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

page: 2
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TETRA.X
 


Like your avatar. So, just exactly how many world leader love the University of Texas!

In my opinion they're signaling their Illuminati friends.




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
It is funny how some act as if it never occurred to them that laws have to be within the authority of the constitution.

When Nancy was broadsided by that question in the presser.



Barry knows, he was a professor of this crap, he knows it is unconstitutional. But he does not care.

He has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.

And no one is beyond his reach. Those Judges are in mortal danger.

Check out my thread on the Pravda story here

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2-4-2012 by kawika because: added link
edit on 2-4-2012 by kawika because: add video



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I just hope that some of the more moderate judges (are there any?) take this as a slap in the face and rule against Obamacare to teach his smack-talking azz a lesson.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I just hope that some of the more moderate judges (are there any?) take this as a slap in the face and rule against Obamacare to teach his smack-talking azz a lesson.


I just hope that all of the Justices understand that what they are doing is listening to ex-ante arguments regarding a portion of the legislation that has not yet even been implemented. What this means is that they are reviewing a policy issue before the fact, as opposed to after the fact - ex-post - and regardless of whether it be ex-ante, or ex-post, that what is at issue here is the rights of individuals. Surely these Justices, regardless of their political ideology, understand that even if they uphold the legislation under ex-ante arguments that this does not in any way preclude further challenges to the legislation in the form of ex-post arguments where individual plaintiffs would have demonstrable evidence that their rights have indeed been violated by this legislation.

In short, rather than Justices rendering a ruling based solely upon their presumed contempt for a Presidents warnings and threats, I just hope the Court does what they've been Constitutionally mandated to do, which is obey the law, and the law is rooted in the protection a right, and failing that offering remedy for the violation of that right.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well, yeah, I would hope they did their job, but you know as well as I do that their decisions are split along party lines. They have not been a subjective body for a long time now.

edit on 2-4-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Thomas Jefferson said that "When you have the accumulation of all powers judicial, legislative, and executive all in one branch that is the definition of tyranny." We are now seeing that accumulation by Obama with his commanding of congress on what they should and should not do, and now with his near threatening of the USSC.

If this tyrant wannabe dictator is allowed to succeed with this absolute and blatant destruction of our seperation of powers and our form of government then I say it will be time for "We The People" to forcibly take our country back and restore the power of government to its rightful place, in the hands of the people.

I would suggest that everyone read The Federalist Papers as well as the entire US Constitution, full Declaration of Independence, and all of the writings of our founding fathers. They were trying to warn us and protect us from exactly this kind of tyranny.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well, yeah, I would hope they did their job, but you know as well as I do that their decisions are split along party lines. They have not been a subjective body for a long time now.

edit on 2-4-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)


Not entirely true my friend. Bond v. United States is a very recent ruling that was unanimous in its decision and that decision was a profound regard for not just the rights of the individual, but those individuals inherent political power. It was one of the greatest gifts the modern high Court has given We the People. It is a reaffirmation that individuals not only have the right to challenge bogus legislation, they have an obligation and responsibility to do so.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
He is sounding more and more like a DICTATOR.


Yes indeed, he sure is... Isn't it funny how the courts are fit to use on every issue they find the right way on. It's only when the courts find in favor of the "other side"...whatever side that is... that people suddenly find the courts to be the worst thing to even come down the pike.


Obama needs to remember he's a part of a menage trois. The Supreme Court is another 1/3rd of that little family at the top and can do to him as much or more as he can to them. They also have the Constitution behind then far more than he does if he really gets stupid about pushing this fight with another branch of Government further. This is really bad for the nation...regardless of the issue. It's going beyond even that with this.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
SOURCE

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.


He is sounding more and more like FDR. When the SCOTUS was considering several of FDR's New Deal plans, and it looked like they were going to quite rightly rule that they were unconstitutional, he threatened to replace them with justices that would rule in his favor. Afraid of losing their jobs, they ruled out of fear (under duress which, ironically, wouldn't hold up in court).

I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama try something just as slimy and underhanded.

/TOA



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


It's been a dictatorship ever since King George II (Bush) took office.


You need to go back a few decades. It's been a dictatorship ever since Wilson took office.

/TOA



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I have a feeling the court is going to strike down this Health Care Law. It also doesn't help his case that he's already bad mouthing the justices. Even though I don't support the right or left I'm tempted go out and vote for who ever the republican nominee is. Obama is a straight up radical that is already crying foul because his own team of lawyers couldn't find a constitutional rational to uphold the mandate.

Beyond that, guess who gets stuck footing the bill for all the people that are below the line and are not required to pay the mandate? The middle class. I don't see how putting what is essentially another highly burdensome tax on the middle class is going to help anyone with health care.

That is why all of the health care stuff is set to go into effect in 2014, by the time middle class America realizes what a burden this is on them Obama will have been reelected and there is nothing we can do about it. Hopefully the Supreme Court strikes the god awful law down.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
If the Affordable Care Act gets repealed then these Supreme Court Justices will be doing a big injustice to the millions of uninsured American citizens that would greatly benefit from this law.

I hope these justices don't let political ideology get in the way of common sense. Common sense being, letting this law go into effect so that millions of families get access to affordable health insurance through the state exchanges that will be established.

The Affordable Care Act, is a step in the right direction.

The middle class has already had to withstand the outrageous cost of the war on "terror" and it's $4 trillion price tag a war that was the product of a Republican cabinet.

Now we have a law that would provide affordable health care to millions of families, and people are suddenly rising up and protesting?

Only in America
edit on 4/3/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


How does the Health Care Act provide access to the "millions of uninsured Americans" and at the same time make health care more affordable while increasing the quality of care? More importantly who is going to pay for all the people that are below the cutoff line that doesn't qualify for the mandate?

Did the "rich" become the majority of the population at some point and I was unaware of this new found fact?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


If the "Affordable Health Care Act" is upheld as Constitutional then the Supreme Court Justices will be doing a great disservice to those whose rights would be violated because of it. Even if it is only a handful who claim a violation of right, that is a handful too many who have had their rights denied and disparaged. The Courts do not have any lawful authority to dismiss one right in favor of another claimed right. If health care is a right, and it is, then that right causes no harm to others. Forcing people to do business with private insurance companies is not the protection of the right to health care, it is the protection of plunder and because of this, the Act is a step in the wrong direction.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
One of the first health care laws in the 1790's was a mandate just like the affordable care act.

So I'm hopeful that this law will be upheld and it will go into effect. either way, these conservative justices have already shown their disdain for the poor uninsured american.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
One of the first health care laws in the 1790's was a mandate just like the affordable care act.

So I'm hopeful that this law will be upheld and it will go into effect. either way, these conservative justices have already shown their disdain for the poor uninsured american.


This is not at all true. In 1798 Congress passed Act For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, which we are left to guess this is what you are referring to. However this act does not in anyway resemble the mandate at issue with the current legislation. I have just read over the 1798 Act twice and could not find any mandate to purchase private health insurance policies.

Indeed, the falsehood you are promulgating stems from a disingenuous article written by Einer Elhauge, a Harvard Law School Profesor, who took this limited health care act of 1798 and combined it with an entirely separate and earlier act (1792) that mandated all able bodied citizens purchase firearms linking them together to establish a "precedent" of Congress' "authority" to mandate purchase of property from private business. This article, entitled The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate, does not cite either Act by name and I had to dig to find the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, and have not yet found the mandate for purchase of firearms act this Harvard Law Professor so ambiguously mentions, but does not cite.

Elhauge does not make mention of any court challenges to these Acts of legislation and it is arguable there were none at that time. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge the 17th Amendment has never been challenged as unconstitutional which does not necessarily make it so, and there is a strong argument that the 17th Amendment is unconstitutional. This assertion made by Elhauge - being parroted by websites across the web - is casually written and leaves many questions, but your assertion that the "1790's" act is just like the current Act is just not true.

edit on 3-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
yes, the supremes are unelected!!

very good mr. obama, now can you tell us why???

could it be that our founders wanted them to be as unattached to the political storms as possible and to view issues in a more logical way, using the base of the constitution as they guideline??
and not be dictated by a mob of illogical voters!!!

for the conservatives who are griping.....
well, it wasn't that long ago that you were gripping that those judges were "activists" and delay was threatening them.
now, it's the dems turn!!

wish both sides just let the judges be judges and park the danged politics at the door!!

no, they are not elected,
sometimes the majority is really, really wrong and desiring to trample down the rights of this group or that.....
the supreme court is there to prevent that from happening!!!



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 



The only way to get rid of a bad Supreme Court is to fire them for partisan favoritism and political activism. And they should be impeached.


The Supreme Court was designed to make sure that the rights of individuals remained paramount in any consideration that involved governmental intrusion.



Dictator?
I would call a dictator a Court that demands Americans (innocent until proven guilty) get strip searched to protect a prison population. This Supreme Court has trashed American rights and freedom to make it easier for a corporate "prison" enterprise to function and so prisoners can be safer? We lose rights so prison guards can to do their job easier? What kind of twisted sick logic is that?
And that is just the latest in a long line of Anti-American dictatorial decisions.

The Supreme Court ultimately determined the results of the Bush - Gore election, and in a 5-4 vote gave the election to GWB and I suspect this was among the courts first foray into actual government intrusion

Giving Person hood to Corporations???

Pandering to the religious right

Recent Supreme Court opinions regarding religion, voting rights and warrant-less surveillance cast a shadow over existing democratic legal protections.


Supreme Court cited “freedom of religion” and the First Amendment as justification for granting religious organizations absolute autonomy in their treatment of their employees and allowing those organizations to escape compliance with federal employment law.


Diminishing Voting rights

In a case decided on January 20, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling requiring a lower court to show more “deference” to a congressional redistricting plan developed by the state of Texas, notwithstanding the fact that the plan is plainly in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The ruling in that case...casts a shadow over the continued viability of the Voting Rights Act and the principle of “one-person, one-vote.”


Permitting Warrantless GPS surveillance

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the contentious case involving the government’s GPS surveillance of an individual in Washington, DC without a warrant.

The doctrine of Scalia and company, falsely proclaiming itself to be the “original” understanding of the Bill of Rights, would limit the protections of the Fourth Amendment to those factual circumstances that could have arisen in 1791. Accordingly, in his opinion in United States v. Jones, Scalia analogizes GPS surveillance to a constable hiding in the back of an 18th century stagecoach to record its movements. Scalia’s “originalism,” as codified in United States v. Jones, places in doubt a long line of precedent grounded in the formulation that the Fourth Amendment applies wherever there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Thus, the Supreme Court’s opinion, beneath the appearance of upholding the Fourth Amendment, paves the way for future attacks.www.wsws.org...


Political winds hit the court system

The court system, with the Supreme Court at the top, was designed to make sure that the rights of individuals remained paramount in any consideration that involved governmental intrusion, a likely outcome given that human beings were to be put in charge of the levers of government, and their natural inclination would be to exert power.

The Supreme Court, of course, was designed to be a check and balance against any overreach by either executive or Congress, or both. That is why for the first two centuries of this great experiment in representative democracy, the courts have been seen by the public as the last bastion against government abuse and the first hope for justice. We have looked to courts as the final arbiters of what is constitutional and the impartial dispensers of justice in a society that at times can be, well, unjust.


...maybe it has something to do with the further politicization of our courts which, in turn, is causing the public’s loss of confidence in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice. And when that happens, there will be no reason to believe that this democracy is worth the effort.www.lasvegassun.com...


edit on 3-4-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   


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


yet nobody remembers him



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I give you this food for thought. In another article here we have been alerted to the effects of propranol. We also have been given thread after thread of articles about chemtrails. Obama has been doing things unconstitutional since taking the white house and no one has batted an eye. We are on the brink of becoming a third world country and no one is lifting a finger to stop it. Are they spraying us with this chemical day and night so we wont care what anyone does? Just a thought.





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join