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: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


If you want people to take you seriously, stop using the coded words that we hear from Dominionists, Evangelicals, and people waiting for the Rapture use to tell everyone Obama puts himself up as a God.

Rush Limbaugh started using "the One" -- and a bunch of other shills started using it. As if THESE guys gave a dang about religion, other than as a useful prop.

Clearly, the Supreme court is trying to say that the "Commerce Clause" is bunk, and with their decision to not allow Congress to pass a bill to regulate commerce since Health Insurance companies are large, interstate businesses -- well, that means that Congress is now under the purview of the Supreme Court even when Constitutional law is not in question. OK -- I'll save the BIG BOY TALK for other people.

Just know that I stopped reading this thread after this;
"I hope they send another team of lawyers to say Obama is the almighty Prez,"

A black man is now the President of the United States, and about 4 times now, he has publicly gotten angry. And THAT'S ABOUT 2000 TIMES LESS THAN BUSH.


I'm sure you want and demand an investigation of a President who uses strong words. But personally, I think the Supreme Court has gone rogue and it has been a long time since they've had a ruling that was neutral, or reasoned, or didn't stink of Fascism or some Theocratic agenda. I'm sure fascists and oligarchs, are perfectly happy.

The SCOTUS just voted to allow a strip search for people who got traffic tickets. I know SOMEONE might bring a bomb in their anus, and want to get thrown in jail so they can smuggle it in -- but we can also assume that every Justice on the court is a terrorist as well and they need strip searching. It's just another brick in the wall of their march to fascism -- but we ALL have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide right?

AS long as we can get arrested, and we enjoy strip searches, we can get that great medicine from the prison doctors -- who needs Universal Health Care?


>> America is falling apart, and I think you probably voted FOR every bad candidate on the ticket.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SunnyDee

I think it would be Prudent of Outcast to rethink his view on this whole subject before he says another word.

Just my opinion, just like Obama's. Not a perfect example but close enough, considering you (outcast) and I are equals here, I really have no right to say this to you, do I? Just like the 3 legislative branches, they are equals.
edit on 4-4-2012 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)


The President never said that the SCOTUS should "rethink thier view on the whole subject"

To the contrary he repeatedly said he was confident they would rule it constitutional.

Unless you have seen the ruling already and know the Justices mind....your analogy is irrelevant.

Has anyone here actually read what the President said?


Reread my couple of posts with Outcast. You have misinterpreted my post completely.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Another thread filled with partisan hyperbole. When are ya'll going to stop letting people divide you so easily? It's sad to see these threads, it makes it so clear why America will fail and there's not a thing that can be done to stop it.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncents
 


I do not think you can impeach an illegal President.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
back pedaling 101

I said abce.2 not abce...

yahoo video of backpedaling

and let me see the score

judical branch - 1
o-man - goose egg


I never said that


lol... he got punked



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It is an astute observation to make that there is no such thing as "contempt of court" outside a court, and arguably judges abuse that privilege too much and even inside a court "contempt" is liberally used.

I wanted to publicly apologize to you for not acknowledging that I was in agreement with you on a latter point. It was thoughtlessness on my part, but you deserved better consideration than that.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


JPZ, We can all learn something from you...you are a good man and a good friend.


We don't agree on much...but that doesn't change the fact that you are by far one of the most intelligent people I know on ATS.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
For prez BHO to imply that the Supreme Court is "un-elected", then what the heck is the Federal Reserve with all of their governors?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Obama doesn't have to respond at all.

The order went to the DOJ, not Obama.

The DOJ will respond telling these judges that they are morons and of course the SCOTUS can overturn laws, I don't think they should respond at all...I don't think they legally have to.


I find it hilarious that people think Obama issued a "threat" but no one can articulate what the "threat" actually was.


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". You don't care if Obama takes away your rights, violates your privacy, tramples on the Constitution, appoints corrupt buddies or sells out the US, as long as "you win". Every left-wing loon saw the forced passing of ObamaKare as some kind of victory yet it has been over 2 years since it passed and NOT ONE of the socialist lefties can tell me how their access to health care has improved or how their costs have gone down. Not one!

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). But none of this matters to you because "you won". Until Americans can get off their pathetic little bandwagon of blind partisanship and hold their own accountable, we will continue to deteriorate as a country until there is nothing left. When you adopt the mentality of "win at all costs" without any concern for holding your elected representatives accountable, then they deliver exactly what you expect of them; nothing.

For the record, I despise Obama, and his entire cabinet and appointed thugs. Bush was a sell-out and traitor responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sean Hannity is a puppet of the Right and is so shallow and naive it's pathetic. O'Reilly is another sell-out and Fox News is no different than MSDNC. The only alliance I have is to the U.S.A. As an American you should outraged at the miserable failure that is Obama but just like the vast majority of Americans, all you see is a "football team" and as long as your team wins, you don't care how they conduct themselves in the off season. In politics, the game doesn't even start until AFTER the 4th quarter ends. The sooner people get that, the sooner we can start holding our servants accountable.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



You don't even have your facts correct...the 5th court isn't making the ruling on the health care act. Hard to take you serious when you don't even know the issue.


www.cbsnews.com...


The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals.


No, not "the", as in the SCOTUS ruling, but "a". So, in essence yes, they are making a ruling "on the health care act". Hard to take you serious when you don't even know the issue.



In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure 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."


Pretty simple, really. If he gives the appearance of negating the SCOTUS, he gives the appearance of negating the 5th Circuit, as well. Stands to reason he had the right to request what he did, lest their decision, regardless of what it is, be touted as folly from the "unelecteds". Because in using that terminology, he did not eliminate any courts so he therefore included them all, that have appointed positions.


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



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

There are some incredible learned minds posting in this thread


If you believe that, then it's obvious how "learned" you are...



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Destinyone
 



All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.


Obama should ignore them.

Partisan judges should be removed from the bench.


Brilliant!!!!!!

From this point forward the POTUS or Congress can ignore the SCOTUS if they feel they're being picked on by the other side.

Do you even understand the concept of "checks and balances"?

(Read "they feel" as politically advantageous)




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
You might be officially now labeled "out of your mind".

Just ignore them because there Republican Appointed?? Do you have any idea (probably not cuz your probably a 12 yr old trolling on this site for some reason) but there have been plenty of Supreme Courts that have been "partisan" in your terms. But, the thing you might not understand is NO MATTER a JUDGES personal belief they are supposed to follow the Constitution.

Outkast, whats your opinion of the Supreme Court that allowed Abortion??



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

/facepalm



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



If you want people to take you seriously, stop using the coded words that we hear from Dominionists, Evangelicals, and people waiting for the Rapture use to tell everyone Obama puts himself up as a God.

Rush Limbaugh started using "the One" -- and a bunch of other shills started using it. As if THESE guys gave a dang about religion, other than as a useful prop.


Obama isn't God, but apparently he is the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ:




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   


Seems like the constitution and our form of government still has some teeth ...

In their rush to create their socialist utopia congress overreached and decided they would mandate/force that every citizen engage in a private contract ... by having to buy health insurance ...

I said it from the very start THAT is unconstitutional ...

But Congress doesn't care that it is ...

Barry doesn't care that it is ...

Oh ... and what did Bush call the constitution .... a "goddamn piece of paper"?

Wake up people ...

Rep and Dems are tag teaming the constitution to its final death ...

edit: Oh, and Barry ... don't you have better things to do than waste your time here on ATS posting 5 or 6 times a page?


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



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 
Dont boost Outkast's ego at the same time you are sorry for something you said. Feeding the troll is the worst thing you can do.



I would suggest you have a misunderstanding of what Ego actually is. No one, including me, is capable of affecting another persons Ego, either positively or negatively. Any persons Ego is theirs to control and if one is not controlling their Ego, I would argue this is because that person is helplessly mired in their Id.

Outkatst is my friend. Not my secret friend I hide in shame. I am proud to have Outkast as a friend and could care less who knows that or how that may shape others perception of me. Outkast is also a passionate believer in what Outkast believes and tirelessly argues what is believed. This does not make Outkast a troll. This makes Outkast a respectable and admirable member of this site.

Anyone who knows the both of us knows full well that we very, very, very, very, rarely agree. Who cares? I vehemently disagree that Outkast is a troll. Outkast has simply made the arguments Outkast believes in to the best of Outkasts ability, and ad hominem attacks at this respected member is hardly worthy of respect.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
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".



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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??


When does lack of objectivity border on derangement? Delusion?

The President:


judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint.”

“That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that,


Equals "power grab"???? Let's compare the President's "threatening".."I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that" comment to JUST A FEW conservatives comments on the courts past potential rulings..

PRES G.W. Bush "The judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government."

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): “Unelected and serving with lifetime tenure, and substituting their view for the views of the people’s…the people and their elected representatives. That’s not the way our democracy is supposed to work.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Judges are not policymakers. That’s what we are in the Congress of the United States. Judges are called on to decide the facts and to apply the law.”

And of course the conservative diety President RONALD REAGAN would never threaten the court



President Reagan promised today to use the rest of his second term to appoint Federal judges who seek ''judicial restraint,'' and he criticized those who view courts as ''vehicles for political action and social experimentation.'' Mr. Reagan, speaking to a group of United States Attorneys, said he would appoint to the bench lawyers ''who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism.''



Damn if that doesn't sound threatening.

But if President Obama expresses "Confidence" that the court will uphold the law as constitutional?

"Power Grab"???


I ask again when does ones view become so untethered from objective thought that it qualifies as cognitive deficet?

To conservatives the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean any decision with a percieved "liberal" outcome.

For conservatives "judicial restraint" has come to mean any ruling with an outcome that benefits conservative idealogy.

But....all objective understanding of "restraint" vs. "Activism" in a constitutional context is lost to idealogy.

I am more sad than frustrated that the intelligent minds amongst the conservative voices are being ignored.

Thus far countless conservative legal experts and two very conservative appellate court judges have found the HCR law constitutional.

AND HERE IS THE KEY...they did not find it Constitutional because they agree with President Obama or his Policies...they found it constitutional because it is....and THEY are not policy makers. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT vs. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.






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



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join