Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 106

Thread: Constitutional Scholar? Really?

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559

    Constitutional Scholar? Really?

    Obama quote from today, on the pending mandate ruling:

    [I]"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"[/I]

    That right there sums this guy up in a nutshell. To him, our system of checks and balances is something to be observed as nothing but a meaningless, bothersome obstacle to be ignored at every turn.

    What exactly does this clown think the SCOTUS exists for in the first place?

    This should be infuriating to everyone who cares about our entire governmental system. Forget about what party you want to suck off for a second and think about what this guy just said.

    Can't wait to hear what the apologists have to say on this one.

  2. #2
    White House Authorizes Domestic Private Property Seizures w/ Executive Order………….. NOW HE CAN TAKE ANYTHING HE WANTS AWAY FROM YOU.

    The "constitutional scholar" strikes again!! as I have stated many times before, The pimple on my azz knows more about the constitution than the moron in the White House!!!
    Third Amendment
    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Fourth Amendment
    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425120]Obama quote from today, on the pending mandate ruling:

    [I]"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"[/I]

    That right there sums this guy up in a nutshell. To him, our system of checks and balances is something to be observed as nothing but a meaningless, bothersome obstacle to be ignored at every turn.

    What exactly does this clown think the SCOTUS exists for in the first place?

    This should be infuriating to everyone who cares about our entire governmental system. Forget about what party you want to suck off for a second and think about what this guy just said.

    Can't wait to hear what the apologists have to say on this one.[/QUOTE]

    Standard Issue Party Politics.

    When the SC overturns/supports a law theri way, they're all about the power of the SC as arbiters of truth and justice protecting the people from the wrongs of mob rule, last line defenders of the rights we all cherish.

    When the SC turns over something they support, the SC is a bunch of unelected tyrants ruling by fiat against the will of the people, performing "unprecidented" overrulings they have no right to make int he first place.

    (D), (R), they both do it, regularly.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4425154]Standard Issue Party Politics.

    When the SC overturns/supports a law theri way, they're all about the power of the SC as arbiters of truth and justice protecting the people from the wrongs of mob rule, last line defenders of the rights we all cherish.

    When the SC turns over something they support, the SC is a bunch of unelected tyrants ruling by fiat against the will of the people, performing "unprecidented" overrulings they have no right to make int he first place.

    (D), (R), they both do it, regularly.[/QUOTE]

    +1

    Politics.

  5. #5
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,528
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4425154]Standard Issue Party Politics.

    When the SC overturns/supports a law theri way, they're all about the power of the SC as arbiters of truth and justice protecting the people from the wrongs of mob rule, last line defenders of the rights we all cherish.

    When the SC turns over something they support, the SC is a bunch of unelected tyrants ruling by fiat against the will of the people, performing "unprecidented" overrulings they have no right to make int he first place.

    (D), (R), they both do it, regularly.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I'd like to see some specific examples.

    Obama has had it in for the Supreme Court ever since he publicly called them out in his State of the Union a few years ago. This is not normal presidential politics.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425169]Yeah, I'd like to see some specific examples.

    Obama has had it in for the Supreme Court ever since he publicly called them out in his State of the Union a few years ago. This is not normal presidential politics.[/QUOTE]

    The Citizens United ruling is unpopular.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4425154]Standard Issue Party Politics.

    When the SC overturns/supports a law theri way, they're all about the power of the SC as arbiters of truth and justice protecting the people from the wrongs of mob rule, last line defenders of the rights we all cherish.

    When the SC turns over something they support, the SC is a bunch of unelected tyrants ruling by fiat against the will of the people, performing "unprecidented" overrulings they have no right to make int he first place.

    (D), (R), they both do it, regularly.[/QUOTE]
    It's not even close. Kelo v New Haven, Activist Liberal judges gone a muck. Including the POS David Souter

  8. #8
    "US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law."

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder
    Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder generally believe that the world revolves around them. This condition is characterized by a lack of ability to empathize with others and a desire to keep the focus on themselves at all times.

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder involves arrogant behavior, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration-all of which must be consistently evident at work and in relationships. People who are narcissistic are frequently described as cocky, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. Narcissists may concentrate on unlikely personal outcomes (e.g., fame) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. ...Narcissists tend to have high self-esteem. However, narcissism is not the same thing as self-esteem; people who have high self-esteem are often humble, whereas narcissists rarely are. It was once thought that narcissists have high self-esteem on the surface, but deep down they are insecure. However, the latest evidence indicates that narcissists are actually secure or grandiose at both levels. Onlookers may infer that insecurity is there because narcissists tend to be defensive when their self-esteem is threatened (e.g., being ridiculed); narcissists can be aggressive. The sometimes dangerous lifestyle may more generally reflect sensation-seeking or impulsivity (e.g., risky sex, bold financial decisions). [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder[/url]

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425120]Obama quote from today, on the pending mandate ruling:

    [I]"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"[/I]

    That right there sums this guy up in a nutshell. To him, our system of checks and balances is something to be observed as nothing but a meaningless, bothersome obstacle to be ignored at every turn.

    What exactly does this clown think the SCOTUS exists for in the first place?

    This should be infuriating to everyone who cares about our entire governmental system. Forget about what party you want to suck off for a second and think about what this guy just said.

    Can't wait to hear what the apologists have to say on this one.[/QUOTE]

    Entirely ridiculous. Sad to see a Democrat adopting what had been, for a long time, a right wing republican mantra (not because I have any particular fondness for the democrats, but because this will mark the end of any cabining off of this ludicrous viewpoint)

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4425154]Standard Issue Party Politics.

    When the SC overturns/supports a law theri way, they're all about the power of the SC as arbiters of truth and justice protecting the people from the wrongs of mob rule, last line defenders of the rights we all cherish.

    When the SC turns over something they support, the SC is a bunch of unelected tyrants ruling by fiat against the will of the people, performing "unprecidented" overrulings they have no right to make int he first place.

    (D), (R), they both do it, regularly.[/QUOTE]

    Can't remember the last time I heard a democrat make this argument, but otherwise, I completely agree

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4425282]Can't remember the last time I heard a democrat make this argument, but otherwise, I completely agree[/QUOTE]

    Activist judges.

    They only "activate" when they say stuff you don't like.

    R's = D's

    Same as it ever was....

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425120]Obama quote from today, on the pending mandate ruling:

    [I]"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"[/I]

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't know if that is really damning, more political than anything else, something anyone would say in his situation.

    As long as he doesn't introduce or advocate the elimination of checks and balances I can't really get on the "outrage" train.


    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425169]Yeah, I'd like to see some specific examples.

    Obama has had it in for the Supreme Court ever since he publicly called them out in his State of the Union a few years ago. This is not normal presidential politics.[/QUOTE]

    conservatives have basically copyrighted the term "liberal activist judge"



    [QUOTE]REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): If we’re going to respect judge-made law and stop praying in our public schools, that was the beginning of the judicial activism that’s begun to break down this civilization, and this culture.

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    There have been plenty of times where conservatives and republicnas believed in deference to congress. Roe v Wade being one of them:

    [QUOTE](R-OH)Steve Chabot feels the court should defer to Congress's lawmaking ability in the matter. After all, he notes, he and the other members of the legislature "had extensive hearings with medical documentation, and medical testimony," and the Supreme Court generally, "as long as there's sufficient evidence, will defer to the legislative branch on something like this."

    [/QUOTE]

    There are two schools of thought when it comes judicial review. Some think that the courts should aggressively use judicial review to thwart acts of Congress, executive agencies, and the state legislatures when they find those acts to be excessive in authority and some that believe that the courts should defer to the judgment of the elected branches of government on legislative matters.

    I even think Alito sort of presented himself as a "conservative" judge believing in deference to congress, although I don't think he has shown that with all of his posiitons (at least those I know of).

    It is actually a very interesting topic to research and read about.

  13. #13
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,528
    [QUOTE=piney;4425325]I don't know if that is really damning, more political than anything else, something anyone would say in his situation.

    As long as he doesn't introduce or advocate the elimination of checks and balances I can't really get on the "outrage" train.




    conservatives have basically copyrighted the term "liberal activist judge"






    There have been plenty of times where conservatives and republicnas believed in deference to congress. Roe v Wade being one of them:



    There are two schools of thought when it comes judicial review. Some think that the courts should aggressively use judicial review to thwart acts of Congress, executive agencies, and the state legislatures when they find those acts to be excessive in authority and some that believe that the courts should defer to the judgment of the elected branches of government on legislative matters.

    I even think Alito sort of presented himself as a "conservative" judge believing in deference to congress, although I don't think he has shown that with all of his posiitons (at least those I know of).

    It is actually a very interesting topic to research and read about.[/QUOTE]


    I'd be interested to see an example of a recent Republican president scoffing at the concept of checks and balances.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425337]I'd be interested to see an example of a recent Republican president scoffing at the concept of checks and balances.[/QUOTE]

    Are you saying that is the the watermark? (that's a real question to gain clarity on your comment, not quip) Basically if one of the two Bush presidents didn't say it does that mean that the argument "both sides have advocated and stood against court deference" is null and void?

    [QUOTE]Eight years ago, George W. Bush administration lawyers went before the Supreme Court arguing that the justices should defer to the president during wartime and allow the commander in chief to decide how to treat "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo Bay.

    To their surprise, they lost. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined with the liberal bloc to rule that these prisoners had a right to a judicial hearing.

    [/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush said today the Supreme Court ruling allowing abortion "usurped the rights of the legislatures" in America.

    Bush was asked in a brief exchange with reporters to clarify his comments Thursday in which he had said the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 "was a stretch."

    Asked today if he felt the decision should be overturned, Bush said, "I felt like it was a case where the court took the place of what the legislatures should do in America." Asked what he thought the state legislatures should do, he said, "It should be up to each legislature."

    [/QUOTE]

    like I said, it is a very interesting topic to dig around and read about

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425337]I'd be interested to see an example of a recent Republican president scoffing at the concept of checks and balances.[/QUOTE]

    2002

    2003

    2004

    2005

    2006

    2007



    then suddenly....


    it stopped in 2008.


    Weird, yo.

  16. #16
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,528
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4425345]2002

    2003

    2004

    2005

    2006

    2007



    then suddenly....


    it stopped in 2008.


    Weird, yo.[/QUOTE]

    If you could provide some context behind... whatever this is, in the way of quotes or something, I'd like to see an example of Bush bemoaning the fact that checks and balances exist.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    This isn't just politics. It is much, much worse than that.

    At best this is a desperate man throwing up a Hail Mary. He knows what will happen if this gets overturned, and this is a direct threat to the judges. Obama is looking to get public support behind him. Problem is the lies behind it. Most of this country doesn't support the mandate.

    For those dismissing this, tell me, what does Obama think the Supreme Court exists for?

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425352]If you could provide some context behind... whatever this is, in the way of quotes or something, I'd like to see an example of Bush bemoaning the fact that checks and balances exist.[/QUOTE]

    Use the search function.


    Sent from my brain using Telepathy

  19. #19
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,528
    [QUOTE=piney;4425344]Are you saying that is the the watermark? (that's a real question to gain clarity on your comment, not quip) Basically if one of the two Bush presidents didn't say it does that mean that the argument "both sides have advocated and stood against court deference" is null and void?





    like I said, it is a very interesting topic to dig around and read about[/QUOTE]

    I hope PK is paying attention here. It's not very hard to cite actual examples. Thanks, piney.

    The first quote in regard to Guantanamo Bay I'd agree with you, that's a clear attempt to disregard the power of the Supreme Court.

    I don't agree with the second quote though. I've always believed that, while impractical, the abortion issue should have been left up to the states. I don't think it's within the power of the Supreme Court to make a decision like that.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425353]This isn't just politics. It is much, much worse than that.

    At best this is a desperate man throwing up a Hail Mary. He knows what will happen if this gets overturned, and this is a direct threat to the judges. Obama is looking to get public support behind him. Problem is the lies behind it. Most of this country doesn't support the mandate.

    For those dismissing this, tell me, what does Obama think the Supreme Court exists for?[/QUOTE]

    so what was it when Bush said the same thing?

    Or any other dem or republican that has said that in the past?

    Normally when the SCOTUS is ruling on a case someone is vested in they play that card.


    You do know that? Right?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us