Do As I Say ...please

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
Obama threatens Supreme Court against striking down his health law

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/


Published April 02, 2012
FoxNews.com

AP

April 2, 2012: President Obama, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, left, and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper take part in a joint news conference in the Rose Garden. President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal healthcare overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.

"I'm 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," Obama said.

The Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments last week in four separate challenges to the health care law, which stands as the president's signature domestic policy accomplishment. A central challenge was over the individual mandate -- the requirement that Americans buy health insurance. Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional, and that the federal government cannot force people into the insurance marketplace.

Obama on Monday said that without such a mandate, the law would not have a mechanism to ensure those with preexisting conditions get health care.

"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional."

Republican lawmakers slammed the president for his Supreme Court comments. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused the president of misrepresenting the implications of a ruling against the law.

"It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist,'" he said in a statement. "Many of us have been arguing for nearly three years that the federal government does not have the power to dictate individuals' purchasing decisions. After a national debate on the subject, more than two-thirds of Americans agree that the Obamacare insurance mandate is unconstitutional."

The president spoke following meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Until the heath care case remarks, the press conference was focused mostly on economic issues, as well as the war on drugs.

The leaders vowed a new effort to boost North American trade and cut needless regulation that stifles it. "Our three nations are going to sit down together, go through the books and simplify and eliminate more regulations that will make our joint economies stronger," Obama said.

Obama noted trade among the three neighbors now tops $1 trillion a year, and he wants to see that number rise.

But notable by its absence from the post-summit news conference in the Rose Garden was the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Obama shelved the plan pending further review -- and has endured ferocious GOP attacks ever since, with Republicans calling the move a blow to job creation and U.S. energy needs. He maintains GOP leaders in Congress forced his hand by insisting on a decision before an acceptable pipeline route was found.

Harper has voiced disappointment with Obama's decision. He also visited China in February to explore alternatives. Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves -- more than 170 billion barrels -- after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/#ixzz1qzxS2mdL


GOP senator accuses Obama of threatening the Supreme Court
By Daniel Strauss - 04/03/12 10:33 AM ET

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) on Tuesday accused President Obama of "threatening" the Supreme Court as it prepares a ruling on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law.

Speaking a day after Obama warned against "unelected" judges overturning the law, Johanns said Obama crossed the line with his remarks.

"What President Obama is doing here isn't right," Johanns said Tuesday in an interview with local Nebraska radio station KLIN. "It is threatening, it is intimidating."


On Monday, Obama said that he was "confident the Supreme Court would uphold the law." He added that it would be "unprecedented" for the high court to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional and said that the court should not act without "judicial restraint" and overturn "a duly constituted and passed law."

The Supreme Court dedicated three days in March to oral arguments over the constitutionality of the law. A number of the justices, including swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, asked questions that legal observers said could indicate strong skepticism of the legality of the law. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that the law was in "grave" trouble after the first day of oral arguments.

Since then, the Obama administration and Democrats have expressed confidence that the law would be upheld while waging a public pressure campaign aimed at court. A ruling is expected in June.

Johanns said Obama is wielding an unprecedented level of power through the healthcare law.

"What is the president saying is that he's saying, 'Look, I get to decide what's right and wrong for every individual in this country through the individual mandate and there is no judicial review. The courts can't interfere with my power.' Well wait a second here, that turns upside-down over 200 years of precedent."
 
Werbung:
every bill SCOTUS overturns was passed by Congress, hardly unprecedented.
as for judicial restraint seems the real issue is legislative restraint, its not their fault if its unconstitutional.
 
BO complains about the power of the SC...actually saying the dumb statement, "they are unelected." WTF!!! Of course they are you silly commie community organizer...whom apparently did not actually study the constitution in law school.

This from a guy who continually goes around the Congress with his executive orders....,which he condemned Bush for using when he was a worthless senator.

CRAZY!!!
 
BO complains about the power of the SC...actually saying the dumb statement, "they are unelected." WTF!!! Of course they are you silly commie community organizer...whom apparently did not actually study the constitution in law school.

This from a guy who continually goes around the Congress with his executive orders....,which he condemned Bush for using when he was a worthless senator.

CRAZY!!!


The unelected remark is so painfully stupid it hurts. Its as though he doesn't realize he wasn't elected by popular vote either. There are good reasons each branch is populated as it is and he he does not even comprehend the meaning of representative democracy he apparently had to have been passed along through high school as well.

Every month that goes by shows just how much of an idiot he really is.
 
Obama: Reagan could not survive in 'radical' GOP
By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent – 11 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — In combative campaign form, President Barack Obama accused Republican leaders on Tuesday of becoming so radical and dangerously rigid that even the late Ronald Reagan, one of their most cherished heroes, could not win a GOP primary if he were running today.
Another dumb remark from BO. If libs and dems believe this crap, they are really dumb.
The Rs are about to nominate Romney who no one would confuse with a conservative, yet BO makes this ludicrous statement that Rs would not nominate Reagan now because they are too radical and rigid.
This guy is a typical left wing hack that believes in leftist absurdities.
 

Another dumb remark from BO. If libs and dems believe this crap, they are really dumb.
The Rs are about to nominate Romney who no one would confuse with a conservative, yet BO makes this ludicrous statement that Rs would not nominate Reagan now because they are too radical and rigid.
This guy is a typical left wing hack that believes in leftist absurdities.

I had to laugh when I read that report. GOP probably wouldn't n ominate Reagan today alright but its because he is too conservative, 'how could he ever win the middle ?' they would wail while gnashing their teeth.

The only way one could consider the more JFK-esque current GOP as radical is by pegging the left so far left as they have gone.
 
I find it funny people credit Obama with great knowledge about the constitution when he has yet to ever show he has much if any knowledge about the constitution.
 
I find it funny people credit Obama with great knowledge about the constitution when he has yet to ever show he has much if any knowledge about the constitution.

there was a reason he did some guest lecturing on the Constitution, called 'suspension of disbelief' in movie making. is there many universities that would have a problem with someone teaching that take on it such as BO has ? we know who his friends are in Chicago and their relationship to the school.

just sayin...
 
I find it funny people credit Obama with great knowledge about the constitution when he has yet to ever show he has much if any knowledge about the constitution.
other than being a professor of Constitutional law, no, he has no credentials at all.

(yes, folks, that was sarcasm, in case you were wondering)

What I seem to be missing in this thread is what "threat" he made to the SCOTUS. Of course he doesn't want the court to overturn a law he supported. Naturally, he thinks the law is constitutional. So, if the decision goes against him, what is he going to do about it?
 
other than being a professor of Constitutional law, no, he has no credentials at all.

(yes, folks, that was sarcasm, in case you were wondering)

What I seem to be missing in this thread is what "threat" he made to the SCOTUS. Of course he doesn't want the court to overturn a law he supported. Naturally, he thinks the law is constitutional. So, if the decision goes against him, what is he going to do about it?

campaign.

I doubt he risks another constitutional crisis but if he can gin up sufficientr public outcry then maybe it gets repassed sans the mandate and any other thing found afoul despite the cost. But mainly its just a fit of pique most unbecoming a president. A threat is what FDR did as it had teeth.
 
other than being a professor of Constitutional law, no, he has no credentials at all.

Having a degree or teaching a subject means bubkis when you have someone that does not make statements that support him being an expert, heck, often do not show him having much understanding of the constitution.
 
other than being a professor of Constitutional law, no, he has no credentials at all.

(yes, folks, that was sarcasm, in case you were wondering)

What I seem to be missing in this thread is what "threat" he made to the SCOTUS. Of course he doesn't want the court to overturn a law he supported. Naturally, he thinks the law is constitutional. So, if the decision goes against him, what is he going to do about it?

What is he going to do about it???....well I will tell you what I think he will do. He will demonize the SC, ALL Rs, and claim that extremists are working to destroy America and make it so only the rich prosper (which just happens to be HIS goal...funny how that happens). And, you will dutifully believe him.
 
campaign.

I doubt he risks another constitutional crisis but if he can gin up sufficientr public outcry then maybe it gets repassed sans the mandate and any other thing found afoul despite the cost. But mainly its just a fit of pique most unbecoming a president. A threat is what FDR did as it had teeth.
Sure, it has to do with the campaign, and yes, the SCOTUS overturning the heart of a law he supported would be a blow to that campaign. What I'm missing is how he is threatening the SCOTUS, or how he even could.

The judges will decide what they will decide. None of them has to worry about reelection. None of them has to worry about his reelection, either. If they make a decision that is unpopular, so what? It's not like anyone is going to do anything to them. The SCOTUS decided Roe V. Wade nearly 40 years ago, and people are still b*** ing about it. They decided Brown v. the Board of education even longer ago, and people b*** ed about it for years. If they b**** about this decision, which they will regardless of what they decide, so what? How does it affect the judges?
 
Sure, it has to do with the campaign, and yes, the SCOTUS overturning the heart of a law he supported would be a blow to that campaign. What I'm missing is how he is threatening the SCOTUS, or how he even could.

The judges will decide what they will decide. None of them has to worry about reelection. None of them has to worry about his reelection, either. If they make a decision that is unpopular, so what? It's not like anyone is going to do anything to them. The SCOTUS decided Roe V. Wade nearly 40 years ago, and people are still b*** ing about it. They decided Brown v. the Board of education even longer ago, and people b*** ed about it for years. If they b**** about this decision, which they will regardless of what they decide, so what? How does it affect the judges?


clearly his options at messing with them are rather limited so its the cheek backed by the toothless threat that is inane and tasteless. Sure got that appellate court's attention with the suggestion that maybe he was considering the constitutional crisis. given his history with the SC he presents a very short fuse relative to them. he needs to lose the contempt with peers (well with everyone). the opposite of presidential.
 
Werbung:
clearly his options at messing with them are rather limited so its the cheek backed by the toothless threat that is inane and tasteless. Sure got that appellate court's attention with the suggestion that maybe he was considering the constitutional crisis. given his history with the SC he presents a very short fuse relative to them. he needs to lose the contempt with peers (well with everyone). the opposite of presidential.

BO does need to lose the contempt for his political opponents, but IMO he can't. He is a hard core leftist and they typically can't find it in themselves to debate fairly their opponents, whom they HATE.

I see this as a good thing. BO will demonize Rs and the R nominee to such an extent during this campaign using ridiculous strawman arguments, that only hard core lefties will buy his absurdities. This tactic will cause him to lose voters. I hope!!!

Similar to his efforts in denigrating oil and implementing policies which cause gas prices to raise. BO can't help himself. He just might do things that cause him to lose the election...I sure hope so!!!
 
Back
Top