Jump to content






Photo

This SCOTUS Decision Most Critical of Out Lifetimes


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#41 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 04:27 PM

.

Distorted? Specifically? I would like to hear precisely what you mean by this "distortion."

As to ignored, I might agree with that term, although, I would, again, prefer concrete examples.

Adam






Two major distortions: A perverse interpretation of regulating interstate commerce and the decline of the tenth amendment.

Under the the original Constitution (pre-civil war) and abomination such as the Wichardt case could not have happened.

States are no longer sovereign entities. They are now departments, as in France.

The Constitution as the Founders wrote it is dead and dust.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#42 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:03 AM

Justices meet Friday to vote on health care case
Mar 30, 3:14 AM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN


WASHINGTON (AP) - While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend.
After months of anticipation, thousands of pages of briefs and more than six hours of arguments, the justices will vote on the fate of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in under an hour Friday morning. They will meet in a wood-paneled conference room on the court's main floor. No one else will be present.

In the weeks after this meeting, individual votes can change. Even who wins can change, as the justices read each other's draft opinions and dissents.

But Friday's vote, which each justice probably will record and many will keep for posterity, will be followed soon after by the assignment of a single justice to write a majority opinion, or in a case this complex, perhaps two or more justices to tackle different issues. That's where the hard work begins, with the clock ticking toward the end of the court's work in early summer.
The late William Rehnquist, who was chief justice for nearly 19 years, has written that the court's conference "is not a bull session in which off-the-cuff reactions are traded." Instead, he said, votes are cast, one by one in order of seniority.
The Friday conference also is not a debate, says Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University law professor who worked for Justice Antonin Scalia 10 years ago. There will be plenty of time for the back-and-forth in dueling opinions that could follow.
"There's not a whole lot of give and take at the conference. They say, 'This is how I'm going to vote' and give a few sentences," Fitzpatrick said.

It will be the first time the justices gather as a group to discuss the case. Even they do not always know what the others are thinking when they enter the conference room adjacent to Chief Justice John Roberts' office.
By custom, they shake hands. Then Roberts will take his seat at the head of a rectangular table. Scalia, the longest serving among them, will be at the other end. The other seven justices also sit according to seniority, the four most junior on one side across from the other three.

"They generally find out how the votes line up at the conference," said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who worked for Justice Anthony Kennedy nine years ago.

The uncertainty may be especially pronounced in this case, where the views of Roberts and Kennedy are likely to decide the outcome, Kerr said in an interview Thursday. "I don't think anyone knows. I'm not sure Justice Kennedy knows."

No one's vote counts more than the others', but because they speak in order of seniority, it will become clear fairly quickly what will become of the health care overhaul.

http://apnews.myway..../D9TQLQDO0.html
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#43 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:35 AM

Justices meet Friday to vote on health care case
Mar 30, 3:14 AM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN


WASHINGTON (AP) - While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend.
After months of anticipation, thousands of pages of briefs and more than six hours of arguments, the justices will vote on the fate of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in under an hour Friday morning. They will meet in a wood-paneled conference room on the court's main floor. No one else will be present.

In the weeks after this meeting, individual votes can change. Even who wins can change, as the justices read each other's draft opinions and dissents.

But Friday's vote, which each justice probably will record and many will keep for posterity, will be followed soon after by the assignment of a single justice to write a majority opinion, or in a case this complex, perhaps two or more justices to tackle different issues. That's where the hard work begins, with the clock ticking toward the end of the court's work in early summer.
The late William Rehnquist, who was chief justice for nearly 19 years, has written that the court's conference "is not a bull session in which off-the-cuff reactions are traded." Instead, he said, votes are cast, one by one in order of seniority.
The Friday conference also is not a debate, says Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University law professor who worked for Justice Antonin Scalia 10 years ago. There will be plenty of time for the back-and-forth in dueling opinions that could follow.
"There's not a whole lot of give and take at the conference. They say, 'This is how I'm going to vote' and give a few sentences," Fitzpatrick said.

It will be the first time the justices gather as a group to discuss the case. Even they do not always know what the others are thinking when they enter the conference room adjacent to Chief Justice John Roberts' office.
By custom, they shake hands. Then Roberts will take his seat at the head of a rectangular table. Scalia, the longest serving among them, will be at the other end. The other seven justices also sit according to seniority, the four most junior on one side across from the other three.

"They generally find out how the votes line up at the conference," said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who worked for Justice Anthony Kennedy nine years ago.

The uncertainty may be especially pronounced in this case, where the views of Roberts and Kennedy are likely to decide the outcome, Kerr said in an interview Thursday. "I don't think anyone knows. I'm not sure Justice Kennedy knows."

No one's vote counts more than the others', but because they speak in order of seniority, it will become clear fairly quickly what will become of the health care overhaul.

http://apnews.myway..../D9TQLQDO0.html


I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#44 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:59 PM

I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.
Ba'al Chatzaf


Nope. But the best part is that fat toad Posted ImageKagan has to take the notes and get the coffee because she is the newest Justice.

Imagine what is going through her anti-male, gender feminist mind as she fumes with secretarial pad and pen in front of her. I would ask for the most complicated coffee order and hope that she screws it up so that I could just shake my head and send her back to do it right.

Her quote, on day three (3), concerning what the Affordable Health Care Act was about, was truly stunning! She opined:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The exact same argument. So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal Government a matter of coercion? In other words, the Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no -there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

This pig thinks "feels" that "federal money" just appears. This pig thinks "feels" that this is not coercive!

http://www.c-span.or...urts/11-393.pdf

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#45 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,077 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:27 PM


I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.
Ba'al Chatzaf


Nope. But the best part is that fat toad Posted ImageKagan has to take the notes and get the coffee because she is the newest Justice.

Imagine what is going through her anti-male, gender feminist mind as she fumes with secretarial pad and pen in front of her. I would ask for the most complicated coffee order and hope that she screws it up so that I could just shake my head and send her back to do it right.

Her quote, on day three (3), concerning what the Affordable Health Care Act was about, was truly stunning! She opined:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The exact same argument. So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal Government a matter of coercion? In other words, the Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no -there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

This pig thinks "feels" that "federal money" just appears. This pig thinks "feels" that this is not coercive!

http://www.c-span.or...urts/11-393.pdf

Adam


Sizeist!

#46 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:36 PM



I thought the votes were cast in reverse order of seniority. "youngest" member first.
Ba'al Chatzaf


Nope. But the best part is that fat toad Posted ImageKagan has to take the notes and get the coffee because she is the newest Justice.

Imagine what is going through her anti-male, gender feminist mind as she fumes with secretarial pad and pen in front of her. I would ask for the most complicated coffee order and hope that she screws it up so that I could just shake my head and send her back to do it right.

Her quote, on day three (3), concerning what the Affordable Health Care Act was about, was truly stunning! She opined:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The exact same argument. So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal Government a matter of coercion? In other words, the Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no -there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

This pig thinks "feels" that "federal money" just appears. This pig thinks "feels" that this is not coercive!

http://www.c-span.or...urts/11-393.pdf

Adam


Sizeist!


I hear she is going to be an obesity float for the Macy's Parade this year...
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#47 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:26 AM

The Chicago thug, who, happens to be occupying the White House, as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States

"...dished out an extra helping of irony yesterday when, in speaking at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama slammed the Supreme Court as an “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they strike down Obamacare.

The President’s remarks imply that the Court, were it to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, would be acting recklessly in undertaking judicial review of Congress’ unprecedented use of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty. The irony in all this is that this President has presided over an Administration that is the epitome of recklessly abusing power, at times in flagrant violation of the Constitution, and has empowered unelected bureaucrats to write scads of new regulations impacting nearly every corner of American life.

Obamacare, of course, is a prime example of that unchecked and multiplying web of the President’s boundless dictates. The law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (otherwise known as “IPAB”) is packed with unelected bureaucrats who have the power to limit seniors’ treatment options and access to care, essentially ending Medicare as we know it."



http://blog.heritage...=Morning%2BBell

This psycho President is becoming a public thug by threatening the Court, Congress and the electorate with the creation of an extra Constitutional Administrative State [CAS].

In his latest public example of Chicago street thuggery, the Chief Executive Officer of the United States threatened a co-equal branch of this allegedly limited Constitutional structure by claiming, falsely, that they would be engaging in "judicial activism," if, they ruled the Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional, which, of course, it is.

His delusional outburst came at a joint press conference on a completely different matter. This Chicago thug exhibited for all to see, his complete ignorance of the structure of our Constitutional system which specifically has checks and balances clearly established in its document's text.

The thug who occupies the White House, actually advanced the completely specious claim that the Supreme Court of the United States is engaged in judicial activism here in the following quote:

"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial

activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted

and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take

that step," Obama said to the White House press.


Can someone in the alleged Constitutionally protected journalistic media that the "unelected" "group" is a co-equal branch of government specifically empowered to decide on the Constitutionality of a specific piece of legislation and that is not a "somehow," it is a specific power that has developed over the last two hundred and twenty-three or so years in this country.

Additionally, this thug from Chicago, who allegedly taught Constitutional law, uses an unintelligible construct to describe the Affordable Health Care Act when he stated that the Act was a "...duly constituted and passed law."

Mr. Thuggery, what does "duly constituted" mean ...legally, in your perverse statist mind?

Additionally, Mr. Thuggery, you do understand that a "passed law," is subject to several tests in our Constitutional construct:

1) your veto power;
2) Congressional delegated power to override that veto; and
3) the Supreme Courts evolved power to declare the "passed law" unconstitutional.

Did you actually get paid to teach American Constitutional Law, or, were you paid to teach Progressive Marxist Constitutional Law, or, some other "duly constituted" schema that emerged from your rather unintelligible mind?

Finally, Mr. Thuggery, since you have now, apparently, enunciated, with no Constitutional authority, a new analytical schema which deems decisions by the Supreme Court as decisions by an "unelected" "group," and. apparently, having no authority by your stated pronouncement, does that mean that:

1) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is void?;
2) Roe v. Wade?;
3) Cantwell v. Connecticutt?;
4) all of the decisions upholding the New Deal legislation?;
5) Schenck v. United States?;
6) Marbury v. Madison?;
7) Miranda v. Arizona?; and,
8) a plethora of other legislation going back to

You are, basically, a despicable example of a President as the following Real Politics article shows.

Posted on April 2, 2012
Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism


Posted Image



Related Videos | http://www.realclear...l_activism.html



Resign, or be impeached.

Adam
citizen
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#48 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:30 AM

Marbury vs. Madison is a clear case of usurping a power that the constitution never gave to the Supreme Court in its appellate function. The Founders never granted the Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. In appeals, they could only decide on the case addressed. Justice Marshall overstepped a line and no subsequent court has ever stepped back.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#49 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:05 AM

This is a transcript of the Real Politics clip in the above post:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Outstanding.

All right, I think that we’re going to take a question from each press delegation. So I’ll start with Julianna.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. After last week’s arguments at the Supreme Court, many experts believe that there could be a majority, a five-member majority, to strike down the individual mandate. And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who’ve become insured as a result of the law?

And then a President for President Calderón and Prime Minister Harper. Over the weekend, Governor Mitt Romney said that the U.S. used to promote free enterprise around the world, and he said, “Our President doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do, and I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.” My question to the both of you is whether you think that American influence has declined over the last three to four years.

And, President Obama, if you’d like to respond to that, too.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second part of your question, it’s still primary season for the Republican Party. They’re going to make a decision about who their candidate will be.

It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism, and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism. But I will cut folks some slack for now because they’re still trying to get their nomination.

With respect to health care, I’m actually — continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That’s not just my opinion, by the way; that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.

I think it’s important — because I watched some of the commentary last week — to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.

The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don’t have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can’t be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That’s part of this law.

Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.

So that’s just the part that’s already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.

And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Q You say it’s not an abstract conversation. Do you have contingency plans?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry. As I said, we are confident that this will be over — that this will be upheld. I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And, again, that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.

=============================

1) Notice the use of the "many experts believe" by Julianna, the alleged journalist.

2) O'bama's assinine statement that " in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional." Incredible statement. Utterly meaningless.

3) Notice O'bama sinks into the generic experts usage, "...that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case."

Again, unnamed and a lie...attempting to convince you that almost all the "legal experts" agree with him. The two judges, out of how many? Guess what, another slick employment of deceptive argument.

4) This one just jumps off the page! O'bama actually wants you to believe that:

in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care.

Hmmm, let's see...what if Congress passed a one page law that created an assigned risk health insurance policy that pooled all the folks that had preexisting conditions into a directly subsidized and clearly labeled system, you know like the assigned risk auto insurance, home owners, flood insurance programs that already exist in every state in the union.

Would that maybe accomplish covering the pre existing condition issue without an unconstitutional individual mandate and 2, 699 pages of subversive administrative legislation? Yeah, it would.

Well, in every state in the real union, not including the other seven (7) states that O'biwan thought existed that he was going to campaign in in 2008.

Oops, sorry, I think that has been eliminated by the O'bama speak media.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#50 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:14 AM

Marbury vs. Madison is a clear case of usurping a power that the constitution never gave to the Supreme Court in its appellate function. The Founders never granted the Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. In appeals, they could only decide on the case addressed. Justice Marshall overstepped a line and no subsequent court has ever stepped back.
Ba'al Chatzaf


Yes Bob, you have made this point numerous times.

I put that case in there specifically to illustrate the point that we all have to suffer from poor decisions that have existed forever, Constitutionally speaking.

It is called "Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]" and we are currently stuck with it. http://en.wikipedia....i/Stare_decisis

Plessy was precedent, until it was overturned. Dred Scott. The precedent cases are quite extensive and form the body of a specific developmental law that we function, for better or worse with.

So now you have made your traditional Marbury v. Madison statement for the record.

So noted.

Now, might you comment on the substance of the post?

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#51 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:35 AM


Marbury vs. Madison is a clear case of usurping a power that the constitution never gave to the Supreme Court in its appellate function. The Founders never granted the Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. In appeals, they could only decide on the case addressed. Justice Marshall overstepped a line and no subsequent court has ever stepped back.
Ba'al Chatzaf


Yes Bob, you have made this point numerous times.

I put that case in there specifically to illustrate the point that we all have to suffer from poor decisions that have existed forever, Constitutionally speaking.

It is called "Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]" and we are currently stuck with it. http://en.wikipedia....i/Stare_decisis

Plessy was precedent, until it was overturned. Dred Scott. The precedent cases are quite extensive and form the body of a specific developmental law that we function, for better or worse with.

So now you have made your traditional Marbury v. Madison statement for the record.

So noted.

Now, might you comment on the substance of the post?

Adam


The Supremes are political hacks.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#52 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:03 PM

I do not have time right now to respond to Bob's lucid and in depth response to my prior post.

The Wall Street Journal reported on President Thuggery's attempt today to clarify, or, walk back, or re-explain his ignorant and pathetic interpretation of Constitutional law. Clearly, President Thuggery can be excused because he never taught Constitu....um, ...oops...never mind.

The Man Who Knew Too Little

President Obama's stunning ignorance of constitutional law.


By JAMES TARANTO

We were half-joking yesterday when we asked if Barack Obama slept through his Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. It turns out it's no joke: The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law.

At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday's comments: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"




, we have not seen a court overturn [pause] a [pause] law that was passed [pause] by Congress on [pause] a [pause] economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned [pause] at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."

In fact, Lochner--about which more in a moment--was decided in 1905. Thirty years later, after the New Deal had begun, the high court unanimously struck down one of its main components, the National Industrial Recovery Act, as exceeding Congress's authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The case was Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)
Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.

It's appalling that any president would have the effrontery to lecture the Supreme Court about a pending case. It's astounding that this president, who was once a professor of constitutional law at an elite university, would do so in such an ignorant fashion.

The man is a freaking imbecile and should resign or be impeached.

Together with Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden, they are probably the dumbest tandem to ever occupy the White House.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#53 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:15 PM

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case
By Jan Crawford
Posted Image (Credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#54 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,485 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:35 AM

I think we are witnessing checks and balances at its finest.

It's nerve-wracking right now because we are in the middle of it, but later we will probably look back and say the collision of powers in stopping a power grab was magnificent.

Michael

Know thyself...


#55 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:36 AM

I think we are witnessing checks and balances at its finest.

It's nerve-wracking right now because we are in the middle of it, but later we will probably look back and say the collision of powers in stopping a power grab was magnificent.

Michael

What we are actually seeing is the marginalizing of the President.

--Brant
he's doing it to himself

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#56 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 06 April 2012 - 10:21 AM

Yep - Brant - correct...

Posted Image
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#57 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 08 April 2012 - 09:01 PM

This is a classic case of one of the racist echo chamber O'bama drones, "Professor" Michael, Verbal Shuck and Jive, Eric Dyson abuses of logic and language: [from This Week April 8th 2012]

WILL: I think it probably will if I had to bet on it. What the president said was, the Supreme Court, or as he calls them a "group of unelected people" were to strike down a law passed by what he calls "strong majorities", seven votes in the House, 60 votes in the Senate only because corrupt prosecutors from his Justice Department knocked Ted Stephens out of the Senate. Leave that aside. He said it would be unprecedented. Well, in fact the Supreme Court in 2008 in a ruling about the habeas corpus right of detainees at Guantanamo Bay struck down an important portion of George Bush's signature achievement, which is the apparatus of the War on Terror. Five to four decision. The junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama applauded the court for doing that.

TAPPER: So, Michael I want to go to you because I know you actually don't have a problem with what President Obama said.

DYSON: No, not at all. I mean I'm glad that he's engaged himself in a very serious expression. And -- and look, it's much ado about nothing. I think the right wing is making hay over what is a reason considered viewpoint. That is to suggest that an activist court, which has been remonstrated against by the far right with viciously escalating rhetoric, is now meeting its own end. And Obama's saying, look if you've been complaining about an activist court then don't have this activism work in your defense.

And then secondly I think, look all of this othering of Obama, like he's from some other planet. Everything he does is subject to a different lens and seen through a microscope that really tends to pick him apart. I think it's indivisible from the broader issue of his race, of his being a black man with a certain kind of authority. These are impolite things we don't want to talk about. We think that they're being extraordinary ratcheted up. But I don't see any other way to explain it but a remarkable resistance to the integrity of this man that has no other explanation.

TAPPER: When you hear Republicans say that President Obama is being a bully, you hear racial subtexts?

DYSON: Of course. Bully -- I mean look this guy -- if -- if you can't deal with this reasoned, articulate expression of difference and dissent and calling that bullying. And on the one hand Obama has to be worried about, I can't be an angry black man. I can't speak up in a certain way. He's already constrained by the stereotypes that prevail. If you can't even take his dissent as an expression of legitimate disagreement and instead of ascribing to him bullying, I don't see how...

(CROSSTALK)

FREELAND: You think being black has made the president less effective?

DYSON: Well, it's made his job much more difficult because even white liberals who support him, obviously play into certain racial scripts. Black people who support him -- and -- and across the board, I think it's very difficult for the president to be able to maneuver because he has to be so concerned. He can focus on the 50th anniversary of To Kill a Mockingbird, but can't necessarily highlight the 44th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. There are choices to be made. I think he's done an extraordinarily interesting and powerful job of it. But I think the constraints are not his, but imposed on him from the outside.

(CROSSTALK)

WILL: But regardless of his skin pigmentation, what he said was factually, demonstrably false. He said something would be unprecedented that has many precedents, probably thousands since 1803.

DYSON: That I don't have a problem with. I'm talking about the overall response to him and the picking apart and the refusal to concede legitimacy of difference. Not to point out where you would disagree with him. I think that's powerful.

NOONAN: Can I say this -- the president is known as an extremely bright man. He was an instructor of constitutional law. For him to say something so deeply incorrect and almost unknowing about the -- the purpose of the Supreme Court seemed provocative. At the very least sloppy and what the heck is he doing? But at the most, provocative. A real brush back. A real, I'm going to go to war with the court.

CHALIAN: He was definitely laying a predicate. I mean the aids will say, no, no, no he wasn't thinking that far in advance. But he clearly was laying the predicate that in case the -- the law is overturned, he's going to set up sort of that politicization of the court and another 5:4 decision. And -- and these comments will be looked back at. But let's be clear, he -- he gave his critics an opening here and the White House knew it. He cleaned it up the next day because of the -- the inaccuracy. They did not want to spend this whole week talking about Marbury V. Madison. And -- and Jay Carney had to walk back these comments all week. He -- he definitely slipped here and I think they tried to make a course for it.
============================================================================================

The highlighted purple bullshit is supposed to pass for a rational point of view...it isn't. It is barely understandable.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#58 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 08 April 2012 - 09:20 PM

It's not that he's seen as black but a fraud.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#59 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,487 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:35 AM

It's not that he's seen as black but a fraud. --Brant


And a liar too. He took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Has he?

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#60 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:24 AM

Has anybody ever seen the swatch of "whiteness" around his nose as in this photo?

Obama’s selective memory of Supreme Court history

Posted by Josh Hicks at 06:02 AM ET, 04/09/2012





Posted Image


http://www.washingto...SnK4S_blog.html
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users