Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, April 5, 2012 15:19
VIEWED: 3220
PAGE 3 of 5

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Now, as posting in the other thread, the Supreme Court has not over turned a major piece of federal legislation in over 80 years. So to do so now would be against modern precident.
]

---

The legislation could pass with every vote in the Senate and House, be signed by the President and universally loved and still be unconstitutional.

As for the last 80 years...I think you'll find that a little off...by 80 years give or take a few months.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It passed by a mere 7 votes in the House, which has 435 members, not 100. But I'M not the one who brought it up in the 1st place, that was Obama. As you can plainly read.

---

Okay, so you know he said strong because of the number of votes? Or could it be he meant the majority that voted for it where strong in their belief in it. As I said, subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And also... the entire drama and circus in the courts over Florida 2000 were nothing less than an absolute joke. All one needed to do was read the instructions on the ballot. Right there, the instructions were plain and direct, as to how to vote. If , at any time while still in the poling station, a voter felt they had a question or needed a new ballot, all they needed to do was ask. Claims of some getting confused, or mis-remembering a vote for 1 candidate while thinking they were voting for another, should have been completely ignored. Once you drop that ballot in the box, your vote is made. Take all the time you want to check things are accurate before so, fine. But try to bitch and phony up excuses for why you "may " have been duped or confused, and still voted the way you did... sorry. Tough cookies.

---

Okay, but that still does not point to bias as you claimed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
The legislation could pass with every vote in the Senate and House, be signed by the President and universally loved and still be unconstitutional.

As for the last 80 years...I think you'll find that a little off...by 80 years give or take a few months.

---

Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court.

Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court.

Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration.
]

---

I was going to mention US v Jones (2011), but you are too narrow in your "landmark legislation" definition. For that we have to go back to Citizens United. That does not eliminate other cases, just that's the first one that comes to mind. There was a case during the Bush admin on Gitmo as well.

I'm sure if you limit your inquiry more carefully you'll get the answer you want. For example, name the number one show on TV and by number one I mean shows on basic cable networks in existence for at least fifty years and whose call letters start with C and whose leading actor is a white male playing a navy cop. The answer is NCIS which proves that CBS is the number one network.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court.

Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration.
]

---

I was going to mention US v Jones (2011), but you are too narrow in your "landmark legislation" definition. For that we have to go back to Citizens United. That does not eliminate other cases, just that's the first one that comes to mind. There was a case during the Bush admin on Gitmo as well.

I'm sure if you limit your inquiry more carefully you'll get the answer you want. For example, name the number one show on TV and by number one I mean shows on basic cable networks in existence for at least fifty years and whose call letters start with C and whose leading actor is a white male playing a navy cop. The answer is NCIS which proves that CBS is the number one network.

---

It's all about the clearification.

Jones, did not strike down federal legislation. Citizen United did strick down federal legislation, but the 36 page bill was not a major piece of legislation in the least. Even if we say it was it to went again modern precedent.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hey, you guys are trying to DEBATE these ijts? Let them have their fun, they enjoy so much finding anything negative about Obama, why ruin their pleasure (and encourage them, to boot)?

What will be, will be. Sabre rattling on both sides. I think it was dumb of Obama to speak the truth; that never pays off in politics. That doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court is currently occupied by a bunch of VERY activist judges. The 2008 election is only the first example, Citizens United as a GLARING example, the fact that Thomas even SITS on the Supreme Court is another glaring example. There is no way in heaven a Supreme Court Justice should have the ties he has, or that his wife should be allowed to do the things she does and he not recuse himself from the health-care issue. It's an affront to American democracy, disgusting, and way beyond offensive. "Activist judges" is a term Republicans have bandied about for decades when referring to judges who didn't do what they want. But nowhere in history do I know of anything as "activist" as taking the election of a President out of the hands of the people, nor anything as obviously egregious as Citizens United. There were very clear agendas in both, and I'm afraid, having gotten away with those and others, the same will happen again.

Of the three branches, at one time the Supreme Court was the closest to nonpartisan. That's long since ceased to be.

Quote:

---

...as a political spectacle, with the eyes of the nation upon them, it was clear to see that we have a large contingent, perhaps a majority, of committed judicial activists on the Court. Only they’re on the conservative side of the ledger. I think EJ Dionne is largely correct:

Quote:

---

Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office?

It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches [...]

---

Here we were in a court of law, and instead of the main topics being settled precedent like Wickard v. Filburn or recent cases like Gonzalez v. Raich, you had the conservative justices picking through the health care law and sounding like talk-radio hosts, with hypotheticals about broccoli and invocations of the Cornhusker Kickback. And while Jon Walker makes a good point about the implications of the Court striking down the individual mandate, and while some of the Justices and even the legal team on the conservative side agreed that a single-payer plan would be Constitutional, in the rare event that a future Democratic Administration passed such legislation, I have no doubt that conservatives would turn on a dime and find another reason to call THAT unconstitutional. And I have no doubt that this set of judicial activists on the Court, at least, would agree with them.

This is not really about protecting the individual mandate – one which doesn’t come with enough of a strong set of social protections to really defend, nor is it strong enough (the penalties are weak, there’s a hardship exemption, and there’s pretty much no enforcement power) for a strong objection. It’s about a majority or near-majority on the Supreme Court quite literally m

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME