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: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Let me clarify. I am a Constitutionalist, Capitalist, Conservative.
I am not a Progressive, Socialist, Liberal, or Marxist.
You may have a hard time recognizing a Constitutionalist, Capitalist, Conservative.
Hope I helped.


Define Constitutionalist....does that mean your understanding of the Constitution is the only correct one?


I'm a Liberal..."conservatism" today is absolutely insane.

But hey....I'm a Capitalist too...I just also think we need regulations along with Capitalism.



I get a good chuckle when people say they are "Constitutionalist" like just saying the word makes them correct.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Before I can reply, I have to know what your definition of Liberal is.

Ah, never mind. I am done with you.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Does anyone think a gag order is eminent ?

Perhaps the Court is worried about comments on an open case.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Regarding the troll, never argue with an idiot applies...

Regarding Barry O, he really stepped in it.

He has been disrespecting and ignoring the courts for a while. Didn't he ignore an order to allow drilling to resume in the Gulf of Mexico.

And he made some comment, when was that, maybe at the state of the union speech one year that disrespected the judges.

I forget. Anyway, they are pissed and this is not helping.

Reasonable educated people should be able to sit down and without emotion and drama determine whether or not the powers given to the Gov by the constitution include the power to implement this bill as written. As a layperson, to me it looks like no, but we will see what judges say.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


I think you may be referring to this blatant disregarding of a Judge's court order...


The Obama administration has fired another shot in the fight over the speed with which the Interior Department is — or isn’t — letting oil drillers resume work in the Gulf of Mexico after last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The administration late Friday appealed a judge’s orders directing the department to act on several pending Gulf Coast deep-water drilling permits.

Friday’s appeal challenges rulings by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who on Feb. 17 gave the department 30 days to make a verdict on five pending deep-water drilling permit applications. He later added two permits to that order.



Yes, this administration has a history of defying court orders....


Interior Secretary Ken Salazar hinted at the appeal during a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Feldman “in my view is wrong,” Salazar said. “And we will argue the case because I don’t believe that the court has the jurisdiction to basically tell the Department of the Interior what my administrative responsibilities are.”

Read more: www.politico.com...


My opinion is, that this current calling on the carpet of our president, will not bode well with voters who are already getting concerned with what is happening to our Constitution.

Des








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



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
well it really wasnt a threat the way I see. It was a shot across the bow though. Saying it was unprecedented to over turn a law based on constitutional grounds is unprecedented?


A "shot across the bow," IS a threat silly.

Anyone who thinks this was not a threat have never been threatened by people with lots of power. In the Army I experienced this. You know you're being threatened, but other people are not supposed to see it so easily. You have to have plausible deniability, which Obama does.

I can sense his cocky-ness from here. He must have some powerful people behind him.

"I am confident that you will see things my way... Hint hint (you better see it my way, I know you will make the right disision)


To no one in particular:
As far as the judges not having authority to demand a letter of explanation this very well maybe true. But do you think they will even consider not shooting this down if they get no response back?? It will be on auto-kill at that point. By responding DoJ will show it's weakness, but what can they do?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Just a thought.

What if DOJ says no, the court can not do that in our opinion.

Your services are no longer required. All Judges layed off, on unemployment.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
Just a thought.

What if DOJ says no, the court can not do that in our opinion.

Your services are no longer required. All Judges layed off, on unemployment.


I think that would be the equivalent of declaring Marshall Law...jmoho...

Des



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
You simply do not understand the Constitution. It exists to restrain the government and protect the Bill of Rights. You have 0 logic skills. Typical lefty. LMAO!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


SM2

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TomScruise
You simply do not understand the Constitution. It exists to restrain the government and protect the Bill of Rights. You have 0 logic skills. Typical lefty. LMAO!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




Yeah, well, see, it's open to interpretation. or at least that is the argument they use all the time when they find things they do not like. Such as the second amendment, or heck, even the first amendment when it is someone with a differing opinion then their own. I find that the constitution is written in pretty plain language. It means what it says. it's not open to discussion, it says what it says, people read into too much to find a loophole or to justify something they want to do that shouldnt be done.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Dude messed up when he said that stuff. The supreme court has the power with the congress to impeach him. He was supposed to be a constitutional law professor. As President and a former law professor he should know how and why the supreme court has that power. I am sure that will go down in history and one of the dumbest quotes ever by a politician. If not the dumbest one. I know I got a good laugh out of it and many more to come.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
It's all a part of his divide and conquer scheme. He uses a bunch of logical fallacies (like Outkast Searcher) to hoodwink his zombie followers to make it US against THEM. Then he tries to make it racial in some way. If the SCOTUS strikes his bill down, he'll make it appear like a bunch of old white guys don't want "folks" to have free goodies.

reply to post by montanasoutherngent
 



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 





As far as the judges not having authority to demand a letter of explanation this very well maybe true. But do you think they will even consider not shooting this down if they get no response back?? It will be on auto-kill at that point. By responding DoJ will show it's weakness, but what can they do?


Obama does not have to respond to the 5th Circuit on this...at least he has no Constitutional responsibility to do so and he certainly did not surrender his right to free speech when he took his oath of office. This is not to argue that Obama has honored that oath in other areas, but in regards to this, he is under no obligation to honor the lower courts request.

He is engaging in Real Politik with his preemptive remarks while simultaneously asserting his confidence the Court will uphold the legislation. This gives him an appearance that regardless of how the Court rules he was correct in his statements. That's Real Politk, but Obama does not seem to a master of this like Kissinger is. I believe it was a miscalculation on his part to make preemptive remarks, but I am not a politician so who knows.

My main compulsion in replying to your post is to argue that regardless of what Obama does from here until the ruling is rendered, this should have no bearing on how the Supreme Court rules. The Court, when exercising the power of judicial review, has a responsibility to look at the legislation and compare that against the Constitution. They have an obligation to make a ruling based upon sound legal principles and more importantly, rooted in law. If they were to rule it unconstitutional without offering any sound legal principle to back their opinions, this would only greatly undermined a Court that has been steadily criticized and attacked for quite a while now. The SCOTUS just needs to do their job.

Is the legislation Constitutional? This is the only question at hand. Much ado has been made about the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the Constitutionality of this Act, and this is one of the many reasons it is being heard by the Court. However, much ado has been made lately about Justice Scalia's lamentations of expectations of reading the entire 2,7000 pages of this legislation, and much criticism has been leveled upon him for suggesting he had no desire to do so. However, if this so called "Affordable Health Care Act" has any validity at all it must be written in a way that those subject to it can understand it. Expecting all the people that are apparently subject to this legislation to read the entire 2,7000 pages is beyond unreasonable, and that alone gives valid questions as to the Bills validity.

The outrage at Scalia's remark about not wanting to read the legislation in its entirety - particularly outrage offered up by Congresspeople, is remarkably disingenuous given that not a single member of Congress has a clue what the so called "Personal Income Tax" - a five volume set with millions of words - actually means or even how it works. Congress has become way to comfortable in legislating arcane Byzantine legislation that can read as incomprehensible to the average person of average intelligence.

I believe this is why President Obama is scrambling to play Real Politik and making preemptive strikes. He may fumble, and make mistakes, but he is no idiot, and understands every word of what I have just posted.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I would probably put the bottle down for the night, your an angry partisan drinker. There are three separate branches of government for a very good reason and that reason is to protect you and I from tyranny my friend. I am not saying that there has never been judicial activism but one branch can't really imply that there is or will be if another equally qualified branch of government strikes down a law based on constitutional grounds. That, in point of double speak fact is exactly what Mr. Obama has done with his public statements.

For me personally, I don't have faith in any branch of our federal government anymore, zero. That said, I find it mildly entertaining when they argue among themselves in the ever increasing power grab while keeping in mind and still realizing that at the end of the day, it is we the people that will suffer and not the federal government.

They have played you like a poorly made fiddle my friend and have you proclaiming through emotional posts your thoughts on conservative vs liberal, left vs right all the while stripping you of your true rights as an American citizen and your God given rights as a human being. Deny ignorance my friend and realize that none of the three branches of federal government that now hold power in the country are there to help you in any way be them republican or democrat.

We.... That is to say, all of us..... Which means, the people, have become the enemy of our own government.

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



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jean Paul. Thank you for your detailed explanation of the processes in play on this subject. I appreciate it greatly.

May I ask a question. What is your opinion on what, if any, effect his refusal to respond could have on him. Based on what you posted, I'm inclined to believe he will not. The request is toothless, no consequences, therefor moot.

Thank You.....Des



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jean Paul. Thank you for your detailed explanation of the processes in play on this subject. I appreciate it greatly.

May I ask a question. What is your opinion on what, if any, effect his refusal to respond could have on him. Based on what you posted, I'm inclined to believe he will not. The request is toothless, no consequences, therefor moot.

Thank You.....Des



While I will acknowledge that my response will not substitute for JPZ as he is my professed mentor here on ATS I will attempt a go at this.

Just as Obama's statements were not meant as a direct threat nor a warning of further action, the comments of the judges are to be viewed as the same in that none of it from either side is legally binding or actionable in any way. This is all meant to be played out in the "court" of public opinion, it's really that simple. They are both using words to influence the public's perception of the situation.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Thank you Halious...just as I concluded in my own mind. but, that won't stop the situation from becoming fodder in election rhetoric.

I feel the deep rumble of twin spin machines gearing up....

Des



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I am not so sure the request is toothless in the game of politics, although it is unseemly in my eyes that the 5th Circuit stooped to this level. It was pure politics by judges that are expected to remain unbiased. Further, one would like to think the 5th Circuit all ready knows that even if Obama does respond whatever he states should have no bearing on future court decisions. The courts need not look to any President for clarification on the law, this is not their job. Indeed, it is really quite the opposite.

I personally think that Obama imprudently made the remarks he did, and now it is national news the 5th Circuit has asked for clarification so it seems to me that Obama should keep running with the ball and give them what they want. By ignoring them it will - in my opinion - make him look toothless. We have all seen members in this site reify and most of us do not tolerate it and will ask or even demand some sort of citation or source to back up their claims and if those members ignore this then they lose credibility under many members eyes. I think the President runs the same risk here.

Instead of any court demanding a President write up a clarification of remarks made to the press, the Courts should be requesting Congress to make clarifications on their legislation. The President stuck his foot in it, now the 5th Circuit has. This is the U.S. Political Madness of which we live.

My greatest concern is that the Supreme Court will strike the legislation down using the soundest of legal principles only to have the President, Congress, and the media dismiss it as a bitter and cynical response to the Presidents remarks which very well may have been Obama's strategy in this...I don't know. Even if President Obama had not gone down this road and just remained silent on the issue until the ruling is rendered, the dismissive barbs would have flown anyway, much like they did for Citizen's United which is a sound legal ruling steeped in the First Amendment's mandate that Congress "make now laws" abridging speech. The President, many Congressmen and the media spun that one way out of control, turning a First Amendment issue into the corporate personhood.

However, the lie - the absolute and total lie - that the Supreme Court made made corporations "persons" is just that...a bald face lie. It is Congress who had declared corporations a "person", not once, not twice, but thrice in both the United States Code, and the Uniform Commercial Code. So, if the Court strikes this legislation down, the propaganda machine will be in full swing, the truth be damned.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join