Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: An insightful analysis of Obama vs. SCOTUS

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default An insightful analysis of Obama vs. SCOTUS

    Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

    Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.

    This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

    That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.

    Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.

    This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t3

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,482
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    them damned activist judges. how dare they consider striking down a law that a strong majority obviously want....../sarcasm
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,883
    Thanks
    1,419
    Thanked 520 Times in 406 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 230 Times in 210 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    them damned activist judges. how dare they consider striking down a law that a strong majority obviously want....../sarcasm
    Dig That!!!!!!!!

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

    Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.

    This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

    That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.

    Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.

    This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t3

    So a person who wrote an amicus brief asserting that the ACA is unconstitutional thinks Obama is wrong to say that the ACA is constitutional. Amazing!

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,785
    Thanks
    7,190
    Thanked 12,921 Times in 7,750 Posts
    Groans
    102
    Groaned 808 Times in 757 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    So a person who wrote an amicus brief asserting that the ACA is unconstitutional thinks Obama is wrong to say that the ACA is constitutional. Amazing!
    It's very insightful. Besides being amazing. Amazingly insightful really would be the proper way to phrase it.
    DARLA: The Internet's Leading Cause of White Dude Butthurt 12 Years and Counting

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2016.11 For This Post:

    Bonestorm (04-04-2012)

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    So a person who wrote an amicus brief asserting that the ACA is unconstitutional thinks Obama is wrong to say that the ACA is constitutional. Amazing!
    and.........once again nigel offers nothing except to attack the messenger.

    can you actually refute anything he said?

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    and.........once again nigel offers nothing except to attack the messenger.

    can you actually refute anything he said?

    Just letting people know the biases of the person you think is "insightful." Not attacking the messenger, just providing some disclosure that you left out.


    And, yes, I can refute pretty much everything he said.

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Dung, what is your take on Ruth Marcus's comments towards Obama?


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...XYrS_blog.html

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,482
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    Just letting people know the biases of the person you think is "insightful." Not attacking the messenger, just providing some disclosure that you left out.


    And, yes, I can refute pretty much everything he said.

    by quoting the preamble???
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

    Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.

    This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

    That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.

    Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.

    This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t3
    There are several false assumptions here. #1. It assumed the majority in congress has gone beyond what the constitution permits and #2. That this is the first time in US history of such a mandate. Those are very arguably false premises.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,482
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derp Derp View Post
    There are several false assumptions here. #1. It assumed the majority in congress has gone beyond what the constitution permits and #2. That this is the first time in US history of such a mandate. Those are very arguably false premises.
    1) like it wouldn't be the first time they've done that
    2) has there been a nationwide mandate to purchase a product in our history?
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derp Derp View Post
    There are several false assumptions here. #1. It assumed the majority in congress has gone beyond what the constitution permits and #2. That this is the first time in US history of such a mandate. Those are very arguably false premises.
    Really ?......What other commodity does the government demand I buy under penalty of law ?
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Dung, what is your take on Ruth Marcus's comments towards Obama?


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...XYrS_blog.html

    I find her column hilarious. In fact, I find the whole lot pearl-clutching blowhards to be hilarious. But sticking with Marcus, she basically says that she believes "the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause" and that "overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself." But she gets upset with Obama for saying pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I don't get it.

    Presidents get in tiffs with the Supreme Court all the time. Christ, when he worked for the Reagan Administration John Roberts advocated for stripping the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain matters that Reagan thought the Court fucked up on.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Bonestorm For This Post:

    christiefan915 (04-04-2012)

  16. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,482
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    I find her column hilarious. In fact, I find the whole lot pearl-clutching blowhards to be hilarious. But sticking with Marcus, she basically says that she believes "the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause" and that "overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself." But she gets upset with Obama for saying pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I don't get it.

    Presidents get in tiffs with the Supreme Court all the time. Christ, when he worked for the Reagan Administration John Roberts advocated for stripping the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain matters that Reagan thought the Court fucked up on.
    and yet some people think that the courts are the end all and be all of the constitution. wow.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by General Buck Turgidson View Post
    I find her column hilarious. In fact, I find the whole lot pearl-clutching blowhards to be hilarious. But sticking with Marcus, she basically says that she believes "the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause" and that "overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself." But she gets upset with Obama for saying pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I don't get it.

    Presidents get in tiffs with the Supreme Court all the time. Christ, when he worked for the Reagan Administration John Roberts advocated for stripping the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain matters that Reagan thought the Court fucked up on.
    Dung, a personal question for you which you are obviously 100% free not to answer. Are you a lawyer or did you go to law school? Or neither and the law and courts is just something that interests you (or you have to know for you job/profession)?

Similar Threads

  1. APP - obama health care law before scotus
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 03:10 PM
  2. Obama asks SCOTUS to toss out Az employer sanctions law
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 01:16 AM
  3. Beck Speech Analysis
    By Hermes Thoth in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 08:55 AM
  4. Who are the most insightful political commentators?
    By CanadianKid in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-19-2008, 11:53 PM
  5. Analysis of the Republican Race.
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-11-2007, 10:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •