Off Topic Board

President Obama does say some wacky stuff when off the Teleprompter.

I was responding to you when you said previous Presidents had done the same thing Pres Obama did. The "they" is previous Presidents, the "he" is Pres Obama.

Which President refered to the SCOTUS as an "unelected group of people that overturned a duly constituted and passed law"?

And whatever President did refer to the SCOTUS as an "unelected group of people that overturned a duly constituted and passed law" was being a dick at the time and if a circuit court judge called that President on it then good for the circuit court judge

I think you are trying to hard.

Ditto this^

In Marbury v. Madison, one of the reasons that Hamilton gave for why the Supreme Court should determine the constitutionality of laws and actions was that it was the weakest branch of government. In his eyes, the Supreme Court was in the worst position of the three branches of government to abuse such a power.

Too many to list. Here are some examples of Republicans pushing this idea.

Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable
federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution
and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal
opinions upon the public. This must stop.

Republican National Committee, 2008 Republican Platform, Government Reform, http://
www.gop.com/2008Platform/GovernmentReform.htm (last visited June 9, 2009) [hereinafter
2008 Republican Party Platform].

The logic of judicial deference continued as a dominant theme in
Republican politics during the Reagan era. “Like Richard Nixon
before him, Ronald Reagan entered office on a platform that included
strong opposition to judicial activism, proclaiming that he would appoint
only judges ‘who understand the danger of short-circuiting the
electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism.’”
19 The 1980 Republican Party Platform asserted that Reagan,
unlike President Jimmy Carter, would appoint judges “who respect
and reflect the values of the American people, and whose judicial philosophy
is characterized by the highest regard for protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Republican National Convention, Republican Party Platform of 1980, http://www.presidency.
ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25844 (last visited June 9, 2009).

I got the two above quotes and cites from:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2754&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dronald%2520reagan%2520statement%2520about%2520judicial%2520activism%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CDEQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2754%2526context%253Dfaculty_scholarship%26ei%3DsJt8T-3FIs6Ttwfz9vWXDQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEEdjP5C5Q86SiI2I07-O6bedxvoQ#search=%22ronald%20reagan%20statement%20about%20judicial%20activism%22

To be honest, all Republican Presidents, as far back as I can remember, have made this claim. So have most Republican Congressmen.

The president should have anticipated some type of backlash. I remember when I was first out of law school, the attorney mentoring me asked me a riddle. What is the difference between God and a judge? God doesn't think he's a judge.

It is rare to see a judge without a significant ego. Think about it. People throw money at them at election time and kiss their @sses. They can say whatever they want to others in their domain and you don't have a whole lot of recourse. One of my partners was thrown in jail because he argued with a judge about comments she made which he wanted to be put on the record. She said it was her courtroom and she controlled the court reporter and would not allow the comments to be put on the record. He said he would then go out and hire his own court reporter to make a record of what she had said. BAM. Contempt.

Now - think about a federal judge. Appointed for life - no need to run for election. Talk about delusions of grandeur.

Regardless of whether you agree with what the president said, it is easy to say his comments COULD be construed as a slap in the face of the judiciary. Swift retribution with the judiciary flexing its muscle is predictable.

I think that's a fair criticism but that cuts both ways. All the liberals who have been saying the courts jumping in is why they're there no complaining about activist judges.

I was glad the court struck down prop 8. I'm usually glad when the SCOTUS strikes down a law. Not so much when they create law where there was none.

The consistent theme, however, is in limiting the power of government. Typically, when we have discussed judicial activism, it has involved new laws or precedent adding to the powers or restrictions government controls and imposes. In this case, a decision to over-turn Obamacare is similar, in that it stops a massive new expansion of government power, and an even scarier precdent of expanded powers.

but the court in its own words is supposed to lean towards serverability. It is overreach if the court throws out constitutionally valid portions of the law based on the issues with the mandate portion. Even if that creates issues for the long term ability of the program to function. It is up to the legislature to fix those issues or pull the plug on the program. For the court to decide the feasibility of ACA without the mandate as opposed to just the legality of the law it is overreach.

Nope. I took what he said Monday on its face. The words, as spoken, were ignorant of constitutional law and the authority of the Court. If they weren't, he would not have needed to attempt to clarify yesterday. Now, I simply don't buy his attempted clarification.

that it's unprecedented

nm