Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 106

Thread: Constitutional Scholar? Really?

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425356]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.[/QUOTE]

    right, but see, in that last example you agree with Obama. That the courts should defer to the legislature.


    See, it is really a tricky subject. It matters mostly it seems, on the ruling.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=piney;4425357]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?[/QUOTE]

    BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    SHUT THE FUKC UP ABOUT BUSH

    We're talking about Obama. This is so so old. Every time this guy does something stupid it's right to the waaaaaaaaaaBushwaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Have some fukin balls and address THIS azzhole for a fukin minute. Christ almighty.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425377]BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    SHUT THE FUKC UP ABOUT BUSH

    We're talking about Obama. This is so so old. Every time this guy does something stupid it's right to the waaaaaaaaaaBushwaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Have some fukin balls and address THIS azzhole for a fukin minute. Christ almighty.[/QUOTE]

    Well he has a point. You seem to only have outrage when Obama does things that others befor him have done.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425377]BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    SHUT THE FUKC UP ABOUT BUSH

    We're talking about Obama. This is so so old. Every time this guy does something stupid it's right to the waaaaaaaaaaBushwaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Have some fukin balls and address THIS azzhole for a fukin minute. Christ almighty.[/QUOTE]

    you are obviously no getting the point of this at all.


    we are saying, "yeah Obama said it, but it isn't outragous because it is just politics", and we show you what we are talking about and you go on a belligerent rant.


    yeah, you make sense.

    We get it, you don't like Obama, but you are infering that this is some unprecedented power hungry maneuver, and it isn't. You are wrong.

    accept it.

  5. #25
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,581
    [QUOTE=piney;4425359]right, but see, in that last example you agree with Obama. That the courts should defer to the legislature.
    [/QUOTE]

    No, I disagree, and for the same reason that I disagree with Obamacare. The federal government is overreaching its authority and mandating what each state should do (compel people to buy healthcare; permit abortions)

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425415]No, I disagree, and for the same reason that I disagree with Obamacare. The federal government is overreaching its authority and mandating what each state should do (compel people to buy healthcare; permit abortions)[/QUOTE]

    Regulating commerce.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425415]No, I disagree, and for the same reason that I disagree with Obamacare. The federal government is overreaching its authority and mandating what each state should do (compel people to buy healthcare; permit abortions)[/QUOTE]

    right, but then you flip based on the issue and not the idea that the court should defer to legislature.

    Roe v Wade was the court saying abortion falls under the right to privacy (or something like that) and anti-abortion legislature in states was overturned by that ruling.

    f I am reading it correctly, you think the court should have defered to the legislature and let states decide if abortion was legal/illegal. That wasn't the Fed (to my knowledge) permitting abortions. The court actually struck down many state and federal restrictions on abortion.

    Then you think the court should overturn legislature because you don't agree with the mandate and consider it unconstitutional.

    See what I am saying here, in one case you think the court should not have struck down existing legislation and in another you think they should.

    That is where the argument is on judicial review, some people think that the court should defer and some say it should act against legislature considered overreaching.

    The court in Roe v Wade and if they go against Obamacare would be doing the same thing, striking down overreaching legislation (in the courts view).

    Since you are split on the two decisions (it seems) then in one case you want the court to act and in the other you don't.

    Hopefully I made sense here.
    Last edited by piney; 04-02-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  8. #28
    Are you mad at chief justice Roberts? He's worried about his popularity too.

    What would you expect any sitting President who passed legislation to say?

    Your outrage is comical, there a lot of people who do not understand the healthcare law and only know what they hear on Fox News.




    [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]

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=piney;4425398]you are obviously no getting the point of this at all.


    we are saying, "yeah Obama said it, but it isn't outragous because it is just politics", and we show you what we are talking about and you go on a belligerent rant.


    yeah, you make sense.

    We get it, you don't like Obama, but you are infering that this is some unprecedented power hungry maneuver, and it isn't. You are wrong.

    accept it.[/QUOTE]

    I only thing I need to accept is that you're an apologetic schill, unwilling to admit that Obama is a piece of shiit.

    A total and complete piece of shiit.

    Our system is dying, the American "empire" is crumbling, and because you are incapable of stepping up admit that your guy is a big part of it, it's just [I]politics[/I].:rolleyes:

    Sorry, but no. 20 years ago, if a politician did and said the things these last two buffoons have done, they wouldn't have been able to get elected to dog catcher.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=piney;4425438]right, but then you flip based on the issue and not the idea that the court should defer to legislature.

    Roe v Wade was the court saying abortion falls under the right to privacy (or something like that) and anti-abortion legislature in states was overturned by that ruling.

    f I am reading it correctly, you think the court should have defered to the legislature and let states decide if abortion was legal/illegal. That wasn't the Fed (to my knowledge) permitting abortions. The court actually struck down many state and federal restrictions on abortion.

    Then you think the court should overturn legislature because you don't agree with the mandate and consider it unconstitutional.

    See what I am saying here, in one case you think the court should not have struck down existing legislation and in another you think they should.

    That is where the argument is on judicial review, some people think that the court should defer and some say it should act against legislature considered overreaching.

    The court in Roe v Wade and if they go against Obamacare would be doing the same thing, striking down overreaching legislation (in the courts view).

    Since you are split on the two decisions (it seems) then in one case you want the court to act and in the other you don't.

    Hopefully I made sense here.[/QUOTE]

    No, you're not making sense. If you think the rulings on Obamacare and Roe v Wade are even in the same ballpark, it's clear you don't understand the system or the history of the bench at all.

    Roe v. Wade was not a case of the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of a Congressional bill.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425505]No, you're not making sense. If you think the rulings on Obamacare and Roe v Wade are even in the same ballpark, it's clear you don't understand the system or the history of the bench at all.

    Roe v. Wade was not a case of the SCOTUS ruling on the constitutionality of a Congressional bill.[/QUOTE]

    I think they are, to figure that out answer this simple question:


    Were there any anti-abortion legislation that was approved by a legislative body that the court ruled against and in doing so struck down those anti-abortion laws?

  12. #32
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,581
    [QUOTE=cr726;4425435]Regulating commerce.[/QUOTE]

    Kennedy posed a great question during the supreme court hearing: can the government create a commerce in order to mandate it?

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=FF2;4425388]Well he has a point. You seem to only have outrage when Obama does things that others befor him have done.[/QUOTE]

    As Plumber would say if this were a right wing sex scandal...

    ....don't blame me, Obama is the one who ran on "Change" from the ways ofthe past.

    People are just holdig him to the standard he ran on. Change.

    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425546]Kennedy posed a great question during the supreme court hearing: can the government create a commerce in order to mandate it?[/QUOTE]

    If you support the mandate portion, you must answer that question with a yes.

    And if the Fedeal Govt. has that power, based only on passing a Law, there is no specific or inherant limit to that power.

    Today, healthcare, tomorrow (under (R) or (D)).....who knows what. Once freedom is given, it;s very hard to get it back.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425502]I only thing I need to accept is that you're an apologetic schill, unwilling to admit that Obama is a piece of shiit.

    A total and complete piece of shiit.

    Our system is dying, the American "empire" is crumbling, and because you are incapable of stepping up admit that your guy is a big part of it, it's just [I]politics[/I].:rolleyes:

    Sorry, but no. 20 years ago, if a politician did and said the things these last two buffoons have done, they wouldn't have been able to get elected to dog catcher.[/QUOTE]

    you mean like Ronald Reagan? Who not only advocated it but nominated Judges like Anthony Kennedy who echoed the same idea?
    Last edited by piney; 04-02-2012 at 09:18 PM.

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4425547]As Plumber would say if this were a right wing sex scandal...

    ....don't blame me, Obama is the one who ran on "Change" from the ways ofthe past.

    People are just holdig him to the standard he ran on. Change.[/QUOTE]

    you are moving the goalpost, this thread wasn't started on how Pres Obama is not acting like Candidate Obama said he would, but on how this is some unprecedented power grab that has never happened before.

    Your point is valid though, and one of the main reasons why I am not voting for Obama, because he bacame the "same ol' same ol'"

  16. #36
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,581
    [QUOTE=piney;4425438]right, but then you flip based on the issue and not the idea that the court should defer to legislature.

    Roe v Wade was the court saying abortion falls under the right to privacy (or something like that) and anti-abortion legislature in states was overturned by that ruling.

    f I am reading it correctly, you think the court should have defered to the legislature and let states decide if abortion was legal/illegal. That wasn't the Fed (to my knowledge) permitting abortions. The court actually struck down many state and federal restrictions on abortion.

    Then you think the court should overturn legislature because you don't agree with the mandate and consider it unconstitutional.

    See what I am saying here, in one case you think the court should not have struck down existing legislation and in another you think they should.

    That is where the argument is on judicial review, some people think that the court should defer and some say it should act against legislature considered overreaching.

    The court in Roe v Wade and if they go against Obamacare would be doing the same thing, striking down overreaching legislation (in the courts view).

    Since you are split on the two decisions (it seems) then in one case you want the court to act and in the other you don't.

    Hopefully I made sense here.[/QUOTE]

    I really don't understand what you're driving at. I'm not split on the decisions at all, I'm actually quite consistent: enforce the power of state governments. In Roe v Wade, the court took power away from state governments, just as Obamacare took power away from state governments. That's why I don't agree with the Roe v Wade ruling, and why I think Obamacare should be struck down.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    It really is pointless. No one here even attempts to stay on topic.

    Go on continuing to live with blinders on. But keep your collective mouths shut and don't utter a single complaint when it all comes crumbling down.

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425546]Kennedy posed a great question during the supreme court hearing: can the government create a commerce in order to mandate it?[/QUOTE]

    That was a very poor question and it is no way relevant. Healthcare insurance is a 2 trillion dollar per year business.

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4425553]I really don't understand what you're driving at. I'm not split on the decisions at all, I'm actually quite consistent: enforce the power of state governments. In Roe v Wade, the court took power away from state governments, just as Obamacare took power away from state governments. That's why I don't agree with the Roe v Wade ruling, and why I think Obamacare should be struck down.[/QUOTE]

    but in both instances the court will be either defering to legislature or dissolving it.

    Now it is about States rights?

    this thread isn't about states rights, it is about whether or not judicial review should defer to the legislature or not, which is why one person here is up in arms.

    If your case is that you think the court should rule on behalf of states rights over all else, I don't know if that is what they are there to do.

    I mean, if that were the case, Brown vs Board of Ed. was a ruling that took away the power from state governments. It declared state laws were invalid. It gave that power to the federal gov't.

    Do you stand the same on Roe v Wade and Brown V Board of Ed? Are they states rights issues?

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4425557]It really is pointless. No one here even attempts to stay on topic.

    Go on continuing to live with blinders on. But keep your collective mouths shut and don't utter a single complaint when it all comes crumbling down.[/QUOTE]

    Wow, are you trying to replace Warfish as the resident drama queen?

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