Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

[bodypilot90 0]

It seems Obama again spoke "stupidly"

Quote

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would 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."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

[ShcShc11 0]

The alternate solution to fixing the Health Care market is... Universal Health Care.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

It seems Obama again spoke "stupidly"

Quote

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would 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."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

He spoke arrogantly is the way I would phrase it. At least some are starting to call him on his bull shit

I also see in the news that some are saying the bs he pulled on this one resembles jury tampering

In any case, he was a pure ass on this one

Now he is back tracking

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mirage62 0]

I don't think Obama makes mistakes like that. He knew what he was saying before he said it and most likely knew it would raise some eye brows. If you recall in the sate of the union his comments about the SC. I wonder if that was the start of his plan?

It is odd though that the statement was so far out. The SC strikes down laws often...I wonder if he is betting that he can "blame" the SC if it fails.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I don't think Obama makes mistakes like that. He knew what he was saying before he said it and most likely knew it would raise some eye brows. If you recall in the sate of the union his comments about the SC. I wonder if that was the start of his plan?

It is odd though that the statement was so far out. The SC strikes down laws often...I wonder if he is betting that he can "blame" the SC if it fails.

And then there is the item that the first SC vote on this was last Friday

Gotta wonder if he has been give a clue as to that vote?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mirage62 0]

Rep or Dem president..... I don't like them getting to far out there with the SC. Somethings need to have a clear and define seperation.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Rep or Dem president..... I don't like them getting to far out there with the SC. Somethings need to have a clear and define seperation.

That seperation needs to be clear all the time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Rep or Dem president..... I don't like them getting to far out there with the SC. Somethings need to have a clear and define seperation.

That seperation needs to be clear all the time

How will that happen while the president nominates the SC justices.

The SC is just as politicized as Congress or the White House. And that is not a good thing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Rep or Dem president..... I don't like them getting to far out there with the SC. Somethings need to have a clear and define seperation.

That seperation needs to be clear all the time

How will that happen while the president nominates the SC justices.

I guess I was talking about the power of the branchs

What are you talking about?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The SC is just as politicized as Congress or the White House. And that is not a good thing.

Correct. Presidents have a long and storied history of HATING that the SCOTUS stands as the representative of the Constitution. Check out the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. It was FDR's plan to actually stack the court.

But John - if you are bemoaning the politicization of the SCOTUS, what are your thoughts on a President that actively, intentionally, and through a statement that is provably false is greatly increasing the politicization of it?

John - you are a man of integrity. What the President said was an outright lie about it being "unprecedented." Do you support the head of the government knowingly telling whoppers in order to gain political sight?

What's wrong is wrong, John. And the President was wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

The SC is just as politicized as Congress or the White House. And that is not a good thing.

Correct. Presidents have a long and storied history of HATING that the SCOTUS stands as the representative of the Constitution. Check out the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. It was FDR's plan to actually stack the court.

But John - if you are bemoaning the politicization of the SCOTUS, what are your thoughts on a President that actively, intentionally, and through a statement that is provably false is greatly increasing the politicization of it?

John - you are a man of integrity. What the President said was an outright lie about it being "unprecedented." Do you support the head of the government knowingly telling whoppers in order to gain political sight?

What's wrong is wrong, John. And the President was wrong.

Yes he was. And that is quite independent of the FACT that SCOTUS is just as politicized as Congress. We can pretty much guarantee how 8 of the justices will vote on almost any issue with political implications, based on the party of the president who nominated them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We can pretty much guarantee how 8 of the justices will vote on almost any issue with political implications,

Okay. Guarantee me, vote for vote, the way it's going to turn out on these issues:
(1) Do the petitioners have standing to challenge it;
(2) Is the individual mandate Constitutional; and
(3) Is the individual mandate severable, or must the whole law be stricken?

I look forward to your response and gauging of your accuracy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The alternate solution to fixing the Health Care market is... Universal Health Care.

Which is why the father of YOUR system said it was broken and GB is privatizing theirs, I suppose.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Yeah, this is just a pissing match now. I do wonder if it will weigh on the Supreme Court's deliberations. One thing for sure about judges...they really dislike when somebody challenges their authroity.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

I will not question Marbury v. Madison.
I will not question Marbury v. Madison.
I will not question Marbury v. Madison.
I will not question Marbury v. Madison.
I will not question Marbury v. Madison.
I will not question Marbury v. Madison.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NewGuy2005 51]

Quote

Yes he was. And that is quite independent of the FACT that SCOTUS is just as politicized as Congress. We can pretty much guarantee how 8 of the justices will vote on almost any issue with political implications, based on the party of the president who nominated them.

Nonsense. Do the SC Justices deal with lobbyists? Do they have constituents? Do they have to raise money from political donors in order to run for re-election?

On your second point I think it would be more accurate to say... We can pretty much guarantee how 8 of the justices will vote on almost any issue with political implications, based on their own philosophical convictions which may be in alignment with the president who nominated them. You make them sound like party hacks.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

You make them sound like party hacks.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You make them sound like party hacks.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.

The 7-2 decision that the Florida recount went against the Equal Protection clause proves your point to be false.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NewGuy2005 51]

Quote

Quote

You make them sound like party hacks.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.

We can count on you to respond in a consistent manner to "almost any issue with political implications." Does that make you a party hack?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The 7-2 decision that the Florida recount went against the Equal Protection clause proves your point to be false.

It's heresy to mention that ruling!!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NewGuy2005 51]

Quote

Quote

The 7-2 decision that the Florida recount went against the Equal Protection clause proves your point to be false.

It's heresy to mention that ruling!!!

La la la la la la la la la la I'm not listening. I'm not listening. I'm not listening la la la la la la

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

You make them sound like party hacks.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.

Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are.

[NewGuy2005 51]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You make them sound like party hacks.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.

Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are.

Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board.

their job is absolutely to ignore their personal and subjective ideologies and just focus on constitutionality (unless their personal ideology actually is "constitution" = "top priority")

I don't think the constitution is a Ouija board,

YMMV, but NOT if you are a SC Justice. That's the whole point.

I absolutely admire any judge that can admit he has a personal objection to a ruling, but still does it because that's what the law says.

(props for knowing how to spell weegee board too, BTW)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You make them sound like party hacks.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.

Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are.

Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board.

Being a judge is never about party or beliefs, it is about deciding an outcome based on law, the SC law is the constitution. when you make rulings based on anything other than law the rest of us can no longer trust that we would get a FAIR trial.