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

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You know, I think that's the way it's supposed to work to begin with, but it has come to the point where the lawyer is the "mouthpiece" rather than an advisor, and does ALL the talking and thinking. The client is just there to help the LAWYER instead of vice versa.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You know, I think that's the way it's supposed to work to begin with, but it has come to the point where the lawyer is the "mouthpiece" rather than an advisor, and does ALL the talking and thinking. The client is just there to help the LAWYER instead of vice versa.

You are absolutely correct. This is why the Constitution guarantees the right to assistance of counsel instead of an attorney or lawyer. Interestingly, the Miranda ruling came with a mandated little speech for law enforcement arresting someone which "informs" people they have a right to an attorney. It may just be quibbling on my part, but I believe that this mandated speech read the way it is, in both reality on television, films, and plays, and in novels, has created a meme that has contributed to the notion that people must "remain silent" and acquiesce to their attorney.

Remaining silent is prudent, but not in court, and when a judge asks who represents the attorney, and you are there, why would you let someone else stand up and claim they represent you? You are there! What representation do you need? What you need is assistance of counsel - and I mean you personally because you have a firm grasp of the law so you do not need anything more than assistance. Someone t help you dot the i's and cross the t's, and advise.

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
SOURCE

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care 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.

Really? Who does this guy think he is? He does not hold sway over the Supreme Court. He does not hold sway over Congress. Last I checked there were THREE distinct branches of government, and he is only ONE of them. Sorry, did I learn this wrong in school?

He is sounding more and more like a DICTATOR.

To hear that Obama "questioned how an 'unelected group of people' could overturn a law approved by Congress" is a real jaw dropper.

Wasn't he supposed to be something of a constitutional scholar? Sounds like he skipped most of his constitutional law classes, inckuding Con Law 101. If he had attended any he'd know how utterly lame that statement is.

Deciding the constitutionally of laws enacted by Congress in cases properly raising such issues is one of the primary roles of the Supreme Court. Overturning unconstitutional laws, like Obamacare, is the Supreme Court's job.

edit on 4/4/2012 by dubiousone because: Spelling & content correction

It actually appears that Obama is "on something". He's gone full-blown manic, it seems.

He's determined to point fingers, while dividing the classes and races.

All we need is a Night of Broken Glass.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Remaining silent is prudent, but not in court, and when a judge asks who represents the attorney, and you are there, why would you let someone else stand up and claim they represent you? You are there! What representation do you need? What you need is assistance of counsel - and I mean you personally because you have a firm grasp of the law so you do not need anything more than assistance. Someone t help you dot the i's and cross the t's, and advise.

I've seen the insides of a lot of court rooms, because I've not always been the loveable, easy-going, Laid-back old curmudgeon that I am today. Believe it or not, I used to have a knack for ticking folks off. As a matter of fact, I once had a bailiff ask me why didn't I just set up a cot in the court house basement I've never had a lawyer represent me but two times, both of those civil. One was a divorce, where I paid him to do the paperwork and no one ever even went to court, and the other was a child custody case. Whenever I've been to criminal court, I've always represented myself, and almost always came out relatively unscathed, and have yet to spend a day in jail since I was about 14 years old - I did a week in juvie back then, and I had it coming to me. It was a fair sentence and a lesson learned

The old saw that says "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client" was, I feel sure, propagated by lawyers to drum up business.

reply to post by nenothtu

The old saw that says "the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client" was, I feel sure, propagated by lawyers to drum up business.

I am sure of it. I was going to make this point in my last post, but for some reason decided against it, but given your post, I find it worth mentioning that attorneys are licensed by the state, which means they swear a fealty to the court. This creates a profound conflict of interest for people who sign over power of attorney in order to use them as "representatives". Indeed, lately the adage would be more accurate if it went:

The man who turns to an attorney for representation has a fool for an attorney while being the fool as a client.

A case of the fool leading the fool.

Just thinking but doesn't The President now have the right to kill (assasinate) Americans considered to be a threat hmmmmm?

Originally posted by brice
Just thinking but doesn't The President now have the right to kill (assasinate) Americans considered to be a threat hmmmmm?

I agree, Hmmmmmmm?
It looks like it's OK, with our Justice Department, Eric Holder, Would that surprise anybody?
Obamas Henchmen Eric Holder says:

Trust us, Attorney General Eric Holder says -- we'll only assassinate Americans after administrative "due process." That's not how the Constitution works, buddy.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama's claim that he has the authority to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat.

Not to Worry,,,, Obama Cares about his Sheeple,,,,, Really,,,

Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama, or his successor, would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar "trust us" approach to civil liberties of this administration.

Yes, read that part very carefully,,, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care.

Again Obama Fans,,, While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama, or his successor, would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar "trust us"

Trust Us????? Now That's Funny!!!!
Like trusting in Obama Care, and his Shovel Ready Jobs,,,, Remember That?
Here is about as Shovel Ready as you'll get with Obama.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

"If you see something...say something", right?

Seems to me every man, woman, and child ought to be calling the "Terror Hotline" at DHS and reporting that Dick Cheney appears to be behaving suspiciously and always has been, for that matter.

I would think that hotline is on red alert right now.

People are furious with Obama's "comments".

Worse yet, what was he "thinking" about ?

What would he have really liked to "say" ?

Hmmm.

It's all about perception.

Obama has been "acting" suspiciously for a long time.

What should people do if they see Obama at Wal-Mart ?

edit on Apr-04-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

Obama is becoming unglued. Everyone is turning on him. The Supreme Court, Chris

Matthews and Peggy Noonan are giving Obama a headache.

Now Obama is lashing out at capitalism. He says it doesn't work.

Wasn't Bill Ayers in the news last week bashing capitalism and saying he gets up every day saying that that is the day he will end capitalism.

Well now his manchurian candidate is in office, he's increased the debt by 50% in only 3 years and the economy is in very bad shape.

I'm starting to think the people who are saying Obama is intentionally doing the wrong things to wreck the economy are right.

This healthcare bill is so immense that it alone will do the trick.

They're still writing up the regulations for Obamacare, they estimate they will be over 100,000 pages.

ObamaCare will be killed by the Supreme Court.

We will get the final ruling June 29, 2012.

I think it will be so devastating that Obama may resign July 20, 2012 and

make room for Hillary.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

I think it will be so devastating that Obama may resign July 20, 2012 and make room for Hillary.

It is unclear what you mean by this, but if President Obama resigned on July 20 of this year, or any other day up until the election, then the office of the Presidency would go to his Vice President who is Joseph Biden.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I think it will be so devastating that Obama may resign July 20, 2012 and make room for Hillary.

It is unclear what you mean by this, but if President Obama resigned on July 20 of this year, or any other day up until the election, then the office of the Presidency would go to his Vice President who is Joseph Biden.

President Joe Biden would goof off in the oval office for a few months. Hillary Clinton would

take over for the DNC to participate in the debates.

Hillary will lose but they will have to do something.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am sure of it. I was going to make this point in my last post, but for some reason decided against it, but given your post, I find it worth mentioning that attorneys are licensed by the state, which means they swear a fealty to the court. This creates a profound conflict of interest for people who sign over power of attorney in order to use them as "representatives". Indeed, lately the adage would be more accurate if it went:

The man who turns to an attorney for representation has a fool for an attorney while being the fool as a client.

A case of the fool leading the fool.

Indeed, I have always thought of them as being there to look after the State's interest - "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" as you put it, so that we can reach an amicable accommodation. They explain what the State expects, and how my argument will likely play against that, and that's about it.

They explain where the yellow lines on the road are, and I do the driving.

I hate how this guy uses bullying tactics to get what he wants. There are law trying to be passed to prevent bullying, yet the president of the United States demonstrates bullying on national television. Sorry, it just doesn't make much sense to me. He can use political demonstration without bullying.

Originally posted by brice
Just thinking but doesn't The President now have the right to kill (assasinate) Americans considered to be a threat hmmmmm?

No.

He has the authority to direct others to hunt them down wherever they may be, and bring them in by whatever means are necessary. If that involves a body bag, that's just the way it goes some times.

I think this whole argument is rather entertaining considering, when judges strike down laws such as banning gay marriage, conservatives throw their hands up and yell, "Judicial activism! Judicial activism! They are legislating from the bench!"

But when Obama says the same thing (wrong as he is), he's a dictator and conservatives are suddenly all for the judicial branch doing it's job. I'll remember this next time when the Supreme Court rules in a way that the conservatives don't like and they freak out all over the place.

Just to be clear, I don't think Obama or the conservatives need to be calling out the Supreme Court for overturning laws as "activism" and whatnot.

Originally posted by nunya13
I think this whole argument is rather entertaining considering, when judges strike down laws such as banning gay marriage, conservatives throw their hands up and yell, "Judicial activism! Judicial activism! They are legislating from the bench!"

But when Obama says the same thing (wrong as he is), he's a dictator and conservatives are suddenly all for the judicial branch doing it's job. I'll remember this next time when the Supreme Court rules in a way that the conservatives don't like and they freak out all over the place.

Just to be clear, I don't think Obama or the conservatives need to be calling out the Supreme Court for overturning laws as "activism" and whatnot.

It is not entertaining when the president looks into the camera and lies.

Obama

-- 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.--

-- Unprecedented ??? - Truth be told there are 150 cases in which the Supreme Court

has overturned an act of congress. --

-- Strong majority ??? - Truth be told ObamaCare passed by only 7 votes!

It's hard to look the other way when the president attempts to teach the American

people a lie.

Judge Napolitano: I Think the President Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I think you are premature.
Our Dear Leader said if Congress couldn't act, he would do it himself.
Now, after taking action and ignoring Congress, all he has to do is appoint himself Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Problem solved. No more resistance.

This is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court might as well strike down ANYTHING voted on by the President and Congress if they stop Medical Reform. Congress has the responsibility and power to TAX -- and if they cannot compel payments, then we might as well get rid of income tax and auto insurance as well.

Do you really not get the difference between a tax and Obamacare? A tax is collected for the services of running a country. Obamacare will be a tax collected to pay corporations. It's a bailout, nothing more or less.

/TOA

I don't disagree with your point. What I'm referring to is that Congress has the POWER to mandate this -- and the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench -- pure and simple.

Does the plan suck? Sure. Is it SLIGHTLY BETTER than the status quo? Sure. It sucked back when Bob Dole proposed it as a counter to "Hillarycare" -- personally, I'd prefer we expand Medicare to everyone who wants to buy in, or have Universal Health Care like all the civilized nations.

reply to post by nenothtu


My taxes go to pay Mercenaries in Iraq.

I have no choice but to pay a private corporation for Auto Insurance.

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation and they "charge us" a fee to print money and back it with Federal Notes -- and this creates a built in inflation of money.

I don't think any of those things are GREAT things for the American public -- but yes, there are many MORE examples of Citizens being required to PAY private corporations. This was a deal with the devil to get rid of the "pre existing condition" nonsense they passed off to taxpayers.

In the end, we will save more NET money, because people will get medical attention BEFORE going to an emergency room. Do I like it? No.

I definitely would prefer to wait to buy into insurance only AFTER I get sick -- I'd prefer not to have medical insurance companies and for profit hospitals. But I live in America where we have parasitic capitalism on the menu.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by nenothtu

 

My taxes go to pay Mercenaries in Iraq.

Thank you.

I have no choice but to pay a private corporation for Auto Insurance.

Why not? I have a choice - and I choose not to. Why don't you have the same choice? Are you, perhaps, limiting your own choices in favor of convenience?

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation and they "charge us" a fee to print money and back it with Federal Notes -- and this creates a built in inflation of money.

Pity. I don't have a say in how toe government runs their business - I only have control of my own.

I don't think any of those things are GREAT things for the American public -- but yes, there are many MORE examples of Citizens being required to PAY private corporations. This was a deal with the devil to get rid of the "pre existing condition" nonsense they passed off to taxpayers.

I'll wait for one of those examples.

In the end, we will save more NET money, because people will get medical attention BEFORE going to an emergency room. Do I like it? No.

More power to you. I'm not participating in it. If you do, that's your choice.

I definitely would prefer to wait to buy into insurance only AFTER I get sick -- I'd prefer not to have medical insurance companies and for profit hospitals. But I live in America where we have parasitic capitalism on the menu.

It appears you don't understand me - I'm not participating in it at ANY point, neither the insurance nor the hospitals. You do as you wish.

"Parasitic capitalism" allows me the freedom of making that choice.

Originally posted by Dionysus2112
Judge Napolitano: I Think the President Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism

More info from former White House Spokesperson Dana Perino.

Team Obama knew what they were doing.

They rehearsed that line several times before Obama said it in the Rose Garden.

Team Obama has received word from one of the SCOTUS justices ( probably Kagan)

ObamaCare is dead RIP. Now they need a campaign issue.

Make sure you get all 3 words together: Unprecedented : Extraordinary : Strong Majority.

Okay, now we have a new - villain - the big, bad radical/unelected justices on the Supreme Court.

Do you see?
-----
Seek the truth: listen to Dana Perino.