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.

 

Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case Published April 03, 201

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by axslinger
I find it hilarious that after 3 and a half years of this disaster of a president you are still carrying the water for him. People like you are the reason our system is doomed to failure; you think an election is the equivalent of the Super Bowl in that you don't care if your players lie, cheat, steal, gamble and philander just as long as "you win".


I am suspecting you have your parties confused..."Born in Kenya", "Muslim", "Microchips and death panels"...anyone?


Originally posted by axslinger
To the contrary; costs continue to rise, AZ cut funding to AHCCS leaving thousands without healthcare, hospitals are cutting staff because Medicare isn't paying and uninsured/noncollectable accounts have skyrocketed. (I know this to be a fact...I work in healthcare).


Now I know you have your parties confused. Jan Brewer, one of the most radical CONSERVATIVE Governors in the country and Gov of AZ is the reason AZ has been dropping it's poor from the AHCCS roles. Slashing it has been her pet project.



After months of uncertainty, Gov. Jan Brewer this week has proposed a fresh set of middle-of-the-road budget cuts in the state’s medical program for the poor, which provides coverage for nearly one in three Gila County residents.

However, this week the Senate adopted a budget that included Brewer’s original,, deeper cutbacks.


www.paysonroundup.com...



Brewer signed the 2011 legislative budget which eliminates the Arizona variant of the State Children's Health Insurance Program program, known as KidsCare, that provides health insurance to uninsured children[21] whose families' income exceeds the Medicaid cutoff.[22] According to the FY 2011 budget, enrollment caps will also be put into place for Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), thereby limiting access to the program.


en.wikipedia.org...

Ironic that you call someone a lier without proof in one sentence and then crap a huge lie in the second.

AHCCCS is in trouble in AZ...and that is precisely what Gov. Jan Brewer (R) fought fiercly for to happen. She even tried to ELIMINATE it.



edit on 5-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
well it seems the WH did a back pedal two step, over this www.cnn.com... from the link

Washington (CNN) -- The Justice Department obeyed a federal appeals court's unusual order Thursday in a legal and political spat over the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.
now half way down is what Obama is said to have said

The latest dispute surfaced Monday when the president said, "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 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 dually constituted and passed law."
now did he Obama just say the court has no right to do what they want to do this law? it seems so

Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, was especially tough on a Justice Department lawyer defending the law and specifically mentioned the Obama quotes.

"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, and I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith said.

"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review," Smith continued. "And that's not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."
so where is the back peddling? here it is

The letter affirmed the government's stance that federal courts indeed have the authority to decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- and any other law Congress passes.

"The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," said the letter, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder.
but alas, this is MSM news take for what it is worth
edit on 5-4-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Looks like Holder filed the court ordered papers !

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Remind him there are 9 SCOTUS Justices, and there will always be a partisan majority.


When there is a unanimous decision - as there was with the recent Bond v. United States ruling, I fail to see how this would be fairly called a "partisan majority".


That's true, I didn't ever consider a unanimous vote scenario. But then again, I tend to mentally block out rare exceptions to the rule to define that said rule as a matter of personal rationality. It's a fallacy to think that way.

Thanks for bringing me back down to Earth and reminding me I'm on ATS.


edit on 5-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


You are absolutely right. My point is that every year since the inception of our nation the constitution has been changed and/or reinterpreted. So, for people now to get so upset when the document is reinterpreted/changed seems a little silly, and a complete misunderstanding of the history of our nation.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 
Interesting Observation. Those attacks go both ways but at the same time I respect your opinion.

To clarify my position and the understanding, the interpretation of the Law is extremely important. If we start letting Presidents do this (which they have already but that is besides the point) than we have a major problem. The Supreme Court has also changed with the times as well. At some point there may be no "Legal" hurdle to Health Care but apparently there is.

We all have a "right" to be heard in a Court of Law and most of the time all it takes is a simple form being filled out and your on your way.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
So has Obama responded to these demands yet? If he does I predict he'll backtrack and be dismissive of them in some way, which will only further frustrate and anger and alienate the SC judges, therefore eroding more support for him.

At this point I will be surprised if they find UHC constitutional.

But I'm sick and tired of people using the Judicial Activist judge schtick every single time a judge does not rule in their favor. It's becoming as common as the liberals use the race card to shut down discussion.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Looks like Holder filed the court ordered papers !

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I was wrong when I repllied Holder would not reply.
I apologize. I didn't think he had the pistachios to lower himself to the Court.
He still stuck up for the administration's lack of good judgment but then, I don't think he shows very good judgment himself.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing

Originally posted by xuenchen
Looks like Holder filed the court ordered papers !

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I was wrong when I repllied Holder would not reply.
I apologize. I didn't think he had the pistachios to lower himself to the Court.
He still stuck up for the administration's lack of good judgment but then, I don't think he shows very good judgment himself.


I think they had no choice.
(public image/opinion and maybe legally?)

They can't keep snubbing everything with arrogance.

people are catching on.

there would have been extreme backlash if he ignored the order.

Was there any legal issue if he had not responded ?

Like a penalty ?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join