they didn't vote his way, that would cross the line.


Sad to say that's the only thing which can save the Supreme Court from the Radicals at this point, but does Obama have the balls to arrest them and charge them with treason (which he could do for Citizens United)? No. Sadly. And without taking that essential step, he's just talking through his hat.
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]



DomKen -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 8:12:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Now, if he threatened to arrest them if they didn't vote his way, that would cross the line.


Sad to say that's the only thing which can save the Supreme Court from the Radicals at this point, but does Obama have the balls to arrest them and charge them with treason (which he could do for Citizens United)? No. Sadly. And without taking that essential step, he's just talking through his hat.
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

If they do overturn the ACA he will have a very strong argument during his second term for adding 2 justices to the bench and erasing the far right majority.



subrob1967 -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 8:12:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

It's ok to ignore the separation of power... As long as it's OUR guy in the executive office who's doing it.[8|]

Has the president ignored the Court's ruling? That would be damaging to seperation of powers. Simply stating disaproval with a ruling or possible ruling is not damaging unless you want to condemn Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all of whom condemned the Roe v Wade ruling.


Warning the court to vote his way before they make a ruling isn't crossing the line? I beg to differ.


Ummmm...he`s asking the court to rule the way America did......when the law was passed.......democratically.

Not an unreasonable thing to ask the court go with the will of the people......yes?



Bwahahahahahaaaaa AH Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa Your dream world is just about to end.



Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 8:44:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Now, if he threatened to arrest them if they didn't vote his way, that would cross the line.


Sad to say that's the only thing which can save the Supreme Court from the Radicals at this point, but does Obama have the balls to arrest them and charge them with treason (which he could do for Citizens United)? No. Sadly. And without taking that essential step, he's just talking through his hat.
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

Wow.

If he took that step, it would be the end of U.S. democracy.

The House could impeach Justices, but that would be an unlikely and very messy scenario.

I prefer to elect people who won't pack the court with right-wing ideologues.



SadistDave -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 8:53:56 PM)

Aw, isn't that cute! Little Barry Soetoro is just playing poltics again. If it passes, he looks good to his base and maybe they'll show up at the polls. If it doesn't then he'll have his people primed for the re-election wailing and gnashing of teeth that will distract his drones from his record.

Well, if you're gonna talk shit Barry, be careful who you piss off...

-SD-



slvemike4u -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 9:10:08 PM)

Who is Barry Soetoro ?



truckinslave -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 6:25:05 AM)

quote:

Warning the court to vote his way before they make a ruling isn't crossing the line? I beg to differ.


And he's done it before, in his SOTU address, quite wrongfully excoriating the Court for SCOTUS.
He's making enemies needlessly, recklessly.
It's almost as though he thinks he is addressing first-year law school students.
Is it simply narcissism?

Whatever it is, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is pretty clearly telling him STFU, this is a battle you can't win....



truckinslave -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 6:26:17 AM)

quote:

What checks and balances are there to weigh against the Judiciary?


Same as against POTUS. Impeachment.



thishereboi -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 6:30:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Who is Barry Soetoro ?


I didn't have a clue either, so I googled it and found this. http://democracy-project.com/2008/08/is-it-barry-soetoro-or-barack-obama/ I am guessing he meant Obama and wants everyone to know he is sitting with the birthers on this issue. Personally I think it's good when someone does this. Then I know if I should bother reading any more of their posts for anything more than a good laugh.



truckinslave -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 6:30:19 AM)

Owner59 must not have read the polls on Obamaocare. Unsurprising.



truckinslave -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 6:32:20 AM)

quote:

If he took that step, it would be the end of U.S. democracy.


That might be a little strong.
In what court would they be tried?
What's to stop Congress from impeaching him for it?
And, not even I think he is that stupid.



farglebargle -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 6:40:12 AM)

Did EVERYONE here miss the entire point? Which is that by trashing the healthcare act, they subvert their own rulings on the Interstate Commerce Clause? That means that the US would lose the ability to run the Drug War, since that's what the 1974 Drug Control Act is predicated on.

Unprecedented? Hell yeah... The USSC affirmed the ICC in Gonzales v. Raich ...




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875