RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision"

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

kalikshama -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 6:47:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi 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. That's my philosophy as well.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 7:25:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So it's a court as long as it does what you want it to do. Enjoy the health care in the South Seas. Quite the opposite. It is a court and needs no permission from me or the President to do what it is charged to do. If it rules against my wishes I accept it and either live with it or don't by going to the south seas, chasing grass skirts and so on.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 7:37:22 AM)
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? No. That is the job of Congress. The job of the Supreme Court is not to decide on how good a law is or if it is needed but to decide if it is legal, if it is Constitutional. On a related note, the control on the Supreme Court are the various justices. The President has no authority on the court nor any control over it other than to appoint justices when they retire. The Court is however a very powerful check on the Un-consitutional laws and Executive Orders by the President, as designed by the Founding Fathers. So, the President suggesting the Court must not rule against a law enacted by "the will of the people", because it was passed by a majority and in his view is much needed and if they rule agains that law then it will make things very difficult, is completely wrong. Period. Because it is the job of the Court to do so if that law is un-Constitutional and it has full authority to do so. Period.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 7:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. You actually think he has a second term when the ACA is ruled illegal? I suggest his Presidency is collapsing before our very eyes. The proof is in his little show to intimidate the Highest Court in the Land yesterday. Amazing. My only worry is he still will have power until January 20 and he is clearly melting down by blaming the Supreme Court for his worst failure.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 7:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle 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 ... No. They took care of that on Monday as well as deciding the Mandate was not a "tax". Then decided the Mandate was Unconstitutional on Tuesday and wrapped this up on Wednesday bu deciding not to seperate Obamacare from the Mandate which put the whole Obamacare thing a small footnote in History. Did you not get the memo?

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 7:56:31 AM)
Uh, they have decided no such thing, that notion is asswipe. They heard oral arguements and have yet to render the opinion. Any obiter dicta that you perceive to be as law needs to go to wisconsin to be sorted out with and woven into the magna carta.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 7:58:13 AM)
quote: Did you not get the memo? No one has. They only finished oral arguments.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:01:15 AM)
Jeeze, are you kidding. Why would the Founding Fathers allow free men to be forced to buy something even if they did not want it? Think about it for a second and ignore BS about "commerce clauses". Do you really think it is Ok for the Government to make you buy something and even penalized you and even jail you if you do not buy it and you must buy it just because you live in America? It's not like car insurance where you only have to buy it to drive and so you have a choice. It's not like income tax where you only pay it if you choose to work and if you don't work then nobody requires you to pay it or go to jail. Come on, get real. The fantasy is over. No entitlements. No free lunch. No Obamacare. The Court is saying "No" to an requirement the Founding Fathers would have though more likely to come from a despot, a King or a Dictator and the Supreme Court is our Saviour here, not Obama. Obama is the despot. A King wannabee trying to change America into a state of serfs working and paying whatever the Government wants at the Governments pleasure. It is the people who control the U.S. Goverment and not the other way around. Then. Now. Always.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:02:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Did you not get the memo? No one has. They only finished oral arguments. I think Obama got the Memo.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:02:41 AM)
quote: Why would the Founding Fathers allow free men to be forced to buy something even if they did not want it? Like defense spending? Including billions on things the military doesn't even want or need?

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:08:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Uh, they have decided no such thing, that notion is asswipe. They heard oral arguements and have yet to render the opinion. Any obiter dicta that you perceive to be as law needs to go to wisconsin to be sorted out with and woven into the magna carta. Yeah. Okay. Sure. It's okay. Obamacare is fine. The President is unconcerned. Pelosi is unconcerned. They clearly side with you and are confident their law is clearly what the Founding Fathers had in mind for each free American when they founded this State. Yup, buy this or you go to jail. That is it in essence. Nice law. Okay.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:09:45 AM)
Not what he said at all, is it.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:13:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Why would the Founding Fathers allow free men to be forced to buy something even if they did not want it? Like defense spending? Including billions on things the military doesn't even want or need? That is a Diversion. You have been watching MsNBC too long. I am taxed for common defense spending if I work. I don't pay for defense spending if I don't work. The Founding Fathers provided taxation to finance the military for "the Common Defense" of us all. But not Obamacare. Not even mentioned. Nor are Contraceptives btw.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Not what he said at all, is it. Correct.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:22:06 AM)
I don't even own a television, nitwit. The TV obsession is yours. Beyond your ignorance of opportunity cost (you are still affected by how public money is spent if you aren't working), the ACA allows several provisions for low income/unemployed. 2014 and beyond You'll be required to have health insurance if you're a U.S. citizen or legal resident. If you don't get it from work, on your own, or through a public program like Medicaid or CHIP, you'll have to pay a penalty, starting at $95 a person in 2014 and increasing steadily after that. But you can appeal the penalty if you can't afford coverage. Insurance "exchanges" will open States will have to open health-insurance "exchanges"—mostly web-based marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can compare and buy health insurance. All plans must offer a comprehensive set of benefits. Exchanges must also help people enroll in Medicaid or CHIP if they're eligible. Insurance subsidies In the exchanges, families and individuals who meet certain income requirements will get subsidies in the form of reduced premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Subsidies will be based on income, with more help for lower-income people. But some help will be available for families earning up to almost $90,000. Expanded criteria for Medicaid People younger than 65 with income less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid. In 2014, the income cutoff is expected to be about $15,000 to $16,000 for individuals and $30,000 to $32,000 for a family of four. http://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/health-insurance/making-sense-of-health-reform/health-reform-timeline.htm

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:24:39 AM)
I don't know, I remember coming back from a little dust up out east, and the toilets in the Minneapolis Airport had coin slots on em. I kicked the door in. What do you think the founding fathers would say about the servile corporate capitulists and appeasers? You have some fairly simplistic appeal to emotion arguements, but the lack a certain validity or actual point.

kalikshama -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 8:58:52 AM)
quote: the ACA allows several provisions for low income/unemployed. Someone posts this on every ACA thread and yet it doesn't sink in...

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 9:08:52 AM)
Because it's not one of the "talking points." If sinking in were working, it would bother people a LOT that a Supreme Court Justice is repeating Republican talking points verbatim during oral arguments.

Truthiness -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 10:25:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Because it's not one of the "talking points." If sinking in were working, it would bother people a LOT that a Supreme Court Justice is repeating Republican talking points verbatim during oral arguments. Only if you think those talking points are wrong. I disagree with the majority of talking points of both sides for most things, but this is one issue where I think the Republican "talking points" are pretty much on the nose.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/4/2012 10:45:04 AM)
The broccoli and the ignorance of the constitution are pretty daunting, I have to agree.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125