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: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I still haven't seen anyone point out this "threat" Obama made.

Apparently it is so obvious...no one can pin point it.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Maybe Obama became a Constitutional Lawyer in order to trash the Constitution?

It sure seems that way sometimes.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:03 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
 




Oh...would you care to explain to me what I don't understand???

And talking about logic skills...when you make a claim that someone doesn't understand something...you should be specific about what they don't understand...and then back up that claim by correctly explaining the topic they don't understand.

Or...just throw out attacks like a typical righty with no logical skills would.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You answered your own statement. If you say "bomb" You will be asked to clarify your comment. What about liable cases?? What you say can be prosecuted.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I will remember this when I get a letter from a judge asking me to clarify a statement......Uh Judge go take a flying leap.....Laws apply to everyone including A fake president that has highjacked the office.


Do you honestly think any judge has the authority to order any citizen to explain comments they made out in public?

Unless you scream "BOMB" in an airport...you can say anything you want and don't have to explain yourself to a judge.


Even I understand the term "contempt of court". You are sadly lacking in understanding of our Judicial system. I'm trying to help you here Outkast. Can you take a deep breath and stand down long enough to let another person's words in. You won't drown I promise.

There are some incredible learned minds posting in this thread, on important issues, that have the potential to negatively impact us all. Please don't go off on a tangent just because you can. I want to continue to learn from scholars posting here. It's a rare treat for me.

Please, all I'm asking is....think before you post.....

Des



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You answered your own statement. If you say "bomb" You will be asked to clarify your comment. What about liable cases?? What you say can be prosecuted.


So what threat does Obama have to explain?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 



Even I understand the term "contempt of court". You are sadly lacking in understanding of our Judicial system. I'm trying to help you here Outkast. Can you take a deep breath and stand down long enough to let another person's words in. You won't drown I promise.

There are some incredible learned minds posting in this thread, on important issues, that have the potential to negatively impact us all. Please don't go off on a tangent just because you can. I want to continue to learn from scholars posting here. It's a rare treat for me.


There can be no "contempt of court" outside the court.

But you won't listen to me...just wait until JPZ comes along and tells you the exact same thing and then act like it is a relevation.

You know...just like you did when he told you that Obama isn't obligated to respond and that the judges are playing partisan politics.



I respect JPZ like most do, but not because of his views and opinions...because they are wrong (IMO) many times...but because of his writing style.

But if it takes pretty words to get you to see the truth...I'll just let JPZ tell you the exact same thing I have been saying and watch you agree with him.
edit on 4-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Troll much?????? The threat is actually in the challenge and trying to tell them not to vote against his precious bill.
In his words he is saying Judges you better just go along with what I want, you were not even elected so you have no power to overturn this bill or to deem a bill unconstitutional. Hmmmmm that is what the Supreme Court is for.......This is why we were to never vote in a person, that is an illegal alien, for President. This is not Kenya and Kenya laws do not apply.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It was a veiled threat alluding to the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't dare turn over the Obamacare because he is the POTUS. I am paraphrasing here of course.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Troll much?????? The threat is actually in the challenge and trying to tell them not to vote against his precious bill.
In his words he is saying Judges you better just go along with what I want, you were not even elected so you have no power to overturn this bill or to deem a bill unconstitutional. Hmmmmm that is what the Supreme Court is for.......This is why we were to never vote in a person, that is an illegal alien, for President. This is not Kenya and Kenya laws do not apply.


Please show me the quote where Obama made this threat.

I posted Obama's comments early in this thread...no one can point out the threat in those comments.

People, like you, are so SURE he made a threat...but they can't seem to point it out in his comments.

What is he threatening the SCOTUS with...what will happen to them if they strike it down???


SM2

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by SM2
 


You know I kind of half agree with you. The only place I think your reasoning fails is that the Founding Fathers had no idea what modern society would be like. It's my understanding that the reason the designed the document the way they did was to ensure it could adapt to changes in society. I mean, if a strict Constitutionalist is as true to the Constitution as they say they are, then black people are only worth 3/5ths of a white person, slavery is still legal, etc etc etc. of course those things were wrong, and the Constitution was amended accordingly. If the FFs were as strict Constitutionalists as many claim to be today, this republic would have failed 100 if not 200 years ago.



Well see, the 3/5ths is misrepresented in your post. It did not mean what you imply. The 3/5ths compromise was all about taxes and representation. The southern states, specifically the five states where slavery was a major institution, wanted representation in the continental congress based solely on population, in which they wanted to count a slave as part of the population. They did not place a value on an individual, they instead stated that you add "3/5ths of all other persons". That means, 3/5ths of the total population of "other persons". Now, that is not saying I agree with any of it, just setting the record straight on what they actually did.

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative.... [In 1929, Congress fixed the total number of Representatives at 435; currently, there is one Representative for about every 519,000 persons]."

source: www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It was a veiled threat alluding to the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't dare turn over the Obamacare because he is the POTUS. I am paraphrasing here of course.


Don't paraphrase...go get the exact quote.

I know you won't...because Obama said nothing that is close to that.

But I'm sure Rush or Hannity has convinced you 100% that he did in fact issue a THREAT to the SCOTUS....and yet no one can quote it...only paraphrase it.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Obama stepped in it. He's pushing to overreach executive branch power by intimidating the judicial branch. SURPISE .. the judicial branch is pushing back. Kudos to them.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama stepped in it. He's pushing to overreach executive branch power by intimidating the judicial branch. SURPISE .. the judicial branch is pushing back. Kudos to them.


And another person...claiming something that isn't true.

Where is the "overreach"???

What did Obama say he was going to do if the SCOTUS ends up striking down the law???



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You are blinded by your view that obama can do no wrong. If Bush had said this you would be all over him. Get out of the left right conundrum and open your eyes. You are still stuck in the belief of Dem vs Rep.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


You are blinded by your view that obama can do no wrong. If Bush had said this you would be all over him. Get out of the left right conundrum and open your eyes. You are still stuck in the belief of Dem vs Rep.


And you still can't quote the "threat".

It's a very simple request...you made a claim that Obama said something....quote him.

You can't...no one can...so you are back peddling and telling me what I would be doing in a different situation.

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



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama stepped in it. He's pushing to overreach executive branch power by intimidating the judicial branch. SURPISE .. the judicial branch is pushing back. Kudos to them.

And another person...claiming something that isn't true.

No sweetie .. it IS true. Obamas rhetoric is pushing the envelope. He's testing the waters to see what he can get away with. It's really obvious. He doesn't respect the judicial branch. He has a history of this - remember when he insulted the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech that time??

He didnt' 'threaten'. He's verbally trying to chip away at them and the judicial power to power grab.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama stepped in it. He's pushing to overreach executive branch power by intimidating the judicial branch. SURPISE .. the judicial branch is pushing back. Kudos to them.

And another person...claiming something that isn't true.

No sweetie .. it IS true. Obamas rhetoric is pushing the envelope. He's testing the waters to see what he can get away with. It's really obvious. He doesn't respect the judicial branch. He has a history of this - remember when he insulted the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech that time??

He didnt' 'threaten'. He's verbally trying to chip away at them and the judicial power to power grab.


So a President can't have an opinion on the rulings of the SCOTUS???

All he has to do is abide by the ruling...he doesn't have to praise it as being correct. If you have an example where he has ignored a SCOTUS ruling...please give it to me as your proof that he is trying to chip away judicial power.

And please show me how saying he is "confident it will pass" means he is trying to take away judicial power???

Give me any quote of his implying that he will ignore the SCOTUS ruling.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Outklast, if someone perceives a threat, that is their choice. We are individuals....not clones. Please stop demanding the same thing over and over. It just makes you come across as a petulant child. I know you are smarter than that.

Open minds have the potential of greater growth. If someone, in their perceptions, hears a threat, then it is a threat to them. There is no correct answer to the question...only individual perceptions.

Des


SM2

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


well, you know it might be all of the language he used such as "the court needs to " or "the court should" . The court doesn't HAVE to do anything. Outkast I know you idolize the man, but he is fallible ya know.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join