PDA

View Full Version : Obama: Supreme Court won’t overturn health care law



Rockntractor
04-02-2012, 05:40 PM
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 4/2/12 2:31 PM EDT Updated: 4/2/12 3:37 PM EDT

President Barack Obama voiced confidence Monday that the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law in his first public remarks on the issue since the three days of oral arguments last week.

In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html#ixzz1qvCc7fJL

Janice
04-02-2012, 06:39 PM
It is an extraordinarily stupid thing for a sitting president to attack a coequal branch of government. And this is not his first time. His comments are so breathtakingly stupid that he should be removed from office, or censured by the congress, or suspended from the presidency for demonstrated incompetence. He is either completely clueless about the constitution, or astoundlingly dishonest, or a combination thereof.

The ultimate irony of all this, if the SCOTUS upholds this dictatorial utopian regulatory scam, will be that the world will eventually find out that America was brougth down by a man who was not even elligible to hold the office.

SarasotaRepub
04-02-2012, 09:49 PM
Our Dear Leader certainly sounded like he was threatening the SC.

Retread
04-02-2012, 09:55 PM
"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. ... [S]hould Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government, such [acts are] not the law of the land."

Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) US Supreme Court Chief Justice

Articulate_Ape
04-02-2012, 10:09 PM
It is an extraordinarily stupid thing for a sitting president to attack a coequal branch of government. And this is not his first time. His comments are so breathtakingly stupid that he should be removed from office, or censured by the congress, or suspended from the presidency for demonstrated incompetence. He is either completely clueless about the constitution, or astoundlingly dishonest, or a combination thereof.

The ultimate irony of all this, if the SCOTUS upholds this dictatorial utopian regulatory scam, will be that the world will eventually find out that America was brougth down by a man who was not even elligible to hold the office.

Indeed, but there seems to be nothing beyond the reach of this child-king's arrogance. He expects the SCOTUS to respect him after his chastisement of the Justices during a State of the Union Speech?


http://youtu.be/NeTuWbXi5dY

Beyond the utter falsehoods and hypocrisy this Charlatan in Chief displayed in that speech, does he really think that scolding the SCOTUS, a coequal branch of our federal government, smoothed the path for his juggernaut of American destruction?

This is the smartest man to ever be our president? Please. This guy is deluded, malevolent toward America, and thankfully the dumbest man ever to serve in any public office. God help us if he was as smart as his zombies claim.


He's not. My 24 year old son would out-think Obama. Astounding.

Starbuck
04-02-2012, 10:38 PM
:applause: .....Here's to all those who found Obama's comments to be strange, arrogant, out of place, puzzling, and whatever.
He is daring them to find it unconstitutional?! He is saying that because it was passed by the legislature, it must be legal? That's......zen-like. It passed, therefore it is.....:cold:

AmPat
04-02-2012, 11:33 PM
I expect the liberal "Justices" to continue licking his scrotum. The libtards on the bench are shameful and be removed from their position for gross negligence. They are there to rule on Constitutionality or not, NOT whether it is good or bad for their chosen ideology.

And the DICKtator In Chief needs to keep his rather large, stupid , cavernous mouth shut until the ruling is issued. Then, he needs to for once act presidential and display some class. We know he can act, he acts every time he tells another lie. He needs to act like he has some class.

txradioguy
04-03-2012, 02:16 AM
Our Dear Leader certainly sounded like he was threatening the SC.

I'm telling you...I wouldn't put it past him to fire the entire Supreme Court if he doesn't get his way on this law.

Odysseus
04-03-2012, 10:38 AM
I'm telling you...I wouldn't put it past him to fire the entire Supreme Court if he doesn't get his way on this law.

This is pure Alinsky. He's making the case that if the court does it's job, it's illegitimate, and therefore he can isolate and freeze it as a target. He cannot arbitrarily fire the court, but he can try to pack it with the help of the senate.

Hawkgirl
04-03-2012, 10:52 AM
I'm telling you...I wouldn't put it past him to fire the entire Supreme Court if he doesn't get his way on this law.

He doesn't have the power to do that.

Rockntractor
04-03-2012, 10:52 AM
If a president ignores a court ruling and the senate is the same party as he is, how can he be stopped?

linda22003
04-03-2012, 11:06 AM
I'm telling you...I wouldn't put it past him to fire the entire Supreme Court if he doesn't get his way on this law.

I think he's aware he doesn't have that power. Cf. Roosevelt and Court packing in the 1930s.

Rockntractor
04-03-2012, 11:11 AM
I think he's aware he doesn't have that power. Cf. Roosevelt and Court packing in the 1930s.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?48381-FDR-declared-war-on-the-Supreme-Court-in-1937

Janice
04-03-2012, 02:16 PM
If a president ignores a court ruling and the senate is the same party as he is, how can he be stopped?

That would normally be applicable. But this guy has a track record of flaunting laws, the courts and arbitrarily going over the heads of congress. So who knows what he thinks he can get away with. No one else has ever been this brazen... as far as I know. Just because the media refuses to report it doesnt mean its not happening. It just means they agree with him or... he strong arms some of them the way we've seen him do to others. And what he's threatening to do now.

This is a dictator in the making.

Janice
04-03-2012, 02:25 PM
Next up ... the NEA having their students (our kids) write to the justices pleading for them to pass this monstrosity.

txradioguy
04-03-2012, 02:37 PM
That would normally be applicable. But this guy has a track record of flaunting laws, the courts and arbitrarily going over the heads of congress. So who knows what he thinks he can get away with. No one else has ever been this brazen... as far as I know. Just because the media refuses to report it doesnt mean its not happening. It just means they agree with him or... he strong arms some of them the way we've seen him do to others. And what he's threatening to do now.

This is a dictator in the making.

I could see him going on TV and announcing that by Executive Order he has dissolved the current Supreme Court and has sent to Congress the names of 9 new justices...and that he encourages their swift and unanimous approval to the bench. Then finish up his brief TOTUS apporved message by saying something along the lines of "The health of this nation and it's people cannot be decided by the political whims of 9 unelected activist lawyers. The law was democratically passed and I intend to see it fully implemented. Which is why I've taken this extrodinary step. Thank you."

linda22003
04-03-2012, 02:51 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?48381-FDR-declared-war-on-the-Supreme-Court-in-1937

Uh-huh. Can you name all fifteen of the current justices? :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
04-03-2012, 03:00 PM
Uh-huh. Can you name all fifteen of the current justices? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you are saying, Roosevelt didn't get away with his plan.

txradioguy
04-03-2012, 03:09 PM
I'm not sure what you are saying, Roosevelt didn't get away with his plan.

It's a RINO's attempt at Snark.

And it failed miserably.

linda22003
04-03-2012, 03:19 PM
I'm not sure what you are saying, Roosevelt didn't get away with his plan.

But you're sure Obama would?

linda22003
04-03-2012, 03:20 PM
It's a RINO's attempt at Snark.

And it failed miserably.

In your eyes, and that's a standard I can live with. :biggrin-new:

FlaGator
04-03-2012, 03:44 PM
Fearless leader keeps it up for a second day


Asked about the court case, Obama once again said he's confident the law will be upheld while offering words of warning to the high court.

"The Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it. But it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress," Obama said.

"The burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well established precedents out there," he added.

The president said the administration is not spending much time "planning for contingencies" because he doesn't expect the overhaul to be struck down

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/obama-reminds-supreme-court-on-showing-deference-to-congress/#ixzz1r0Y6EttE

What precedent is the Obama talking about. The job of the SCOTUS is to pronounce a law either constitutional or unconstitutional.

Congress proposes and the Supreme Court either imposes or desposes.

And since when had Obama every cared about precedents? He sure didn't care about them concerning recess appointments.

Bailey
04-03-2012, 03:52 PM
Fearless leader keeps it up for a second day

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/obama-reminds-supreme-court-on-showing-deference-to-congress/#ixzz1r0Y6EttE

What precedent is the Obama talking about. The job of the SCOTUS is to pronounce a law either constitutional or unconstitutional.

Congress proposes and the Supreme Court either imposes or desposes.

And since when had Obama every cared about precedents? He sure didn't care about them concerning recess appointments.


Why is he coming out and saying stuff like this? What is he trying to accomplish?

Rockntractor
04-03-2012, 04:01 PM
But you're sure Obama would?

I'm not sure he wouldn't try.

txradioguy
04-04-2012, 02:14 AM
Why is he coming out and saying stuff like this? What is he trying to accomplish?

Thuggery pure and simple. He's trying via the media to imtimidate the SCOTUS into upholding the individual mandate. He knows if it gets overturned then Obama care fails and in essence his Presidency his "legacy" fails as well.

In normal person speak he's saying "if you know what's good for you...don't you dare reject this".

Elspeth
04-06-2012, 08:51 PM
Twenty million could lose employer coverage under Obama health care overhaul (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29820)


"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."--Barack Obama, August 11, 2009 (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/11/barack-obama/barack-obama-promises-you-can-keep-your-health-ins/)


As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored coverage in 2019 under the health care legislation signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. This is the worst-case scenario set out by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in a report released in mid March.

The CBO’s most optimistic estimate, which the federal agency says is subject to a “tremendous amount of uncertainty,” is that 3 million to 5 million could lose their employer health coverage each year from 2019 through 2022.

The new projections for loss of employee coverage are a substantial increase over last year’s estimates, when the CBO’s best prediction was that only 1 million people would lose employer-sponsored coverage.

The new study is the latest indication that the health care overhaul will result in a deterioration of health care for the majority of Americans, and not the improvement touted by the Obama administration. Working families and those in low-wage jobs stand to suffer the most from companies eliminating coverage...

...Companies with more than 50 employees that stop offering health coverage will be levied a $2,000 per employee tax penalty. The CBO projection indicates that a significant proportion of businesses will find it financially advantageous to drop coverage and pay the penalty.

The CBO’s worst-case scenario is in line with previous studies on the impact of the health care bill on employer coverage. A study released in August 2011 by human resources consultants Towers Watson showed that at least 9 percent of companies planned to drop their coverage by 2014. A study last June by the McKinsey Company showed that an even larger proportion, 30 percent, were likely to stop providing coverage when provisions of the PPACA take effect....

Retread
04-06-2012, 09:00 PM
When clever only looks like dumb


By Wesley Pruden

Presidential contempt for the Supreme Court and inconvenient law is not new. But rarely has a president sounded so, well, dumb, as when Barack Obama lectured the justices on what they can and can’t do to his cherished Obamacare.

The court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns his health-care scheme because it was enacted by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” the president declared. Obamacare actually cleared the House by only seven votes, 219 to 212, and on their face the president’s remarks betray an astonishing ignorance of the Constitution and how the republic works.

But Barack Obama is neither dumb nor ignorant. The man praised as the greatest orator since Demosthenes celebrated hope and change in ancient Greece knows better than to bandy words foolishly. So why would he say something so foolish and dumb?

The president had clearly been reading about the campaign in the South to “Impeach Earl Warren” decades ago.


Even a community organizer knows that the authority of the Supreme Court to determine whether acts of Congress conflict with the Constitution is well and truly established. The president, who frequently describes himself (inaccurately) as a former professor of constitutional law, sounded willfully ignorant. The White House has been putting out “clarifications” every day since, arguing that Mr. Obama, once a “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago law school, didn’t actually say what he actually did say.

Republican politicians, pundits, lawyers and academics who leaped to lecture the president on the finer points of the Constitution missed by a mile the point of his rant. Mr. Obama’s rant was not meant for Republican politicians, pundits, lawyers and academics. He was talking to his congregation and his choir, building a fire under them and giving them an advance look at talking points for the campaign to come if the Supremes kill or wound Obamacare. He’s more than willing to sound dumb and ignorant in the greater cause of his re-election.

He actually appropriated battle-tested language of assaults on earlier Supreme Courts, berating “judicial activism” of “an unelected group of people” trying to “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” The president had clearly been reading about the campaign to “Impeach Earl Warren” on billboards and bus-stop benches in the wake of the desegregation rulings a generation (and more) ago. These billboards flourished like azaleas in April along highways and byways across the South. No one actually expected to see the chief justice dispatched in shame and ignominy, but the vision of such a spectacle, cultivated by segregationist politicians in Richmond and Birmingham and Little Rock to keep hope alive, propelled white voters to the ballot box to preserve the politicians. Maybe this court’s conservative majority could be demonized, too.

President Obama’s rant against the court was of a piece with his earlier joining the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson – and much of the mainstream media – in race-baiting tragedy in the death of Trayvon Martin. Instead of quietly assigning the Justice Department to determine the facts and whether Trayvon Martin’s civil rights in federal law were violated, the president suggested the tragedy was all about race when there is still no evidence that it was about race at all. Race-baiting, ugly but often effective, was once the exclusive province of the right; it has become the default tactic of the left.

Mr. Obama uses the tactic skillfully. He put his remarks about the Trayvon Martin tragedy in the most calculated and emotional terms – “if I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin” – and his lecture to the Supreme Court was carefully calibrated, with lawyerly ahs, umms and pauses suggesting that he had given his remarks careful thought and was determined to be precise and specific (like Demosthenes). The later “clarifications” put out by the White House retracted nothing.

Attorney Gen. Eric Holder delivered at the end of Mr. Obama’s remarkable week the “three-page, single-spaced letter” requested by a U.S. Appeals Court judge in Houston, affirming that the Justice Department agrees, even if the president appeared not to, that “the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute.” No surprise there, and we can be sure that the president himself vetted the letter, if indeed he did not write it himself.

One outraged pundit decides that Mr. Obama has revealed himself to be “no longer a serious man. Nor an honest one.” This misses the point, too. Barack Obama never was.

Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington