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

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

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

Message

Arturas -> Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 12:07:46 PM)
Today Obama warned the Supreme Court against ruling against the Mandate on nationwide T.V; He calls it judical activisim. Is it? What does this tell us about a President who feels he has nothing to lose in threatening the Highest Court in the Land doing it's consitutional duty, it's primary duty? It tells me he has decided the Court has voted against him and that he therefore has nothing to lose in taking this very radical and un-Presidential step.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 12:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Today Obama warned the Supreme Court against ruling against the Mandate on nationwide T.V; He calls it judical activisim. Is it? What does this tell us about a President who feels he has nothing to lose in threatening the Highest Court in the Land doing it's consitutional duty, it's primary duty? It tells me he has decided the Court has voted against him and that he therefore has nothing to lose in taking this very radical and un-Presidential step. We could very quickly assemble a list of Presidents similarly at odds with the court. We could also very quickly assemble a list of Supreme Court actions widely accused as "judicial activism." Are you firmly behind all those decisions as well? There's some pretty funky ones. Dread Scott. Schenck. And a whole lot of people don't consider Roe v. Wade settled, or approve the actions of the Warren Court. Just a court doing it's Constitutional Duty...as long as it does what you happen to want. Be interesting to see your take if the Court upholds the mandate.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 12:16:47 PM)
What is un-Presidential about it. The Judicial system is one of three branches of checks and balances, no better or worse than anyone else. Like the old hard-line neo-cons say, we don't want these assholes legislating from the bench. (something this court has done a great deal of).

DomKen -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 12:16:54 PM)
In short BULLSHIT Longer, there is an enormous body of preceent for the expansive view of the commerce clause so the only way to overturn the individual mandate is to ignore that precedent and call into question many other long settled issues, much like this extreme activist court did in Heller and Citizen's United. The President is pointing out that "judicial activism" has long been right wing code for any decision the right wing doesn't like and that by the self serving definitions of such put forth to decry left leaning rulings in the past overturning the ACA in part or in whole would be judicial activism.

Arturas -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 12:22:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Today Obama warned the Supreme Court against ruling against the Mandate on nationwide T.V; He calls it judical activisim. Is it? What does this tell us about a President who feels he has nothing to lose in threatening the Highest Court in the Land doing it's consitutional duty, it's primary duty? It tells me he has decided the Court has voted against him and that he therefore has nothing to lose in taking this very radical and un-Presidential step. We could very quickly assemble a list of Presidents similarly at odds with the court. We could also very quickly assemble a list of Supreme Court actions widely accused as "judicial activism." Are you firmly behind all those decisions as well? There's some pretty funky ones. Dread Scott. Schenck. And a whole lot of people don't consider Roe v. Wade settled, or approve the actions of the Warren Court. Just a court doing it's Constitutional Duty...as long as it does what you happen to want. Be interesting to see your take if the Court upholds the mandate. It either is a court or it is not. Since it is then one must not pretend it is something else. Especially the President. Should it reverse it's pending rulling against the Mandate then we simply move to a south seas island, fish, enjoy native girls in grass skirts and don't worry and be happy.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 12:24:12 PM)
reverse its pending ruling? you don't think that it may be way to early to take a wait-and-see attitude on that, before we get into some fencesitting? LOL. amazingly ridicoulous

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 12:25:01 PM)
So it's a court as long as it does what you want it to do. Enjoy the health care in the South Seas.

lovmuffin -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 1:18:11 PM)
Isn't judicial activism creating a law where none exists ? Everything the president was whining about, even what may have been true, had nothing to do with the question of the constitutionality of the mandate within the law in question. At least he should wait till the decision comes down till he begins to chastise the court.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 1:25:01 PM)
Yes and no. Complaining after the fact is pointless. Making a case before the decision is at least reasonable. Look at this and related threads. Who's waiting? Judicial activism is nothing more than the catch phrase for "we didn't like what you did, even though you're acting within the law." With it is the inherent accusation of acting politically rather than purely judicially, and that's a criticism this court has either earned or at least created the impression of deserving the label, as have other courts past (Schenck and Dred Scott were purely political punitive measures). Obama's remarks reveal one thing clearly--he's running for re-election. Now we know.

PatrickG38 -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 1:43:30 PM)
The Supreme Court is not immune from sharp criticism and this Court well deserves it. Lincoln (before becoming President) excoriated the Supreme Court for Dred Scot. TO strike down this mandate would be fairly naked political act in the footsteps of other such acts, Bush v. Gore, Citizen’s United. I still expect a 5-4 or 6-3 decision upholding the law. Nevertheless, to throw out a democratically enacted piece of legislation meant to address a national problem that is fundamentally an exercise of the taxing power would be most activist. Conservatives used to believe elections have consequences. By the way criticism of this Court is bipartisan. Just listen to John McCain on Citizens United.

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 1:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Today Obama warned the Supreme Court against ruling against the Mandate on nationwide T.V; He calls it judical activisim. Is it? What does this tell us about a President who feels he has nothing to lose in threatening the Highest Court in the Land doing it's consitutional duty, it's primary duty? It tells me he has decided the Court has voted against him and that he therefore has nothing to lose in taking this very radical and un-Presidential step. We could very quickly assemble a list of Presidents similarly at odds with the court. We could also very quickly assemble a list of Supreme Court actions widely accused as "judicial activism." Are you firmly behind all those decisions as well? There's some pretty funky ones. Dread Scott. Schenck. And a whole lot of people don't consider Roe v. Wade settled, or approve the actions of the Warren Court. Just a court doing it's Constitutional Duty...as long as it does what you happen to want. Be interesting to see your take if the Court upholds the mandate. THIS....the thread is now done.There is nothing more to say on this issue. Tim covered it completely,anything over and above this is just so much partisan bullshit [8\|]

subrob1967 -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 2:37:58 PM)
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\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 2:40:04 PM)
how is the separation of powers being ignored, in any sense? the notion is pure senselessness.

DomKen -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 2:45:23 PM)
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.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 2:48:08 PM)
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\|] Or judicial branch. Or legislative branch.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 2:49:53 PM)
And Gingrich, lets not forget, whos only smart idea ever in his lifetime was to bring SCOTUS down for investigations, and brought to task, or interrogated regarding their decision processes in the congress, as they do for the executive and legislative branches.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 2:51:05 PM)
The only branch that matters today, Ron, is the Talk Show Branch.

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 3:40:55 PM)
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\|] Explain to me how the President is IGNORING the separation...as a matter of fact explain how this President,or for shits and grins any President,can ignore the court. Or are you suggesting this President,unlike others before him,is somehow barred from commenting on the issues before the court ?

subrob1967 -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 3:51:09 PM)
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.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama warns the Highest Court in the Land against "Judicial Activision" (4/3/2012 3:56:31 PM)
What line would that be? there really isn't a separation of powers defined, there is a delineation of powers, but checks and balances is in force in the constitution of these United States. What checks and balances are there to weigh against the Judiciary? Because by the same token, a congress that does not rubber stamp the president, or vice versa would seem to be out of line in the constitution you are dreaming of that doesn't exist.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875