The fact that the mainstream media didn't call him out on his ridiculous comments is even more reprehensible.
His adversaries for that position are equally cynical about the electorate to which they speak.
Frankly, most of what currently comprises the discourse in national politics -- and particularly Presidential politics -- takes an exceedingly dim view of the populous. And, frankly, the populous frequently justifies that view.
agreed, unfortunately.
Spare me the uneducated tripe. You look at the cons uents that make up the religious right and there are a whole lot of dumb s from arkansas to florida. Southern planters have been preying on that for centuries and those chickens have come to roost in the GOP.
Why doesn't anyone grill Obama on this ? He was against the mandate before he was for it. He's a bigger joke than Bush. At least with Bush, you knew what to expect.
Something similar can be said about Romney, so it's more or less a wash.
btw, is there something wrong with a politician changing his mind, or with doing what is possible instead of what is ideal?
States rights. Massachusetts had the right. The 10th amendment is one aspect.
You think that statute is going to fail on the basis of federalism?
Perhaps you should look up Supreme Court cases involving the income tax and quit talking out of your ass about everything.
I didn't say that. I'm only pointing out one is a state law, the other isn't. Do you understand what "one aspect" means?
Name drop:
Emilio read the scriptures at my wedding.
10s of Ms of your ignorant "low information" redstate bubba buddies will believe anything Fox Repug network, WND, hate radio, or SCOTUS right-wing extremists (broccoli !!!) spew on them.
btw, your predatory capitalist buddy Willard Gecko is LYING cynically, etch a sketch of the day, that Barry is causing high gas prices. bubbas believe that .
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-04-2012 at 10:44 AM.
Obama is so pissed about the possibility of those unelected judges messing with Obamacare he's appointing a new czar to look into the problem.
But he has no problem with unelected czar, Kathleen Sebelius, running 1/6 of the US economy.
"Kathleen Sebelius, running 1/6 of the US economy"
You Lie
and were there a Secretaries of HHS under in dubya's Reign of Error "running 1/6 of the US Economy"?
or do you trash only Dem and only women HHS secy?
http://volokh.com/2010/03/29/was-the...publican-idea/Even so, why were so many on the Right willing to embrace an idea that conservatives attack as uncons utional today? How can the Heritage Foundation’s legal scholars attack an idea once championed by its health care analysts? One possibility is that the Heritage Foundation is simply more conservative, or more free market, than it used to be. Another is that the legal environment has changed dramatically. In 1994 it had been over 50 years since the Supreme Court had invaildated a federal law for exceeding the scope of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez , striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, was not until 1995 — after the Clinton health care plan had been defeated and after the Republicans had retaken Congress, effectively ending the debate over health care reform. Prior to Lopez, it was simply assumed there were no meaningful limits on the federal government’s regulatory powers. After Lopez (and United States v. Morrison in 2000), that all changed. While the argument that the individual mandate exceeds the scope of federal power as interpreted by the courts is still difficult to make, it is no longer implausible as it was in 1994 (particularly for those of us who believe Gonzales v. Raich was wrongly decided).
Of course it’s also fair to argue that many Republican office-holders and partisans are simply opportunistic, opposing ideas today they supported before merely to oppose the President. In many cases, I am sure this is true. Just witness Republican efforts to transform themselves into champions of Medicare, opposing any and all spending cuts. But just because this may be true of partisans and politicians, does not mean its true of those in the broader conservative and libertarian movements. Many conservative and libertarian voices were no less critical of the individual mandate when proposed by the Heritage Foundation or Mitt Romney than they are today.
I know exactly what that one aspect is. What is the one aspect? Oh yeah thats right: the tenth amendment. I get that you are clueless about even the generalities of Judicial Review but gmfb.
If Obama said the SCOTUS has never declared a law uncons utional, then he's wrong and disingenuous. Nothing I've read indicates he forgot Marbury.
He did seem to implicate that it would be "unprecedented", no?
Attorney General Eric Holder assured a federal appeals court Thursday that the Obama administration believes judges have the authority to overturn federal laws, after President Obama's comments earlier this week raised concerns from the bench about his view of judicial power.
Holder, in a three-page letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "the power of the courts to review the cons utionality of legislation is beyond dispute," though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases."
The response capped an unusual dispute between the co-equal branches of government, one which has since reverberated on the campaign trail and beyond. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in prepared remarks for a speech Thursday afternoon, told Obama to "back off" and "let the court do its work."
Obama originally said it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health care overhaul, following its three-day review of the law last week. Administration officials have insisted all along that the president was not making a broad statement -- and was rather referring only to cases pertaining to the Commerce Clause and dealing with matters of the national economy.
Holder backed up the president's remarks in his letter to the appeals court Thursday. While saying the court has the right to review laws, he cited prior opinions that acts of Congress are "presumptively cons utional" and said the executive branch has "often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."
He wrote that the "principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere," calling Obama's comments "fully consistent" with the principles in the letter.
The fallout from the president's comments, though, is likely to drag on, with the presidential general election campaign on the horizon -- and a Supreme Court decision likely to land in the middle of it.
Holder already previewed what his response would be on Wednesday, saying the courts have "final say."
The letter comes after a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain its position by Thursday.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has continued to defend the president's remarks -- sparring at length with reporters at Wednesday's press briefing.
Carney has argued that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws. He says the president was instead referring specifically to the traditional deference the court has shown Congress when it comes to laws addressing challenges to the economy -- such as health care.
"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney said Wednesday. He went on to say, "It's the reverse of intimidation."
House Speaker John Boehner's office later cited cases over the past two decades where the Supreme Court overturned federal laws because they exceeded limitations under the Commerce Clause -- which is at the heart of the health care case.
An administration official, though, noted that those cases did not deal with major economic regulation as the health care law does.
Though Carney says the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"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," Obama said on Monday. "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 cons uted 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."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
On the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a justice on Tuesday chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court case.
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Judge Jerry Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith ordered an explanation of no less than three pages by noon local time on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1rBpzDy6U
"He was against the mandate before he was for it. "
All the Repug mucky mucks in 1993 were strongly for a personal insurance mandate in opposition to Hillarycare. Now their hobbyhorse is "uncons utional".
"being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority"
Exactly, the judicial is not omnipotent nor free from checks and balances, so suck on it, judge.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
