Coup d'etat.

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
The President is attacking the legitatmacy of a co-equal branch of the Government. Questioning their authority and trying to de-legitimatize one of the few checks we have on his power.


That is can be the start of an attempt to overthrow the government by a president.
 
The President is attacking the legitatmacy of a co-equal branch of the Government. Questioning their authority and trying to de-legitimatize one of the few checks we have on his power.


That is can be the start of an attempt to overthrow the government by a president.

Do you think Obama was questioning a co-equal branch of the Government when HE went to the Supreme court and was shot down 44 times ?
 
Do you think Obama was questioning a co-equal branch of the Government when HE went to the Supreme court and was shot down 44 times ?

No, he did not disparage their power and he accepted their rulings without attacking them.
 
Do you think Obama was questioning a co-equal branch of the Government when HE went to the Supreme court and was shot down 44 times ?

The difference you ignorant revisionist retard?
Obama accepted the rulings.

Ask the nice lady to wipe your drool, fool.
 
No, he did not disparage their power and he accepted their rulings without attacking them.

If i remember correctly Obama went on a state of the Union speech and pointed out why the justices were wrong. If I remember correctly as well Alito was shaking his head silently and the left freaked out.
 
The difference you ignorant revisionist retard?
Obama accepted the rulings.

Ask the nice lady to wipe your drool, fool.

If you applied the same standards to Obama that Robart applied to Trump the individual mandate would have been struck down.
 
If i remember correctly Obama went on a state of the Union speech and pointed out why the justices were wrong. If I remember correctly as well Alito was shaking his head silently and the left freaked out.

You remember incorrectly. He simply said he disagreed. It is okay to disagree, it is not okay to disparage their authority.
 
so how do the libs feel about the 2nd Amendment as a check on government tyranny now?

The 2nd Amendment wouldn't protect anyone, especially when the pro gun goobers would be on the side of the far right govt tyrants.

The only thing it will take for the right-wing assholes to begin the wholesale slaughter and murder of those they disagree with, is for Shlump to get enough of his cronies in the right positions, then give the word that not only is it OK, but part of your patriotic duty to "take your country back".

Because you all are just that blindly obedient, brainwashed, hate-filled and stupidly convinced of your own false "patriotism".

Then, after you've all done their dirty work for them, is when they'll come for your guns and subjugate you.

And you won't be able to do shit about it.
 
If i remember correctly Obama went on a state of the Union speech and pointed out why the justices were wrong. If I remember correctly as well Alito was shaking his head silently and the left freaked out.

yes indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html

It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.

President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.

President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.

Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Justice Alito's Reaction JAN. 27, 2010


Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., one of the justices in the majority in the decision under attack, shook his head as he heard the president’s summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and he appeared to mouth the words “not true.”
 
yes indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html

It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.

President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.

President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.

Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Justice Alito's Reaction JAN. 27, 2010


Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., one of the justices in the majority in the decision under attack, shook his head as he heard the president’s summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and he appeared to mouth the words “not true.”

Its okay to disagree, it is not okay to disparage their authority.
 
The 2nd Amendment wouldn't protect anyone, especially when the pro gun goobers would be on the side of the far right govt tyrants.
and this is why you leftists get looked at as morons. there are MORE centrists and libertarians with MILITARY experience and guns than there are idiot redneck right wingers with their deer rifles and shotguns.

The only thing it will take for the right-wing assholes to begin the wholesale slaughter and murder of those they disagree with, is for Shlump to get enough of his cronies in the right positions, then give the word that not only is it OK, but part of your patriotic duty to "take your country back".
pull your head out of your ass and get an understanding of the oathkeepers and 3%ers.

Because you all are just that blindly obedient, brainwashed, hate-filled and stupidly convinced of your own false "patriotism".

Then, after you've all done their dirty work for them, is when they'll come for your guns and subjugate you.

And you won't be able to do shit about it.
hey asshole, do you REALLY think i'm going to follow directives from Trump?
 
Back
Top