Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court . . .

Jump to Last Post 1-21 of 21 discussions (88 posts)

0
Longhunterposted 12 years ago
Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court, what do you think Obama's reaction will be if Obamacare is struck down?
reply report
1. 77
  TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First: I don't think the Supreme Court will strike down the entire ACA. They may dump the mandate out, but nothing else that I know of in the ACA is arguable. Second, if they do strike the entire ACA down, I think Obama will work on improvements and try to get a new law passed. He is not one to give up. Furthermore, if the entire act is dumped, there will be plenty of screaming from those who are already getting benefits from it and they will make their views known with their votes. This is a very dicey situation and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. By the way, the SC has the option of doing nothing until 2015, just so you know!!
  reply report
2. 60
  mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Clearly Obama and the Democrats have succeeded in defining the republican opposition as the party of no, the republican congress as the do nothing congress and now if obamacare is struck down they will define the supreme court as a partisan court.At the same time he is making it known to justice roberts that this will be the portrayal of the court,so as to put pressure on him.He is also letting the republicans know that if obamacare is struck down , andhe wins reelection he is going for single payer as soon as he is inaugurated.
  reply report
3. 0
  Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If it passes it's one more small step towards a socialist state, and one "great leap forward" into a living Hell.
  
  reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
I know what I would say...

5 to 4 for Citizens United

5 to 4 for strip-searching whether there is reason to or not

and if it is 5 to 4 on the ACA....

I would say vote for me, or you as an individual are through. You will belong lock, stock and barrel to the corporate fake-religion state.

(not to mention using broccoli in a serious discussion.....welcome to kindygarden.)
reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
"Right-wing media are attacking President Obama over comments he recently made in which he pointed out that if the Supreme Court decides to strike down the Affordable Care Act, it will be an "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" step. In fact, the Supreme Court has not struck down a central provision of a landmark federal statute since the 1930s."
reply report
1. 61
  Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Probably because Obama's complaint almost suggests that he doesn't understand how the federal government works on a very basic level. To think, the SCOTUS would overturn a law that Congress passed! By a majority (one wonders how else they would pass it)! What is this, some kind of "checks and balances" system or something?
  
  http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/201 … ecedented/
  reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
I agree with the 1st commenter to that smug article:

"Judicial activism is only judicial activism if a conservative says it is."

just like everything else...when they do it, it's fine.
reply report
1. 60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know thats what you believe, but did you know 81% of all supreme court cases heard do not result in a 5 to 4 split. In fact a 5-4 split is rare unlike how the left wants to make it out to be
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All I know is 5 to 4 on Citizens United, and 5 to 4 on strip searching even if there's no cause.
  
  I would look up others, but some corporate front group named HAPPILLI has infested my computer.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh now there is a conspiracy to keep LMC down. If nothing else you guys on the left do keep me entertained
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No conspiracy...just a corporate group trying to make money. and it stinks!
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Whoa! I didn't know it was this....I just googled:
  
  Remove Happili.com, Happili.com Remover - SpyNoMore: Spyware ...
  Remove Happili.com in a few minutes. Happili.com and other malware removal made easy.
  
  www.spynomore.com/happili-com.htm
  
  SPYWARE?????
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Threat risk: High Risk
  
  Very dangerous malware. Can log user's keyboard activity and take snapshots of the user's screen. Uses stealth installation and removal is very difficult. Category includes spyware programs, adware programs and trojans.
  
  dang.....
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't know if this is related, but just came across this:
  
  Max Keiser‏@maxkeiser
  "Is Steve Jobs trying to come back from the dead? 'Half a million Mac computers 'infected with malware' Wouldn't that be cool!"
  
  are a lot of computers being infected?? Mine was HAPPILLI.
  reply report
61
Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago
Either it's constitutional or it's not. Nothing apart from that deserves any consideration at all.
reply report
1. 81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ask these people!:
  
  http://mediamatters.org/research/201204030015
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Media Matters, I cannot believe you would use them as a source, a group that writes all the news for the left, all their talking point s and more. ou really need to expand what you see and read
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Doesn't matter who the source is....these people said what they said! Yes, it was a cause celeb to diss "activist judges" when Clinton was prez.
  
  just like sleeping around on wives was prevalent, while they were impeaching
  Clinton
  
  ahhhh, to live life without conscience....
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  WOW,
  
  You really need to open your eyes. You complain about something one side is doing and you side is just as bad if not worse about it, oh but that is OK. the dems look down on woman and treat them in disregard and you stick up for them.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  HEY!! I told you....I do it too. I give Obama latitude because I like him. You people do the same, but won't admit it. You still try and maintain some moral high-ground.
  ---it doesn't exist.
  
  In fact, today I was talking to my mom. I said "Remember when they used to call themselves the Moral Majority? I don't think they are the majority." my mom says, "Or moral."...!!
  reply report
2. 77
  TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Eric: You apparently haven't listened to the audio tapes and other commentaries. The court does NOT have to terminate Obamacare in its entirety. They can strike down parts of it they consider unconstitutional. For example, it is not unconstiutional to allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans until age 26, so why would the court think it was??
  reply report
  61
  Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My understanding was that the bill was structured around and to a certain extent dependent on the mandate. Of course, I also thought that about the public option, so what do I know?
  
  Correct, though, I know the Supreme Court doesn't have to tear down the whole bill if the mandate doesn't hold.
  reply report
61
Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago
reply report
92
habeeposted 12 years ago
I really have mixed feelings about ObamaCare. I like that more people, especially kids, will be covered. I like not being turned down for pre-existing conditions. It bothers me, however, that the gov. can force us to buy a product. On the other hand, I don't like people without insurance getting a "free ride." WE end up paying for such individuals' health care, anyway, so why shouldn't THEY have to pay for insurance like the rest of us do? I also don't like the waivers that have been granted.
reply report
1. 81
  Wayne Brownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are a number of ways in which the methods employed by the insurance industry can be adjusted by regulation and laws without having the federal government take over the healthcare industry in America. The federal government cannot run itself much less act as the basis of authority for the medical industry. This is a downward move for America; a move toward mediocrity which the liberals of the world refer to as "fairness". Where does it stop for the government...do they get to pick out your casket and design your headstone. America was concieved as a nation of freedom and choice in our lives. The Constitution is our basis for all of it. How dare Obama challenge the Supreme Court when it comes to determining whether a piece of legislation can pass the litmus test set forth by the Constitution. More thought should have gone into the bill upfront in order to avoid such conflict. When we throw away the Constitution, we have thrown it all away and all bets are off as the value judgements in your life will forever be made by politicians and the federal government...neither of which has the qualifications or the ability to do so. WB
  reply report
  77
  TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wayne Brown: Why do you and others see this as an "all or nothing" situation? And if there are other ways to regulate insurers, why hasn't this been done already. Health Insurance in it's present state has been around a looooong time, and has only gotten worse as time has gone on. In fact, they're killing us!
  
  I'll tell you something else. The Government runs Medicare. I am on Medicare, and I can tell you they have done an outstanding job with it. It is not perfect and as with all things could stand some improvement, but I have found Medicare to be fair and efficient.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A friend of mine's father passed away a couple of years ago, and he helped his elderly mother deal with insurance companies, banks, Medicare, and Social Security. He said that working with the government was easy and efficient, while dealing with the insurance companies and banks was a nightmare. The government employees wanted to help, while the insurance companies and banks wanted to delay and deny.
  reply report
2. 61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Firstly, I'm going to begin by apologizing here for my interjection, as I'm not an American citizen and other than what I have read, I do not know how Obamacare has affected you all, positively or otherwise. As a Brit, however, I have to say that "insurance for all" as in the National insurance that we pay, has worked pretty well. Not perfect, but good.
  
  I understand where you are coming from, Habee, when you say that you don't like to be forced into something. But, I have to say, if this legislation is beneficial for all, then isn't that a good thing?: Kids health taken care of, whatever their families means, people with pre-existing conditions also treated. When healthcare becomes purely about profit for the already wealthy and treatment for those who can afford, then there has to be something wrong there.
  
  Six weeks ago, my son fell from a 2nd floor balcony (20ft) he fractured his skull, was bleeding behind the fracture. Broke a bone in his hand (which became dislocated) ruptured his tendon (has received surgery) And, the only questions we were asked was, his name, date of birth and any known allergies? He's still receiving lots of treatment and he is doing well. However, had we lived in America, prior to the Obamacare legislation, I doubt very much that I could have afforded his treatment- not long term, despite the fact that I have worked from the age of sixteen. I just can't see how helping those who could otherwise not afford healthcare, can be a bad thing.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My god, that's awful! Good GOOD thing you live in England!
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is, LMC. However, our current coalition government want to change all that. They will change it. Private companies and profit, that is their goal.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Welcome to America---GOP style.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, apparently the tories are very friendly with the Tea party, or should I say their funders. We're fighting them. though!
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Same here....OWS for the world!
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The UK is more civilized than the US.
  reply report
73
Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago
The Court decides what is Constitutional. In fact all three branches of government hold an obligation in this matter!

All branches of government are sworn to uphold the Constitution. If it is deemed unconstitutional, two branches of government have failed to uphold their oath.
reply report
1. 0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There's only one small problem, RB.
  
  Barack Hussein Obama couldn't care less about the Constitution.
  reply report
  77
  TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  longhunter: and you're basing this statement on what facts? How can you possibly believe that the POTUS would dare to ignore the Constitution? You should remember that the ACA was VOTED IN by a lot of people, not just Obama. That being the case, you must feel that ALL of the politicians who voted for it have no regard for the Constitution. If you feel that strongly about our government officials, maybe you need to find a country to live in that pleases you more.
  
  Disagreeing with a concept is one thing, making rash judgments is quite another. You may not like Obama, but you should at least show some respect for the office of the President.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here's a little tidbit for you about your president, Barack Hussein Obama, and his opinion of our Constitution.
  
  For some insight into his current thinking, Obama, while in the Illinois senate, in a 2001 interview, said that the Chief Justice Earl Warren court failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the US Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth.
  
  "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
  
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo … 6335/posts
  
  Obama took an oath. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
  
  Obviously, the man either didn't meant it when he took the oath and his word isn't worth a pile of crap or his ability sucks. You feel free to choose. My opinion? BOTH!
  
  I have respect for the office of POTUS, TT, just not for the current OCCUPANT of that office. And, frankly, I could give less than a tinker's damn if you or anyone else likes the fact I think Barack Hussein Obama is un-American in his dislike of this country and it's Constitution.
  
  While your president would like nothing more than to change this country into his version of a Socialist Utopia, until then we still have freedom of speech. Since we have freedom of speech, yes, I have a very low opinion of the current OCCUPANT of the office of POTUS and I will voice that opinion as I see fit. That includes whether you or anyone else likes it.
  
  As for me going some place else, I was born here and will die here, TT. I am an American and intend to stay right where I am and fight for the country I love and it's Constitution.
  
  If you and any other liberal want the so called benefits of living in a Socialist Utopia, Delta is ready when you are. There's Cuba or China or a myriad of other Socialist places true American would love to see you people go. All you need do is buy the ticket and GET OUT!
  reply report
  77
  TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It never fails that someone who gets called on the carpet uses inflammatory labels as comebacks. If you're so anti socialist, I suggest you not take social security, SSI, disability or Medicare when the opportunity arises for you to do so...or, if you already are taking them...give it back! Trying to provide quality healthcare for the weakest among us is not socialism. Oh, and by the way, the next time your insurance company refuses to cover your pre existing condition (aka nasty mouth and attitude), make sure you tell them how much you like them because they are not socialists!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Look, dude, it's not my fault your overly sensitive, Socialist ideology is showing through.
  
  I'm not getting any of those "benefits", TT, and, by the time I can, they'll be non-existent due to the morons in Washington. And please take note of the fact I said "morons", not liberals, Socialists, Dems, or Conservatives.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Barack Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. What are your credentials that you can make such a claim about our President?
  
  And if you say, "I read the constitution!" don't be surprised when people laugh at you.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Teaching it and giving a damn about it are two different things, PP. The difference is I believe we should govern the country according to it. Obama does not and would like nothing more than to do away with it.
  
  Obviously, you believe the same as Obama. All Socialist think alike as they are not allowed to think for themselves.
  
  Other than being a raging Socialist like Obama, what are your credentials, PP?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LH, I am not presuming to know better than a constitutional law professor, or the Supreme Court, what is or is not constitutional. I have not stated here whether or not I believe the individual mandate to be constitutional, since I don't have the expertise to make that assertion one way or another. I don't think the Affordable Care Act is necessarily the best way to insure people, but it's what we have and I am glad something was done to help people who could not otherwise afford insurance or who were denied because of pre-existing conditions.
  
  You are revealing your own lack of intellect and character by assuming that I agree with Obama, by implying that I don't have a mind of my own, and by calling me a raging Socialist, all because I called you out for asserting that Obama doesn't care about the constitution. Constitutional experts can and will disagree. To say that a constitutional law professor who became President of the United States doesn't care about the constitution just because their educated opinion differs from another educated opinion is only revealing your own inability to grasp the subtleties of an intellectual disagreement.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When it comes to whether or not the law is constitutional, I can only defer to what lower courts have ruled and feel the Supreme Court will rule likewise. Obviously, you have chosen to disregard the cost to the tax payer but perhaps you are one of the bottom 50% who pays no taxes.
  
  You've presented yourself as nothing but an Obama supporting liberal thus I can only assume you and your president are cut from the same Socialist cloth.
  
  For you to say a constitutional law professor who became POTUS does care about the Constitution when his own words bare out he only holds that document in contempt proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, your own inability to see what's plainly in front of you, PP. Typical liberal.
  
  As to YOUR "ability to grasp the subtleties of an intellectual disagreement," I'll not comment on something you're obviously incapable of doing.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. Do you even know what this means?
  
  "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The court didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution . . . meaning it didn't move away from what's in the Constitution about what the government, state or federal, can't do for us but rather must do, as if we don't know what the hell we're doing on our own.
  
  What YOU apparently don't understand is this country was set up with a Constitution that allowed its people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, unfettered by the government. It's a couple of little things called LIBERTY and FREEDOM.
  
  Perhaps some within our society can't handle either on their own, be it due to laziness or simple stupidity, so they want the government to have all control over them. I'm not one of those people. If you are, there are plenty of countries where they offer that thing called Socialism. If there are those that wish to live under such conditions, I would suggest they take up residency there and please, for the love of all that's good and Holy, take Barack Hussein Obama with you.
  
  Bon Voyage.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sarah Palin's the expert cause she looks good in a dress
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  I'm tired of the constant pretend reverence of the Constitution. Funny how it didn't become popular to worship it until Obama was elected president.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like so much else!
  
  All of a sudden...war is bad!
  Not supporting the president does not mean dissing the troops!
  
  And insulting and disagreeing with the president is suddenly Patriotic!
  
  makes your head spin.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's equally as sad that we didn't have to worry about such things as the Constitution until a Socialist was elected president.
  
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Riiiiggghhhttt.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  OOOOOOOO, great come back, PP!!!!
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm so done with you, LH. You lack even the basic understanding of the concept of Socialism; you label those who disagree with you as something they are not.
  
  Short list of Socialists, based upon Longhunter's Expert Definition of Socialist Economic Systems and Policies:
  
  Ronald Reagan
  George W. Bush
  Richard Nixon
  Dwight D. Eisenhower
  Mitt Romney
  
  How many conservatives want to repeal Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Hardly any. They're all Socialists, according to the learned Longhunter.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Obama isn't even a liberal Democrat, let alone a socialist.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First, she does look good in a dress. Second what the hell does that have to do with anything. Why would you make such a sexist statement?
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  excuse me...I made it, and it's because I'm sexist!
  
  I really don't like 1950's wanna-be phony women!
  
  She is WAAAAAY too much like Phyllis Shclafley...OMG. please not again.
  
  Now, Phyllis Diller? Her, I love!!! Fang.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH66_tFP8VA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I must be sexist, too! I'm just one of those catty women who are jealous of Sarah Palin's looks, right? I mean, McCain picked her thinking that because he picked a woman VP, that disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters and women in general would be more likely to vote for him. Nothing sexist at all about that, though.
  
  It's obvious that, as a woman, I can't possibly dislike her for reasons such as: she had little knowledge of foreign affairs or history, was not well-read or articulate and showed no interest in learning, and played the victim whenever the press asked her a legitimate question that she couldn't answer. No, the main reason I dislike her is because she's pretty.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I read on twitter that McCain suggested Romney pick Palin as vp....too old for an April fools joke! ??
  
  But it would be for the same reason....boring old fuddy-duddy needs some pizazz.
  
  She's mean too....real mean.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say that. It was LMC.
  reply report
0
Longhunterposted 12 years ago
Appeals Court Calls President's Bluff on Obamacare

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/heathc … ode=E95A-1
reply report
1. 81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Courts are also striking down those anti-union laws that the repub Koch-S*cker employee put it.(Walker)
  
  And Citizens United is not far behind. And any and all of this woman suppressing crap they are trying to shove through as if they are Mullah's in Iran.
  
  Oh...good one from Rosanne: Talibangelists!!
  
  Yep....one size fits all. Ya can't say one is ok and the other bad......
  
  I personally can't WAIT for car insurance to be declared unconstitutional! Yeeehoooooo
  reply report
  61
  Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can't WAIT to see how many people die of asphyxiation if they stop performing the activity that mandates they purchase car insurance.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's called a JOB.
  reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Guess who said this:
"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California"--Mittens!

How bout this:
Rep. King: "Judicial Activism" Has "Begun To Break Down This Civilization And This Culture." From a 2012 House floor speech by Rep. Steve King (R-IA):

Sen. McCain: "Judicial Activism Demonstrates A Lack Of Respect For The Popular Will, And That Is At Fundamental Odds With Our Republican System Of Government." From an 2009 Senate speech statement by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):

Laura Ingraham: "We Don't Want To Be Micromanaged By Some Unelected Judge." From the September 15, 2003, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

I guess opinions change according to Prez's......so it's really not any kind of true principle...it's political!

Don't feel bad...I do it too. I trust Obama infinately more than any R, so I give him leeway I wouldnt give to them. OBVIOUSLY, some of these these so-called experts do the same!
reply report
65
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Time to Impeach the Supreme Court? I remember when Interstate 80 in the Midwest was lined with "Impeach Earl Warren" signs.

"You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.

"Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Samuel Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

"The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country to the Gilded Age."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … at%20Sheet
reply report
60
readytoescapeposted 12 years ago
Look, any legislation that is preceded and described with the Statement

“we’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it”

it's a pretty good bet it probably does not pass constitutional vetting.

Strike it down.

Further any Legislator that voted in favor of such a bill or any bill for that matter, with the guiding decision making paradigm of the above statement should be run out of office.
reply report
61
Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago
If a law is unconstitutional, it's the supreme court's duty to repeal it. Doesn't matter who passed it, doesn't matter by what margin, doesn't matter who complains, doesn't matter how "activist" it is, doesn't matter that they're unelected (hey, if you've got a problem with that blame the founding fathers and everyone since then who didn't amend the Constitution to change how the justices are appointed).

And who supports it and who's against it, left or right, matters least of all.
reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Since we're throwing labels around....how about one that really fits?

"Can we call it fascism now?"

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/04/c … wR.twitter

"Of course, the corollary to the GOP's anti-union holy war is its total enthrallment to corporate power. Therein lie the roots of its slide towards outright fascism. Corporations saw the Republicans—already business-friendly—as the perfect vehicle to forward a more radical view of private corporate power. From Mitt Romney's "corporations are people" to the Paul Ryan budget which slashes domestic spending for the middle class and poor while giving exorbitant tax breaks to corporations and the rich, the GOP serves primarily as the handmaiden to corporate power. The other aspects of fascism are there: the nationalism, the sexism, the scapegoating of the "Other", the attempt to control elections. All of these are major aspects of the fascist program, but all serve as fuel for the engine of corporate control."

Now, this one fits! IF we let it, WHICH we won't.
reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
"The Supreme Court continues to erode every protection Americans have come to expect as their guarantee under the law of the land, known as the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to ruling 5-4 this week to allow prison strip searches for minor offenses, they now have ruled that government witnesses -- informants -- can lie to Grand Juries and, in so doing, will be immune from civil lawsuits by the wrongfully accused."

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/ok- … .html#more

How you like that? Another 5 to 4 decision....
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Should we not expect close decisions from the SCOTUS? If the case is clear cut and plain it has no business reaching that court at all.
  
  What bothers me far more is that those decisions are mostly based on the political affiliation (party if you will) of the justices. Liberal justices vote liberally, conservative justices vote conservatively. We can almost know their opinions before ever getting them.
  
  Interpreting the constitution isn't a matter of what a judge believes is good for the country; it is a matter of law and what the writers intended.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right...and if another conservative gets on there, you will have a 6 to 3 bias on that court.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're probably right. Still, better that than a 3 to 6 bias
  
  Seriously, what is it about this country that such people can't do the job they are being paid to do? In this case interpret the constitution without personal bias? Is it just the power that gets to them?
  reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Just in time for the private-prison police state they have planned....
It's not TP'ers you see getting brutalized by the World Police, it's OWS.
reply report
1. 60
  logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't see tea partiers pooping on police cars either, like OWS.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They start those OWS early...4 yrs old an already getting pepper sprayed!
  
  Guess his mom and dad made the mistake of telling her that protest is a mainstay of keeping our rights here in America. Guess the popo need to let this 4 yr old know who's Boss. Proud?
  
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/0 … -Year-Old-
  reply report
0
Longhunterposted 12 years ago
According to PrettyPanther's own words, she's "tired of the constant pretend reverence of the Constitution."

Hmmm. From that, I guess we're left to believe PrettyPanther doesn't think too highly of one of our founding documents. That speaks volumes. Telling. Very telling, PrettyPanther.

Then she stated to me, "Barack Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago."

OOOOOO! Wooooow! I guess this makes Barak Hussein Obama special. It's as if this somehow uniquely qualifies him to "school" the rest of us, including the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, on the U.S. Constitution.

Again, in her own word - "Riiiiggghhhttt."

This is the same man who can't put together two coherent words in front of a group of elementary school kids without the aid of a teleprompter.

Good one, PrettyPanther! Good one!
reply report
1. 61
  Eric Newlandposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, you gotta know your enemy.
  reply report
  81
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What about the Supreme Court??
  So far we have:
  
  Citizens United
  Stripsearching with no cause
  allowing gvt informants to LIE to a grand jury, with no recourse for the falsely accused
  
  I'm no lawyer, but even I can smell danger here.
  
  Enemy, or friend?
  reply report
81
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
"Regulated, disclosed PACs funded with limited individual contributions switching to secret slush funds filled with corporate money came as a result of a big business-friendly Supreme Court.

For this election cycle, the Chamber hired a corporate lobbyist named Scott Reed to head up their advertising and political strategy. Reed’s specialty? Using corporate front groups to smear politicians who support regulations on big banks, health insurers, and other large companies."

Thank you Buddy Roehmer! He passed this report on....

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/excl … porations/

ALL as a result of a big business friendly Supreme Court....and now you peeps want to elect a big business friendly prez. SC is helping you do it!
reply report
0
Longhunterposted 12 years ago
Holder Assures Judge of Administration's Respect

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Holder … ode=E98A-1

"The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed," Holder wrote.

Coming from the likes of Attorney General Eric Holder or Barack Hussein Obama, is that suppose to reassure us?
reply report
1. 65
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't.
  reply report
60
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, why not. He should do that right after Elena Kagan recuses herself.
  reply report
  60
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is no equivalency in this particular case, LH—as usual, the right is way out of balance when it comes to hypocrisy and playing dirty.
  
  reply report
60
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court . . .

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court . . .

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies