jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (88 posts)

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

  1. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 5 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?

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 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!!

    2. mio cid profile image65
      mio cidposted 5 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.

    3. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 5 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.

      http://rightbias.com/news/Images/Mao-Obama--225.JPG

  2. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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.)

  3. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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."

    1. Eric Newland profile image60
      Eric Newlandposted 5 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/

  4. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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.

    1. American View profile image55
      American Viewposted 5 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

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 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.

        1. American View profile image55
          American Viewposted 5 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

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No conspiracy...just a corporate group trying to make money. and it stinks!

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 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?????

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 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.....

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 5 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.

  5. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Either it's constitutional or it's not. Nothing apart from that deserves any consideration at all.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this
      1. American View profile image55
        American Viewposted 5 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

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 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 wink 

          ahhhh, to live life without conscience....

          1. American View profile image55
            American Viewposted 5 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.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 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."...!!

    2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 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??

      1. Eric Newland profile image60
        Eric Newlandposted 5 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.

  6. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6422157_f248.jpg

  7. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 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.

    1. Wayne Brown profile image88
      Wayne Brownposted 5 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

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 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.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 5 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.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 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.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        My god, that's awful! Good GOOD thing you live in England!

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 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.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Welcome to America---GOP style.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 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!

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Same here....OWS for the world!

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  +1

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image76
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The UK is more civilized than the US.

  8. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 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.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There's only one small problem, RB.

      Barack Hussein Obama couldn't care less about the Constitution.

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 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.

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 5 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! big_smile lol roll

          1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 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!

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Look, dude, it's not my fault your overly sensitive, Socialist ideology is showing through. lol

              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.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 5 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.

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 5 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?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 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.

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 5 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.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 5 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."

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 5 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.

        2. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Sarah Palin's the expert cause she looks good in a dress wink

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            wink

            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.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 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.

            2. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 5 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.

              roll

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Riiiiggghhhttt.

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  OOOOOOOO, great come back, PP!!!! roll

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 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.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image76
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Obama isn't even a liberal Democrat, let alone a socialist.

        3. American View profile image55
          American Viewposted 5 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?

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 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

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 5 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 prettyroll

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 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.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I didn't say that.  It was LMC.

  9. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    Appeals Court Calls President's Bluff on Obamacare

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/heathc … ode=E95A-1

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 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

      1. Eric Newland profile image60
        Eric Newlandposted 5 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.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          It's called a JOB.

  10. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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!

  11. Ralph Deeds profile image76
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 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

  12. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 5 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.

  13. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 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.

  14. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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.

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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....

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 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.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Right...and if another conservative gets on there, you will have a 6 to 3 bias on that court.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You're probably right.  Still, better that than a 3 to 6 bias lol

          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?

  16. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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.

    1. profile image67
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You don't see tea partiers pooping on police cars either, like OWS.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 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-

  17. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 5 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.

    lol lol lol lol lol
    lol lol lol lol lol
    lol lol lol lol lol
    lol lol lol lol lol

    Good one, PrettyPanther! Good one!

    1. Eric Newland profile image60
      Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, you gotta know your enemy.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 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?

  18. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 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!

  19. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 5 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?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image76
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes.

      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It doesn't.

  20. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/529005_376391282384364_127573927266102_1177269_735347484_n.jpg

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sure, why not. He should do that right after Elena Kagan recuses herself.

      1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 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.

        https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/532120_385639148137175_125955227438903_1215705_326897966_n.jpg

  21. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/550218_334846069903857_102702636451536_900853_306516281_n.jpg

 
working