It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism


He was talking at a Trilateral event (Hmmm) !!!

And the Prime Minister of Canada and President of Mexico were apparently there to hear.

Obama actually said the Supreme Court as a bunch of "unelected group of people" !!

And a few other choice comments as well


I assume this really happened



Posted on April 2, 2012 -- Real Clear Politics

President Obama preemptively slammed the Supreme Court as a bunch of "unelected group of people" who will have turned to "judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint" if they decide to strike down his signature legislative achievement, the healthcare reform act.

Obama was speaking at a trilateral event with the Prime Minister of Canada and President of Mexico.

Obama touted the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress."



AND,

"I am confident 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," President Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.

"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said to the White House press.

"As I said, we are confident this will be over -- this will be upheld. I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency," he said.


See the article and the video !!

He nonchalantly makes the comments starting at around 1:08



Is Obama bitter yet ?




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Well, thank you republicans for setting the "judicial activism" precedent, thereby making the supreme court as useless as possible in protecting liberty.

And you did it in the name of curtailing social ills such as women's and gay rights. Good for you, republicans.
Now, we may reap your rewards for generations when it comes to the supreme court actually being able to stand up for the rights of the american citizen.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Excuse me. Does the appointment of 32 Czars by Our Dear Leader qualify as un-elected officials?
Please clear this up for me.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Excuse me. Does the appointment of 32 Czars by Our Dear Leader qualify as un-elected officials?
Please clear this up for me.




not to mention all the cabinet positions too !!

Obama is an oxymoron all by himself.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Why is he so bitter about our Checks and Balances?
Only Obama would slam such a system.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
Well, thank you republicans for setting the "judicial activism" precedent, thereby making the supreme court as useless as possible in protecting liberty.

And you did it in the name of curtailing social ills such as women's and gay rights. Good for you, republicans.
Now, we may reap your rewards for generations when it comes to the supreme court actually being able to stand up for the rights of the american citizen.



Strange as it is.

Obama himself is a constitutional lawyer.

He taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago for something like 10 years !!!

How could it be that this genius along with his genius advisory staff overlooked the most obvious error in ObamaCare ?

The now famous and mysteriously missing "severability clause"


Boy did they blow it !!

or did they ?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Why is he so bitter about our Checks and Balances?
Only Obama would slam such a system.


Well one school of thought is:

It goes totally against the Marxist agenda.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
This story from Fox has better "transcripts" and ObamaQuotes:

Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law



"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.
BUT, what about the U.S. Constitution ? Don't we have it to prevent radical and maniacal conceited arrogance ?



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."



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
So what is obama going to do?

To date, I've know no other President in the History of America to have so threaten the Supreme Court.

He'll use any dirty trick in the book.

I hope this just encourages the SC to vote down obamacare.

If they do, I wonder what he'll do next? He might retaliate in some way or form.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
just for the record;



"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law


he was more or less echoing what he believed to be their POV

so if you are killing him for this POV

well, I hope you can see the irony



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


At this point in history, FDR with his court packing strategy was arguably far more threatening to the high Court than the rhetoric Obama has employed as a preemptive strike to a ruling he always knew would bite him in the ass.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


At this point in history, FDR with his court packing strategy was arguably far more threatening to the high Court than the rhetoric Obama has employed as a preemptive strike to a ruling he always knew would bite him in the ass.





To me the whole health care issue seemed like more of a slight of hand to me..

"This should keep them busy for a while" kind of thing, so whats he doing BESIDES that? We all know a lot of it, but its gotta be something much larger.......

This guy KNEW that there was no way in hell this health care thing would fly.......so why did he need such the huge distraction..........whats the BIG ONE hes got working behind close doors....

This is the question we should be asking



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


At this point in history, FDR with his court packing strategy was arguably far more threatening to the high Court than the rhetoric Obama has employed as a preemptive strike to a ruling he always knew would bite him in the ass.



The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months.



During Roosevelt's first term,[4] the Supreme Court had struck down several New Deal measures intended to bolster economic recovery during the Great Depression, leading to charges from New Deal supporters that a narrow majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.[3] Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, leading them to call it the "court-packing plan".[2]



Sounds like it was an FDR "takeover" plan.

Maybe FDR was taking pointers from Stalin !!

He must have had a plan to fix all the elections too.

Sounds familiar.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I completely agree and believe that government officials have long employed a strategy of competent incompetence in order to aggregate power. Using just the current so called "health care" legislation as an example, I believe the 2,700 pages of legislation enacted were purposefully written in an incompetent (i.e., unconstitutional) manner so that they (those employing this strategy of competent incompetence) can declare that it is not their fault they cannot bend to the "will of the people" in hopes this creates an environment more conducive to relaxation of Constitutional restraints. It is, as it has always been, about power.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
There's really only one justice (Kennedy) that seems to actually take into account the rules set up by the constitution, whether it be the system itself, precedence or downright sense in the matters before them. The SCOTUS is just as politicized as the other two branches, they're not the be all, end all masters of the constitution you all wish them to be.

Scalia echoing republican talking points throughout, even citing the long defunct 'Cornhusker kickback' shows that there is already a level of judicial bias before any ruling comes down. It's consistently 5-4 whereas 50-60 years ago we'd see an obvious majority of 7-2 or 6-3.

The only neutral judges get shouted down, just as the only moderate congressmen do. It's 'us vs. them' in every branch.
edit on 2-4-2012 by links234 because: Edited for clarification.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Kagan leaked the news to Obama and he throws a tantrum and the other judges under the bus while our neighbors watch.
How very Presidential.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



"I am confident 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,"


This is the most striking comment and audacious in its blatant play upon the ignorant masses that will nod their head without even applying an ounce of their gray matter mushed between their ears. Marbury v. Madison would be the instrumental case that any Constitutional "professor" worth their salt, could point to as such an instance when the Supreme Court exercised their authority.

And yet, only one reporter had the gall -- nay the stones -- to call out the President on this. His answer was even more ignorant than his comment above! Kaiser Health News -- VideoThe question was:


Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. Yet that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do or propose to do for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?


The president answers in part with the below....

Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um, we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal.


What a damn dunce. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time -- as I do with any elected official -- but not without at least looking into what they say and/or do. But his ignorance on this is astounding and outright disgusting.

Maybe the president should look up A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp v. U.S. and see that the court has indeed overturned law that stretched economic power grabs via the "commerce clause". What is even more ridiculous is in his answer to the above question, he referenced Lochner v. New York -- a State issue -- not a Federal one.

Many abandon ship with respect to support of many presidents and many cling to them -- as if they have gone all in at the black jack table. Such ignorance -- spoken from any president should scare every damn citizen.




edit on 3-4-2012 by ownbestenemy because: Added link



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I just hope the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare so we can start killin those grandmas. I'm so sick of this socialist Nazi dictator trying to give us healthcare. Come on, Supremem Court, you ruled corporations are people, that every arrest deserves a strip search, and now you must rule against this Obamanation Healthcare. Save us from this oppressive give-the-poor-healthcare dictatorship.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I just hope the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare so we can start killin those grandmas. I'm so sick of this socialist Nazi dictator trying to give us healthcare. Come on, Supremem Court, you ruled corporations are people, that every arrest deserves a strip search, and now you must rule against this Obamanation Healthcare. Save us from this oppressive give-the-poor-healthcare dictatorship.


I thought the existing Medicare isn't all that bad ?

It looked like the ObamaCare plan was to eventually "merge" all age groups into the same system.

And ObamaCare does have a plan for a "review" panel.

And don't forget about those pre existing conditions.

It looks like the "interim" plan already in effect might actually be working ?
In fact, this may also be a preview of the "exchanges" ?

Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP)



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join