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

reply to post by AwakeinNM


This just convinces me more that Obama wants to change the way our government runs... Of course the Judicial branch can overturn a law... it is their job to do so if the law is unconstitutional! If Obama disapproves of the 3 branches of government and how they balance one another out he should not be president of America..... Because that is how we roll. Checks, Balances and LIBERTY FOR ALL!

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Apparently, the dictator in chief (purposely placed in lower case) thinks that the 3rd branch of government is a waste. He already said he'd act if Congress didn't, basically saying the 2nd branch of government is a waste. This guy is dangerous, and November can't get here quick enough.

You're obviously one of those who don't realize that whether or not you disagree with the current Commander-In-Chief, by not stating the position as The President, you're disrespecting the office, not the man.

Just like Sean Hannity, who insists on calling President Obama "The Annointed One", he's being disrespectful to the Office of The President, not the ACTUAL President.

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by muse7

 

LOL, I love the irony don't you! America will literally break the bank to wage war but try and spend a fraction of that on fixing healthcare? Boy do we have our priorites backward!

This is inaccurate. America already spends more on their healthcare than on almost any other country, and have some of the worst coverage for the average person in the Western World.

American Government simply isn't getting value for money for what they spend on healthcare.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I have some preexisting issues. Before Obama Care I could get private coverage for around $12,000 a year. Now it's over $20,000, which I cannot manage. I looked into the Federally funded version and it costs even more; in fact for me it would be $1,760.00 per month. Thank you Obama, now I can't get any. Only 120 people total have benefited.

The entire thing was smoke and mirrors.

My sister is insured through the pre-exisitng program "Obamacare". First time she has had coverage in 6 years....and she has a heart condition, plus cancer survivor..and her monthly bill through Obamacare is $249, only slightly more than mine through BC/BS. So $1,760 smells to me. What state?

Originally posted by babybunnies
You're obviously one of those who don't realize that whether or not you disagree with the current Commander-In-Chief, by not stating the position as The President, you're disrespecting the office, not the man.

Just like Sean Hannity, who insists on calling President Obama "The Annointed One", he's being disrespectful to the Office of The President, not the ACTUAL President.

If the new position of President has morphed into a role of dictator, then yes, I have no respect for the office, or the man.

Hannity is a partisan hack.

Originally posted by PotKettle
You realize that warn and threaten are two different concepts don't you? If Merriam-Webster are to believed then yes the President did warn the Supreme Court. Thanks for the faux-outrage though.

No offense, but you seem confused. What are you talking about "threaten" vs. "warn"??? I didn't use the word "threaten" and he did niether and I provided the transcripts to show the same.

If some net journalist whose compensation depends on number of hits decides to spice up a headline, that does not alter reality.

Originally posted by tkwasny

The SCOTUS knows if they join the ranks of the other 2 branches and demonstrate corruption, the 4th branch will take action.

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

And if that were to happen, there will be blood... (I had to fit that in somewhere )

On a more serious note, yeah the people will rise up and open a can on our servants (even though they think they are in charge)

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

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.

Well, in the hearings they specifically said it was not a "tax" - but then it's claimed it IS a "tax" if that furthers the agenda of the speaker.

Here's the problem with that line of thought - since when is a "tax" paid to a private corporation?Wouldn't that just blow the whole corporate ponzi scheme of skimming taxes wide open, right out in front of God and everybody?

Make up your mind - is it a "tax", or is it not? If it is, where does the Constitution provide that Congress can levy that we pay taxes to private corporations? Where does that stop? Can I form a corporation and force you to pay taxes to me then?

The Supreme Court has basically a fascist agenda -- and they don't want anything that helps the average worker in this nation if they can help it.

"fascism" is defined as the merger of corporations and the government, to the point that corporations RUN the government. I do believe that being forced to pay "taxes" to a corporation goes a long way in furthering that agenda, so you might want to rethink your logic on this one.

I'm not a fan of Obama -- but he TRIED to do one thing, while sacrificing so much for the public good to the Oligarchs on every front.

not sacrificing so much FOR the public good to the Oligarchs, sacrificing so much OF the public good to the Oligarchs. There, fixed that for you.

The SCOTUS barely bothers with legal precedent or Constitutional justifications anymore -- they clearly are creating law by interpreting things that fall in line with their agenda. Everything Conservatives have said is kind of true -- but about themselves. Activist Judges are real -- but they work for Corporations and the Vatican it seems.

They are not "creating" law - congress already did that. What they are doing is looking at precedent and already written law to find if the law Congress wrote is in violation of what already IS.

Originally posted by memnoch25

The Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional power to strike down laws passed by the Congress and the President. That power resides with you and me, it's called elections. They have been over stepping their power for decades.

Um. that is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Why else would they exist? Are ya ignant? (rhetorical question)

reply to post by milominderbinder

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
Will be back later. LOL, maybe a conservative will have put forth a good alternative to Obamacare, where EVERYONE GETS TO SEE A DOCTOR and have equal treatment, because MONEY IS NOT GOD. I won't hold my breath, though. You all are more heartless than the crack dealers on the corner.



I'm not in the USA but howabout if you stopped bombing the # out of the brown people in the world and being the 'democracy' spreading war mongering policeman?

Would that not pay for some of it? Or is that too simple?

I agree with him. Bring our troops home and let them slaughter each other. No more relief efforts, no more UN forces. Just let them go ape**** on one another. Call us when you're done. How much $$ would that save?

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Apparently, the dictator in chief (purposely placed in lower case) thinks that the 3rd branch of government is a waste. He already said he'd act if Congress didn't, basically saying the 2nd branch of government is a waste. This guy is dangerous, and November can't get here quick enough.

You're obviously one of those who don't realize that whether or not you disagree with the current Commander-In-Chief, by not stating the position as The President, you're disrespecting the office, not the man.

Just like Sean Hannity, who insists on calling President Obama "The Annointed One", he's being disrespectful to the Office of The President, not the ACTUAL President.

No I pointedly do not respect the man-child who has made a mockery of the Office of The President.

Um. that is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Why else would they exist? Are ya ignant? (rhetorical question)

reply to post by tangonine


Have you ever actually read the Constitution? Article 3, section 2 creates the Supreme Court and it says that, "The Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on issues as to law on the fact." It defines about seven or eight responsibilities of the Supreme Court. It can make decisions about treaties, it can make decisions about disputes between the states, there's a bunch of specific things that only the Supreme Court can do. Then it says that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all cases according to law of the fact. It also says that the Supreme Court shall be subject to regulations defined by Congress. It doesn't even have any power to enforce the decisions they rule on...see Andrew Jackson.
The idea was the Supreme Court would basically just be the final court of appeals plus it would adjudicate disputes between the states and that was it. If Congress passed a law that was unconstitutional, the remedy for that would be that the President would veto and if the President failed to veto, if the President signed it, the remedy for that would be that the people would be sufficient horrified by it that they would throw the bums out and replace them with people who would change the law. In other words, the people would be the arbiters of what was and wasn't constitutional.

reply to post by milominderbinder


You know, I was a Republican for a gozilloin years, give or take a few, and will never, EVER, vote for a Republican again. It's not that I abandoned them, but rather they abandoned ME.

Throughout US political history, what has been considered "conservative" and what has been considered "radical" has been fluid, ever changing. The founding fathers were "radicals" whose philosophy became "conservative" when it was entrenched over time. Likewise, the Republicans started just before the civil war with a "radical" agenda, which again became conservative as it was entrenched over time.

I started life as a "conservative", and now find ever increasingly that I am a "radical". What has changed? Not me, not my political thought. What has changed has been the world around me, the prevailing and entrenched thought of the times.

Around 2000, the neocons firmed up their hostile takeover of the Republicans, and it started going downhill from there.. They even changed the color scheme representing the respective parties, switching red for blue and vice versa. Now, I can't find an ounce of difference between the two major parties. They talk a good game, but proceed inexorably towards the same end result, pursuing the same agenda from apparently different angles.

The unpatriotic Patriot Act which you mentioned was one example of their work, promoted by one apparent side of the coin, and ObamaCare is the another example of the pursuit of the same agenda, from the other side of the coin. The important thing to notice is that they are both parts of the SAME COIN.

Radicals like me, who believe in individual liberty and taking care of your own mess in the best way you can find to do so are now the "radicals", and people who think we should rely on everyone else to take care of us, and force them to if they're recalcitrant, are rapidly becoming the "conservatives" of the day, as more and more that philosophy becomes prevalent. That's why I find the recent new-found "religion" of the DNC in trying to foist off the individual mandate on the Republicans so humorous - they're the SAME COIN, just one side playing off of the other, in an effort to keep the population off balance so that they are free to promote their agenda while no one is looking..

Seriously - do they think I care which hand sharpened the knife when the other hand is cutting my throat?

Thanks for the link to the riot agents treaty - that was news to me. I knew they were used throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's. They were mighty damned effective in extracting tunnel rats from closed in places. I see the treaty is from '93, so that is apparently a thing of the past. Since they're still legal for LE use here, I've hedged my bets against their effective use on me. Other folks will have to find their own solutions, though.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by PotKettle
You realize that warn and threaten are two different concepts don't you? If Merriam-Webster are to believed then yes the President did warn the Supreme Court. Thanks for the faux-outrage though.

No offense, but you seem confused. What are you talking about "threaten" vs. "warn"??? I didn't use the word "threaten" and he did niether and I provided the transcripts to show the same.

If some net journalist whose compensation depends on number of hits decides to spice up a headline, that does not alter reality.

edit on 3-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Look up warn in the dictionary and then read the article again. Maybe then you will see why "warn" is applicable.

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Apparently, the dictator in chief (purposely placed in lower case) thinks that the 3rd branch of government is a waste. He already said he'd act if Congress didn't, basically saying the 2nd branch of government is a waste. This guy is dangerous, and November can't get here quick enough.

You're obviously one of those who don't realize that whether or not you disagree with the current Commander-In-Chief, by not stating the position as The President, you're disrespecting the office, not the man.

Just like Sean Hannity, who insists on calling President Obama "The Annointed One", he's being disrespectful to the Office of The President, not the ACTUAL President.

Oh, BOO F---ING HOO.

Liberals don't respect anything about the President or the Office when a Republican is in the WH. The liberal media bashed him for anything and everything at EVERY opportunity. So I don't want to hear about how we should "respect" the office.

Originally posted by memnoch25

Um. that is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Why else would they exist? Are ya ignant? (rhetorical question)

reply to post by tangonine

 

Have you ever actually read the Constitution? Article 3, section 2 creates the Supreme Court and it says that, "The Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on issues as to law on the fact." It defines about seven or eight responsibilities of the Supreme Court. It can make decisions about treaties, it can make decisions about disputes between the states, there's a bunch of specific things that only the Supreme Court can do. Then it says that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all cases according to law of the fact. It also says that the Supreme Court shall be subject to regulations defined by Congress. It doesn't even have any power to enforce the decisions they rule on...see Andrew Jackson.
The idea was the Supreme Court would basically just be the final court of appeals plus it would adjudicate disputes between the states and that was it. If Congress passed a law that was unconstitutional, the remedy for that would be that the President would veto and if the President failed to veto, if the President signed it, the remedy for that would be that the people would be sufficient horrified by it that they would throw the bums out and replace them with people who would change the law. In other words, the people would be the arbiters of what was and wasn't constitutional.

I have read it. Multiple times. and thanks for making my point. I'll quote your direct quote: "The Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on issues as to law on the fact."

I never implied the Court has authority to "enforce," that's the responsibility of the executive branch.

The court is currently ruling on the constitutionality of whether the states (and the denizens... that'd be you and me... therein) are subject to laws that violate the constitution.

Here's section 2:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority"

all cases arising under this constitution. get it?

The thing that should catch peoples attention the most in his words, is his implication that the SCOTUS has never overridden Congress, when in fact that is what they are supposed to do and have done many, many times. Once again he lies and the media ignores it.

I have not checked the numbers yet, but on one report I read it was 181 times they have done so.

Why do people continue to support people who lie to them? Is it ignorance or that they are on his side? Progressives of his bent only make up about 7% of the country from what I gather. They are very loud however.

The Democrats really messed up by not challenging him by running another candidate. How did they let a small portion of the radical part of their Party take them all over like this? I'm guessing it's more apathy than ignorance.

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Obama is right, the Conservative Supreme Court seems to care about freedom
when it infringes upon corporate rights, AKA profits.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that those arrested for even minor violations may be
strip-searched before being admitted to jail, saying safety concerns outweigh personal
privacy rights.

The court’s conservatives ruled against a New Jersey man who was strip-searched after being
mistakenly arrested on an outstanding warrant.

Too bad they have their priorities backwards - healthcare is more dangerous than giving the
government the right to stick their finger up your butt.

Just remember that a Supreme Court backed finger in the butt is equivalent to Obama making such rhetorical and historical insane comments at a conference before our fellow North American National leadership. Pun intended.

ALL HANDS ON DECK!! Wait for it..........Wait for it..........

Ahh, there's the second knuckle we were all waiting for.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

The Democrats really messed up by not challenging him by running another candidate. How did they let a small portion of the radical part of their Party take them all over like this? I'm guessing it's more apathy than ignorance.

You are aware he is leading the GOP presumptive nominee in every poll and most of the swing states?

Obama Surpasses Romney in Swing States
abcnews.go.com...

USA Today/Gallup poll shows Obama leading Romney in key swing states
www.cbsnews.com...



And speaking of veracity...I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that your pre-existing condition under Obamacare costs $1760 a month? Tell me the state and I will tell you the amount.

reply to post by Indigo5


Yep, as per Liberal Leaning Poll givers.

The "My baby is cuter" thing is really really old.


I guess that there scientific polling method is absolute.
From your second link provided

The telephone survey of 901 registered voters living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia was conducted March 25-26 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The telephone survey of 933 registered voters living in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin was conducted March 20 through 26 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Yeah, because a telephone poll of 900 people is the end all, be all