Obama threatens 'unelected' Supreme Court over health care reform

General Buck Turgidson said:
I understand what you think a strong majority isn't; I'm just trying to understand what you think a strong majority is.

Also, asking "what is a strong majority" is "babble and obfuscation?" Strange. It seems to me that the guy that writes several paragraphs of unsubstantiated horsehit instead of typing out a two digit number is the more likely to be engaged in "babble and obfuscation" than the guy asking a fairly simple question.




I don't think they were "bribed and threatened" and am asking you to substantiate your claims. I also think it's pretty odd to claim that a "strong majority" isn't in the number. Interesting usage of the English language there, Damo. I guess it could mean a majority of Congressmembers than can bench 250 or something.
Click to expand...

Strong is the odor they give off!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's almost funny watching some of you people not only beg for slavery, but also appear to be extremely grateful as it comes. well, maybe not funny, more like pitiful.
Click to expand...

Impending Slavery!

Grateful Liberals BEG for SLAVERY!!

Oh the HORROR!

Oh the RHETORIC!!

ZOMG!

:rofl:

:lol:
 
Onceler said:
Boo!

You should see "Hunger Games." I caught it a few days ago - it's STY's perfect vision for that kind of gov't.

In reality, of course, we actually have more freedom today than pretty much any culture or country in the history of civilization.
Click to expand...


Entertaining movie......even read the three books about 3 years ago.....kids books at my age, imagine.....

but really, I enjoyed them.....now my grandkids are reading them.....

Looks more like Obama's vision of government....."do what I tell you to do", "buy what I tell you to buy".

To him the constitution is old and doesn't work for the NEW UNITED STATES and the Supreme Court can go to hell as an equal voice in government.
 
Carlos Spicy Weiner said:
Everyone bitches about the "unelected Supreme Court" at some point or other. Teddy Roosevelt once argued that the American people should be given a national referendum which could be used to overrule the SC whenever it made bad rulings. Teddy had disagreed with the Court enough times that he was simply annoyed...
Click to expand...


Then we would be at the mercy of the majority.....

Maybe when the white people officially become the minority, the socialists will go for it....
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I understand what you think a strong majority isn't; I'm just trying to understand what you think a strong majority is.

Also, asking "what is a strong majority" is "babble and obfuscation?" Strange. It seems to me that the guy that writes several paragraphs of unsubstantiated horsehit instead of typing out a two digit number is the more likely to be engaged in "babble and obfuscation" than the guy asking a fairly simple question.

I don't think they were "bribed and threatened" and am asking you to substantiate your claims. I also think it's pretty odd to claim that a "strong majority" isn't in the number. Interesting usage of the English language there, Damo. I guess it could mean a majority of Congressmembers than can bench 250 or something.
Click to expand...


It is just another patented Damo deflection method.

When answering a question would force him to admit a Liberal MIGHT have a point, he will either dodge the question or deem it "unimportant" or "nonsense".

He will now launch into an attack on those of us who have THE NERVE to question what he thinks is important or nonsense, but if he'd just answered the question when first asked...then all the subsequent snarkiness would never have occurred.
 
Rana said:
The phrase activists judges is a fairly new phrase, and is used by both sides when they do not like rulings of the Supremes. I remember hearing it from the Republicans quite a lot during the Clinton administration and in regards to the ruling of the Ten Commandments and pray in schools.
Click to expand...


Anytime the courts try to tell us that a law means something now that it hasn't meant for over 200 years, you might suspect activism......
You've seen it with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and now you're seeing it with the Commerce Clause....

You're seeing a coup attempt by the Executive Branch, and the Senate in a power grab while they have the opportunity....
 
Contrary to Obama’s contention, however, the Court’s power to strike down unconstitutional congressional acts has repeatedly been exercised (sometimes legitimately, sometimes not). Here is just a smattering of cases in which the Court has struck down all or part of an act of Congress: Marbury v. Madison (1803), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Myers v. U.S. (1926), Schechter Poultry Corporation v. U.S. (1935), Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), U.S. v. Lopez (1995), Clinton v. City of New York (1998), U.S. v. Morrison (2000), and Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Obama might want to consult this list — published by the Government Printing Office — of the 158 cases (as of 2002) in which the Court has voided all or part of an act of Congress.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf

:lol:
 
I don't think Obama was questioning the doctrine of judicial review generally. Apparently, some folks missed the point.
 
Law Meets Medicine

sc-surgery-2.gif


sc-hc-no-chance-2.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top