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: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
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


I perceive a threat in your post...stop threatening me.

Don't ask me to point out where the threat is...it's just there.



I am seriously LMAO here...no one can point out this "threat" everyone is upset about....but it's there...because people think it is.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Justice Department Under Deadline to Answer Court Order Over obama's Heath Law


One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court case.


The justices themselves see what Obama said as a 'challenge to judicial authority'. It's not just 'an opinion'. It's a statement chipping away at the Supreme Court/Judical branch with the full weight of the Office of the President of the USA behind it. Like I said .. it's not the first time Obama has dis'd the court (I gave another example). It's really pretty obvious.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
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.


Please quote where Obama said the Court "NEEDS TO" do anything.

I mean...you put it in quotes...so I'm assuming you have an exact quote where Obama said that...right???

Obama expressed his opinion that the he is confident that the law is constitutional.


And no one can still quote the "threat" Obama issued.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I am seriously LMAO here...no one can point out this "threat" everyone is upset about....

I am seriously LMAO here .. you keep saying we need to show a "threat" from Obama and yet we have said to you that it is his rhetoric, posturing, and his history that show his disdain for the judicial branch and/or his severe lack of understanding about the balance of powers in this country. As you can see by my previous posting - the judical branch agrees with us ... and they ought to know when their authority is being infringed upon.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Justice Department Under Deadline to Answer Court Order Over obama's Heath Law


One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court case.


The justices themselves see what Obama said as a 'challenge to judicial authority'. It's not just 'an opinion'. It's a statement chipping away at the Supreme Court/Judical branch with the full weight of the Office of the President of the USA behind it. Like I said .. it's not the first time Obama has dis'd the court (I gave another example). It's really pretty obvious.


No...not "the justices"...three republican justices in the 5th appellete court.


The SCOTUS justices haven't made any comment on it at all.

You still didn't show the quotes where Obama is "chipping away" at the judicial branch. He gave his opinion.

You want to talk about chipping away at the courts:



Or you can just take any republican telling the SCOTUS they are wrong about Roe vs Wade....*GASP*....is that a threat??? Are they trying to chip away at the judicial branch....OMG!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

the judical branch agrees with us ... and they ought to know when their authority is being infringed upon.


The conservative Republican part of the judicial branch, you mean.

We haven't heard anything from the liberal Democratic part of the judicial branch on this, have we?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I am seriously LMAO here...no one can point out this "threat" everyone is upset about....

I am seriously LMAO here .. you keep saying we need to show a "threat" from Obama and yet we have said to you that it is his rhetoric, posturing, and his history that show his disdain for the judicial branch and/or his severe lack of understanding about the balance of powers in this country. As you can see by my previous posting - the judical branch agrees with us ... and they ought to know when their authority is being infringed upon.


The judicial branch does not agree with you....three Republican judges playing politics from the bench agree with you.

And you still can't provide any quotes.

But how about those evil Republicans questioning the SCOTUS on Roe vs Wade???? What a bunch of bastards...huh???



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


In this election year, he should have super glued his mouth shut, rather than say what he did.

Des


No, No, let him talk, let him keep digging that hole deeper, it is a beautiful thing to watch.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Oh Outcast, me thinks you protest too much!

*snip*

I don't think the President does anything on accident. You all don't think Obama put that verbal challenge out for the public to hear on accident do you? What an instigation that was! Now the healthcare bill will surely be struck down, and then Obama can play the injured party card for the win.
edit on 4-4-2012 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: Attack the issue, not the member.
edit on 4/4/2012 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Destinyone
 



This could be an election game changer.


Hook.

Line.

Sinker.

You are falling for exactly what they are trying to do...election year antics.

Do you honestly think a low federal court can order anyone, even the President, to explain comments they made in public.
edit on 3-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


the a**-clown in chief has no business "instructing" or otherwise telling
the judicial branch how to do it's job or how to rule in a case.

i'd like to see you ignore a federal courts orders

but hey good luck with that barry [or michelle, or lil' princess]



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Did you read the first paragraph of the original story? That pretty much sums up what the threat is.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Modus Interuptus...

Sensitive political topic such as this require a measure of decorum, and civility. There seems to be a certain lack of that at the moment herein...

If you can't practice civility in your discourse don't post.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Whenever there is a thread that paints your hero in a bad light. Albeit, one he himself provided paint and brush for...you start robo-posting to clog the thread with your nervous fear. I mean, you do it every single time OutKast.

It doesn't make you any more right than anyone else posting in this thread.

Des



There is a lot of false and mis-information in this thread.

I find it best to address each one over and over...because repetition helps even the slowest learners grasp basic concepts.


repetition is neither a valid or acceptable pedagogical tool
if you have to repeat something over and over again
you're a crappy teacher
or a Big-Liar.

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184

"The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blasé young gentlemen, but to convince… the masses. But the masses are slow moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 185

Quotes from Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim, (Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1962).

www.sourcewatch.org...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Did you read the first paragraph of the original story? That pretty much sums up what the threat is.


The first paragraph from the unbiased source of Fox News and has no quotes from Obama???

This one?

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."



This is what we call propaganda...rhetoric with no facts.

Obama didn't "warn" anyone...he gave his own opinion on the case...plain and simple.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


He is trying to influence the decision of the SCOTUS. He has no authority or jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States to do so. That is what all the uproar is about, well, that and he managed to personally insult the SCOTUS.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


He is trying to influence the decision of the SCOTUS. He has no authority or jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States to do so. That is what all the uproar is about, well, that and he managed to personally insult the SCOTUS.


Ummm...yes, he is trying to influence the decision...that is why he had the solicitor general go argue in favor of the bill.

And he is commenting that he is confident in the job his solicitor general did and of the constitutionality of the bill.

There is no insult...there is no overstep...he is defending the legislation that he got passed and signed.


I swear I live in bizzaro world sometimes....everything Obama does is controvesial...even things like saying he believes the bill he signed is constitutional. Oh...how controversial.



But I guess all the Republican candidates are also trying to influence the SCOTUS decision....since they have all stated it is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Oh...the outrage.

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



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I am not buying the Fox article. They claim a letter, but do not provide it.

Also....The article specifically qoutes the President...and the Judges (Conservative or Liberal) are not stupid and know what he stated is accurate.



"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," Obama said on Monday. "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."


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Duly Constituted
Judges DO NOT have the authority to overturn "Duly Constituted" laws...and every Judge learns that in civics 101.

They DO have the authority to overturn "Unconstitutional" laws.

And that is the matter the SCOTUS is weighing....BUT what Obama said was not a challange to the courts authority unless the 5th circuit thinks they can overturn any law they like...which would quickly get them impeached.

Folks in the legal profession are all about wording and I doubt these judges were dumb enough not to notice that caveat "duly constituted" and sent a letter to justice celebrating such plain ignorance of the wording.

With Fox citing "unamed sources" and not providing any letter or proof...I call BS...but I also afford for the possibility that these 5th circuit judges are actually that dumb, never know.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Let’s put this in perspective. The sources I cite are the first ones that came up when I Googled because I don’t feel like walking upstairs and pulling out my Black’s Law Dictionary. These should suffice.
Obama made a “veiled threat”

Babylon English
implied threat, subtle intimidation
dictionary.babylon.com...

A person does not have to have the ability to carry out a threat in order to make one. I can threaten to shoot someone even though I do not have a gun.

He stated the Supreme Court “…should remember”

For clarification, let’s put this in the “past tense” and rephrase as “...the Supreme Court should have remembered…”

should have (done something)
used for saying what was the right thing to do when you realize that someone did not do it
I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have interfered.
You should have taken my advice.
He didn’t make reservations, but he should have.
www.macmillandictionary.com...

To perceive
per•ceive (pr-sv)
tr.v. per•ceived, per•ceiv•ing, per•ceives
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

The Court did ask the Administration "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

The 5th apparently perceived Obama’s statement as a threat.

What is the perceived threat?
It is that Obama will somehow try to circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court, i.e., find some way to implement the ACA around the ruling of the Court. The perceived threat is that Obama will ignore the ruling of the 5th if it does not rule in his favor.

Judges are human and pay attention to the news. They remember Obama saying “When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act… In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.” cnsnews.com...

Obama said it himself. He will act on his own regarding Congress. What the Court is wanting to know is if he will act on his own and disregard the Court’s decision if it is unfavorable in the present case at bar... a test of loyalty to the Constitution that he swore to uphold when he took the Oath of Office

edit on 4-4-2012 by Nite_wing because: I'm so confused!?!?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I think he does believe his bill is constitutional, anyone would that created it. But that is for the SCOTUS to decide, not the POTUS. He inherited a bag of sh*t from Bush and made it worse. I have about given up hope for us as a nation. Republican or Democrat they are just different sides to the same coin.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Whenever there is a thread that paints your hero in a bad light. Albeit, one he himself provided paint and brush for...you start robo-posting to clog the thread with your nervous fear. I mean, you do it every single time OutKast.

It doesn't make you any more right than anyone else posting in this thread.

Des



There is a lot of false and mis-information in this thread.

I find it best to address each one over and over...because repetition helps even the slowest learners grasp basic concepts.


repetition is neither a valid or acceptable pedagogical tool
if you have to repeat something over and over again
you're a crappy teacher
or a Big-Liar.

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184

"The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blasé young gentlemen, but to convince… the masses. But the masses are slow moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 185

Quotes from Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim, (Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1962).

www.sourcewatch.org...


Thank you for excellent food for thought. I've been trying to figure out this repetitive posting syndrome. You defined it for me. Seeing as some see reality as perception...if one repeats the same rhetoric over and over, even though it has no real bearing on the topic being discussed...it, for some, becomes part of their reality paradigm.

If the person/persons involved in the repetitive robo posting feels their attempts are going in vain, they ratchet up the game, with more of the same.

I personally see our current Commander in Chief, use the same tactics, even when he has to contradict himself in changing course to meet criteria of his target market. He mimics the MSM quite well in presentation.

I think his placing duly appointed Judges on notice will backfire on him. He is overstepping his powers in doing so.

He is comfortable with usurping power that he didn't rightfully earn. I see him getting upset now that his comfort zone may be shrinking. This is only my personal opinion. I will not answer any questions from a certain poster in this thread.

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



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join