Glad someone else took notice. Obama is in deep shit! What a dummy!
Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Unelected Group’
A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”).
“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” President Obama said.
“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.”
And since making these remarks, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that it has until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.
Yeah, that was a poor choice of words since the Supreme Court has been striking down laws passed by strong majorities of Congress since the Court's inception.
thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, that was a poor choice of words since the Supreme Court has been striking down laws passed by strong majorities of Congress since the Court's inception.
aka, that is the purpose of the Supreme Court. Surprised the "constitutional scholar" could be so clueless. (NOT!)
Obama should have spent more time teaching the Constitution as opposed to putting all his effort into teaching students how to destroy the constitution.
thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, that was a poor choice of words since the Supreme Court has been striking down laws passed by strong majorities of Congress since the Court's inception.
What's worse, his statements against the courts or that he believes Obamacare was passed by a "strong majority"?
Lootifer wrote:Wallowing in others failure, thats productive...
I used to think President Obama was too smart to make these kinds of gaffes. These are things that President Bush did and he was widely lambasted for it. President Obama should be lambasted too. Either he was being stupid or he was being deceitful and attacking the courts is a no-no in the US (and carries a ban of three months for a minor violation).
Lootifer wrote:Wallowing in others failure, thats productive...
I used to think President Obama was too smart to make these kinds of gaffes. These are things that President Bush did and he was widely lambasted for it. President Obama should be lambasted too. Either he was being stupid or he was being deceitful and attacking the courts is a no-no in the US (and carries a ban of three months for a minor violation).
I would be ok if we ban him from using a pen for the next 9 months and 15 days.
Lootifer wrote:Wallowing in others failure, thats productive...
I used to think President Obama was too smart to make these kinds of gaffes. These are things that President Bush did and he was widely lambasted for it. President Obama should be lambasted too. Either he was being stupid or he was being deceitful and attacking the courts is a no-no in the US (and carries a ban of three months for a minor violation).
I don't remember anybody throwing FDR in the clink, and he was literally threatening the courts. Come on, like the Supreme Court is actually above partisan politics. Scalia isn't even trying to avoid using basic Republican talking points.
FDR was above the law in that time. His actions were justified given the alleged necessity of state intervention for "saving" the economy.
In any perceived state of emergency, the executive is usually given broader powers. When the executive + his Cabinet and National Security Council push for a war, the Congress will frequently vote for the war.
Tangent: Libya 2011 was interesting. The president declares war on Libya without Congressional approval. The case is building, but I wonder if he'll be tried for his crimes.
BigBallinStalin wrote:FDR was above the law in that time. His actions were justified given the alleged necessity of state intervention for "saving" the economy.
In any perceived state of emergency, the executive is usually given broader powers. When the executive + his Cabinet and National Security Council push for a war, the Congress will frequently vote for the war.
Tangent: Libya 2011 was interesting. The president declares war on Libya without Congressional approval. The case is building, but I wonder if he'll be tried for his crimes.
Yet, another piece of the evidence to show just how much Obama loves and defends the Constitution of the United States of America.
Lootifer wrote:Wallowing in others failure, thats productive...
I used to think President Obama was too smart to make these kinds of gaffes. These are things that President Bush did and he was widely lambasted for it. President Obama should be lambasted too. Either he was being stupid or he was being deceitful and attacking the courts is a no-no in the US (and carries a ban of three months for a minor violation).
I don't remember anybody throwing FDR in the clink, and he was literally threatening the courts. Come on, like the Supreme Court is actually above partisan politics. Scalia isn't even trying to avoid using basic Republican talking points.
Maybe because "basic Republican talking points" are based in law and reality. Those comments are facts: if the government can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to make any purchase that they deem is good for you or the economy, whether you want to buy it or not.
Scalia does it on nearly EVERY issue. You have to admit that, Night Strike. He is hardly an apolitical judge (if there are any or if there is such a thing).
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Scalia does it on nearly EVERY issue. You have to admit that, Night Strike. He is hardly an apolitical judge (if there are any or if there is such a thing).
He voices the concern of an issues impact on the freedom and liberty of the people on a regular basis? What a biased prick!
GreecePwns wrote:Scalia does it on nearly EVERY issue. You have to admit that, Night Strike. He is hardly an apolitical judge (if there are any or if there is such a thing).
He voices the concern of an issues impact on the freedom and liberty of the people on a regular basis? What a biased prick!
What is Scalia's position on abortion? How does it "voice the concern of an issues impact on the freedom and liberty of the people?" How about his stance on homosexuality, which he decided that states should be allowed to pass bills that exclude homosexuals from anti-discrimination laws? States should be free to discriminate, according to Scalia, if you count that as freedom. What about the death penalty? Or Miranda rights?
Tell me how these stances promote freedom and liberty for the people.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Scalia does it on nearly EVERY issue. You have to admit that, Night Strike. He is hardly an apolitical judge (if there are any or if there is such a thing).
He voices the concern of an issues impact on the freedom and liberty of the people on a regular basis? What a biased prick!
What is Scalia's position on abortion? How does it "voice the concern of an issues impact on the freedom and liberty of the people?" How about his stance on homosexuality, which he decided that states should be allowed to pass bills that exclude homosexuals from anti-discrimination laws? States should be free to discriminate, according to Scalia, if you count that as freedom. What about the death penalty? Or Miranda rights?
Tell me how these stances promote freedom and liberty for the people.
why of course you are going to apply my statement about Obamacare to every other issue ever come before the court.
You and I are obviously going to have different interpretations, different issues we are passionate about. I'll just say that you can't imply that every issue Scalia has ever ruled on was ONLY based on the question of a law impact on freedom and liberty.
I'm just saying those questions need to be asked, and hopefully, every single Fucking time.
Lootifer wrote:Wallowing in others failure, thats productive...
I used to think President Obama was too smart to make these kinds of gaffes. These are things that President Bush did and he was widely lambasted for it. President Obama should be lambasted too. Either he was being stupid or he was being deceitful and attacking the courts is a no-no in the US (and carries a ban of three months for a minor violation).
I don't remember anybody throwing FDR in the clink, and he was literally threatening the courts. Come on, like the Supreme Court is actually above partisan politics. Scalia isn't even trying to avoid using basic Republican talking points.
Maybe because "basic Republican talking points" are based in law and reality. Those comments are facts: if the government can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to make any purchase that they deem is good for you or the economy, whether you want to buy it or not.
Calling something (the individual mandate) Republicans thought up 20 years ago evidence of creeping socialism is not law or reality. It's fucking rhetoric.
And ahh, yes, the slippery slope argument. Fantastic fallacy, that one. All the Massholes marrying their dogs because we legalized gay marriage are proof.
Lootifer wrote:Wallowing in others failure, thats productive...
I used to think President Obama was too smart to make these kinds of gaffes. These are things that President Bush did and he was widely lambasted for it. President Obama should be lambasted too. Either he was being stupid or he was being deceitful and attacking the courts is a no-no in the US (and carries a ban of three months for a minor violation).
I don't remember anybody throwing FDR in the clink, and he was literally threatening the courts. Come on, like the Supreme Court is actually above partisan politics. Scalia isn't even trying to avoid using basic Republican talking points.
Maybe because "basic Republican talking points" are based in law and reality. Those comments are facts: if the government can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to make any purchase that they deem is good for you or the economy, whether you want to buy it or not.
Calling something (the individual mandate) Republicans thought up 20 years ago evidence of creeping socialism is not law or reality. It's fucking rhetoric.
And ahh, yes, the slippery slope argument. Fantastic fallacy, that one. All the Massholes marrying their dogs because we legalized gay marriage are proof.
An individual mandate IS socialism (or at the very least it's not Constitutionalism) no matter who comes up with the idea.
Lootifer wrote:Wallowing in others failure, thats productive...
I used to think President Obama was too smart to make these kinds of gaffes. These are things that President Bush did and he was widely lambasted for it. President Obama should be lambasted too. Either he was being stupid or he was being deceitful and attacking the courts is a no-no in the US (and carries a ban of three months for a minor violation).
I don't remember anybody throwing FDR in the clink, and he was literally threatening the courts. Come on, like the Supreme Court is actually above partisan politics. Scalia isn't even trying to avoid using basic Republican talking points.
Maybe because "basic Republican talking points" are based in law and reality. Those comments are facts: if the government can force you to buy health insurance, they can force you to make any purchase that they deem is good for you or the economy, whether you want to buy it or not.
Calling something (the individual mandate) Republicans thought up 20 years ago evidence of creeping socialism is not law or reality. It's fucking rhetoric.
And ahh, yes, the slippery slope argument. Fantastic fallacy, that one. All the Massholes marrying their dogs because we legalized gay marriage are proof.
How would you explain the continual expansion of the US federal government's scope of authority over the past 200 years--and increasingly so in the past 50 years? That's related to this slippery slope argument, in a more general form.
If you can dodge the Constitution with action A, then why not try it again with action B? Seems like one's chances of success have increased, so why not? Therefore, the slippery slope argument is relevant and true.
