In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 553
Online now 317 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I don't see that as walking back his comments.
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
The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager
I do, I think on Monday he implied that a group of unelected people had no business overturning his legislation. On Tuesday he went out of his way to say he believes the SCOTUS has the final say (despite morethanafans opinions on marbury).
I think you are trying to hard.
wouldn't be the first time. I tend to think all politicians lean towards being narcisistic, power hungry assholes and Obama is no different.
First, I don't believe Obama in his backpedaling. He meant what he originally said on this and only has to change it because he looks the fool. This all just Obama and Democrat spin in preparation for a decision they won't like. How, exactly, will you know whether a justice votes based on his personal views? We all know that this crucial, anxiously-awaited decision will be carefully drafted to address the Constitutionality of the Mandate and maybe all of Obamacare. I guaranty you that not one justice, whether in a majority, concurring or dissenting opinion, will openly state anything that looks like personal views.
if Obamacare is deemed void based on constitutional grounds, who are you to say it was decided on some other grounds? Just because Obama might not agree with the Court's conclusion does not automatically mean constitutional reasoning was abandoned by the majority and they resorted to their own personal views. But, I also guaranty that, if that happens, you will jump right on that train, regardless of how the opinion(s) read.
This is not much different than saying that Obama's policies are so well crafted and make so much sense for this country that the only reason anyone would be against them is if he is racist against a black president.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table. This is anticipatory table-pounding.
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.
There is something beautiful about Republicans who have long decried activist judges legislating from the bench and who hyped the superior validity of the Congress to pass political decisions performing such an obvious volte-face.
“Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.
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:
To be honest, all Republican Presidents, as far back as I can remember, have made this claim. So have most Republican Congressmen.
What did I state regarding Marbury v. Madison that was opinion rather than fact?
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.
The hypocrisy is incredible. Now, TrojanMonkey is even questioning whether Republican Presidents ever did that. How can people forget this stuff? Nixon, Reagan and both Bush's spoke out against judicial activism.
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.
I think Obama is shining a light on their dealings. Scalia for instance, based on his questioning, seems to be following a line of thought that contradicts his own past rulings. BY speaking on this up front Obama is making it harder for them to go beyond the law and rule based on their beliefs.
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.
If that is the case, I think Obama is looking further ahead on the board. If he really does understand con law, then this is him planting the (false) idea that a decision against Obamacare can only be based on personal views, because it could not possibly be struck down on a constitutional basis. He wants that out there in advance for when the Court rules as he fears it will. Clever gaming, but right now he looks the former-constitutional-law-professor fool.
I don't really care, as long as Obamacare goes down.
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.
yes, he is looking ahead. It is a preventive strike but with good reason. Scalia is talking against his own past rulings. Obama wants to make sure he sticks with what he has ruled in other less politically charged cases.
You take Obama's comments much further then what was said. That is a common theme around this board, take anything Obama says to its furthest most extreme interpretation, and then warp it further into a straight up lie.
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.
can you please tell me what you think was ignorant? Can you be specific? Because I do not see it.
that it's unprecedented
To be fair to the President they probably don't teach US Gov't in Indonesia
This post was edited by Rosebowl91 2 years ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports