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 warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

page: 9
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yep, as per Liberal Leaning Poll givers.


Give it a break...Fox News has Obama over Romney +4...want a dozen other polls? The "liberal media" thing is getting tired.

www.realclearpolitics.com...




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tangonine
 




"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?


Arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...does not imply ruling an existing law unconstitutional. It wasn't until Marbury Vs. Madison case which gave birth to Judicial Review, the claim by the Court itself that it has that power.
Afterwards, President Jefferson wrote that if that decision wasn't challenged by Congress, "Then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo-de-se (a suicide pact). ... The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please."

It was Judicial Review NOT the Constitution.

Get it?
edit on 3-4-2012 by memnoch25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Were I a Supreme Court Justice and I was on the fence about the case, this direct challenge from Obama would certainly push me to rule against it.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yep, as per Liberal Leaning Poll givers.


Give it a break...Fox News has Obama over Romney +4...want a dozen other polls? The "liberal media" thing is getting tired.

www.realclearpolitics.com...


Yep, again. Scientific huh??
Ahead by 4, but margin of error is +/- 4.
Sure sure then. Sure sure.


www.foxnews.com...

How about some facts then.

No President has ever been re-elected with Unemployment where it is.
No President has ever been re-elected with Gas Prices where it is.
No President has ever been re-elected with such low approval ratings.
SO.......................................You go ahead and march forward with your 900 people polled over the phone and the +/- 4 margin of error.

I will stick with historical facts.



edit on 3-4-2012 by macman because: Additon



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

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


That's the amount given to me by the State under Federally funded ACHIA and if you think I'm going to post the documents your crazy. I earn too little to buy private, Obama's is even higher and I earn to much to qualify for anything else. There are lot's of me now.

The fact that only 120 people have benefited came from the governments numbers and if you care, simply check it out. Why do you think the number is so low? Because it's so good people are standing in line for it. Get real. He's after votes from young people who don't know any better and believe him. Young folks have always been the easiest to fool due to no experience and their thinking they are immortal. Wait until you actually need this stuff.

On the other, if you are actually following Obama you know how often he lies as it's so easy to find on video's in context. Why do you prefer a leader who is that dishonest and divisive?

If you had the choice to make Obama Dictator for say four years, would you vote yes?

I'm not a Republican by the way. There is no candidate this time I would choose to vote for. I refuse to let any Party think for me. I'm also not insane enough to be a Democrat either. Parties are for those too lazy to do anything other than vote straight D or R. That's how these incredibly dishonest people like Bush or Obama get into office. Pure apathy which allows tiny groups of radicals to control us.
edit on 4/3/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by memnoch25
reply to post by tangonine
 




"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?


Arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...does not imply ruling an existing law unconstitutional. It wasn't until Marbury Vs. Madison case which gave birth to Judicial Review, the claim by the Court itself that it has that power.
Afterwards, President Jefferson wrote that if that decision wasn't challenged by Congress, "Then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo-de-se (a suicide pact). ... The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please."

It was Judicial Review NOT the Constitution.

Get it?
edit on 3-4-2012 by memnoch25 because: (no reason given)


Typical. Ignore the relevant part: "...shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution..."

All. you know what "All" means, right? or are you one of those Clintonians that wants to debate what the meaning of "is" is?

So in your opinion, the supreme court would exist to do... treaties? Yeah. I'm sure that's what the founders were thinking /sarc

Nice try.
edit on 3-4-2012 by tangonine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Never in my lifetime have I watched a President take such "shots" at the Supreme Court. This isnt the first time remember, and I'm sure it wont be the last. I just hope America wakes up to the realization that we have a budding dictator sitting in the oval office.



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

Originally posted by Blaine91555

That's the amount given to me by the State under Federally funded ACHIA and if you think I'm going to post the documents your crazy. I earn too little to buy private, Obama's is even higher and I earn to much to qualify for anything else. There are lot's of me now.


Alaska is literally the most expensive pre-existing program in the country. Like I said, my sister with a bad heart and a cancer survivor with risk of return..pays $249 a month in Illinois through Obamacare...but the truth is ...both Alaska and Illinois and every other state have put the Pre-existing program in place to prepare for 2014, where the states will no longer be able to charge you a higher rate for the pre-existing condition, until 2014 it is up to the states what they charge through their programs. You have a 20 months until you should be able to get a reasonable rate assuming the court doesn't toss it.

In Illinois I know over 1,000 people signed up the first month, so your numbers seem way off as far as who is using it.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yep, as per Liberal Leaning Poll givers.


Give it a break...Fox News has Obama over Romney +4...want a dozen other polls? The "liberal media" thing is getting tired.

www.realclearpolitics.com...


Yep, again. Scientific huh??
Ahead by 4, but margin of error is +/- 4.
Sure sure then. Sure sure.


www.foxnews.com...

How about some facts then.

No President has ever been re-elected with Unemployment where it is.
No President has ever been re-elected with Gas Prices where it is.
No President has ever been re-elected with such low approval ratings.
SO.......................................You go ahead and march forward with your 900 people polled over the phone and the +/- 4 margin of error.

I will stick with historical facts.



edit on 3-4-2012 by macman because: Additon



Every Poll...even Fox News...did you miss my link? I will let you hold on to your "hope" though. November will be here soon enough.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Imagine what Obama is going to do once he realizes he isn't going to get re-elected.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Macman[/url]
 


I personally don't think there is any way that this is going to be upheld. The law is not constitutional by any stretch, and although some justices will vote for it,

I foresee at least a 5-4 split.

Edit:

Hey Macman, 3 Presidents so far have had as low approval ratings as Obama(In an election year)

Only 1 of them, Bush, was re-elected.

ased on Gallup polling, here is what I estimate that the incumbent president’s approval rating was on Election Day in almost every election since 1940. (There is no data for 1944 because Gallup went on wartime hiatus.) There are a few tricks I had to employ to derive these numbers; I’d ask you to take them on faith for a few moments, and then we’ll explain everything later on.

Here is an image, and blurb, and source for a New York Times page that will demonstrate this for you:
post by AwakeinNM
 
www.538host.com/appre1.png" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


Source: New York Times Article

Also, should be noted that this is for election day approval ratings, but it still illustrates the point.

Lastly for reference here is a site showing Obama with a 47 percent approval rating: chronicle.augusta.com...

Now, in between now, and election year it is certainly possible that he could raise a few points above the ones in the chart who lost, or he could be the first President to be re elected while in the middle of the lowest approval section of the chart.

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

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



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


With all of those historical facts, one could argue that never in history until 2008 had an African-American ever been elected President. So you see, history is not always accurate with regard to the present. Anything is possible. I tend to look to the future with the present tense in mind. The times are a changing.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

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.


So...what's wrong with disrespecting the office of the president?

When was the last time the country had one whom was actually respectable? Kennedy? Eisenhower? James Garfield?

It's been a while now, hasn't it?

Maybe if the exhalted "office of president" is so hard pressed to produce more than a handful of relatively decent human beings in the last couple of hundred years then perhaps there is something wrong with the office itself.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by macman
 


With all of those historical facts, one could argue that never in history until 2008 had an African-American ever been elected President. So you see, history is not always accurate with regard to the present. Anything is possible. I tend to look to the future with the present tense in mind. The times are a changing.


Very good point. The past is in now way indicative of the future by default. Especially when technology has changed culture more in the last 100 years than it did in the previous 1000.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by memnoch25
 


In the "blah, blah, blah, and then blah" part of your post, you skipped right over this little gem which opens Articvle III, Section 2 of the US Constitution:



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;


Source

So yeah, the SCOTUS DOES have jurisdiction over questions that arise as to Constitutionality of laws that are made under the US Constitution.




edit on 2012/4/3 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


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

Where in the transcripts does the POTUS "Warn" the Supreme Court?

That is creative writing by journalists in order to get article hits and of course food for blogs and OPs.

But accuracy still has a place in our national discourse. He did not "warn" the court.




With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.

I think it’s important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.

The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That's part of this law.

Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.

So that’s just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.

And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

Ultimately, 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. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, 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’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
sounds like Obama is throwing a tantrum cuz he didnt get his way

Yes...he is.


at least the supreme court is standing up for the people!

Don't kid yourself. Just yesterday the Supreme Court OK'd strip searching and anal cavity searches for even minor offenders such as people who have unpaid parking tickets or vehicles out of registration. The rationale being that two years before the Oklahoma City bombing, Timmy McVeigh was cited for having expired tags...so you know...we better start sticking a couple of fingers up everybody's asses pronto.

Nobody is "looking out" for the people--er--peasants. Get real.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Just to Clarify...the SCOTUS has the right to interpret the laws and yes, to interpret those laws or portions thereof as to being constitutional or not.

They do not have the right to create law...and that is the twist with healthcare reform...the apparent lack of severability of the mandate....it effects many, many other facets of the law.

So this puts them in an awkward spot....strip out the mandate and effectively foul the whole bill so as to essentially and fundementally change the law, which is beyond thier authority...and the justices have made clear that they will not read the entire bill, let alone be so bold as to modify legislation to accomodate removal of the mandate...that is congresses pervue, not thiers.

So in the end they can only give a thumbs up or thumbs down and the mandate is not severable. The bill will stand or fall as a whole.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


We've strayed so far from common law it is not even funny. They are just looking for any, and all reasons to drag you in, fine you, torture you, and let you leaving with diseases.

There's so many laws and statues it's insane. Couple that with a fear of "terrorism" perpetually in motion by the elite makes for a great condition for a technocratic run dictator ship with just trained, obedient slaves.

Not to mention the worst part is that they are getting any high school drop out to do the jobs. Regardless of if it is the TSA firing weapons out hotel rooms, and groping children, or simply the teenager who was working at Walmart the other day, and made me search through my bags to find certain items to prove I had bought the right items for that damn $1 cupon which isn't coming out of their pocket.

Everyone is a cop now. The littlest thing gets you in jail with a potentially ruined life. It's insane.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Xieon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

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?




Could not post the document I received due to personal information on it, but I can post the rates straight from the horses mouth. See above.

Now this is this years rates. I'm guessing your sister is then a child, correct?

You add to my rate the deductible and it's more than many people earn. How does this help me?

I've dealt with it by working directly with the MD's involved. Without exception they give me at least a 50% discount as I pay most up front and have an established history of paying them faster than promised. Of course their rates have gone up a lot to since Obama Care. Before Obama Care an office visit cost me $149. Now it's $224.

I keep my prescription costs down through a program from Sam's Club for business owners that reduced my prescription costs by over 60%.

In both cases I do far better by relying on my good credit and dealing directly with the people providing the services. The Sam's Club Program surfaced to help people who fall through the cracks like me. Bless them for that. I'm sure they are loosing money on it.

I have one prescription that is $169 at Safeways (Carrs in Alaska), $264 in Walgreens and $61 in Sams Club.

Sorry for blowing you off before, I was not sure how to post what you wanted without the private info.

What happens to me if I'm mandated to pay that? Homeless I suppose.
edit on 4/3/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join