E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFacing reporters for the first time since President Obama warned that the Supreme Court’s potential overturning the health care law would be an “unprecedented” step, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney yesterday sought to put the president’s words in context, saying the president was not suggesting the court has never overturned such a law regulating interstate commerce.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney spent most of yesterday's briefing explaining the context behind President Obama calling a potential Supreme Court overturn of the health care law "unprecedented" and that the twelve justices are an "unelected group of people."
Leave a Comment:
Talk about playing politics from the bench!
Between this federal judge & others who have had to issue apologies for racist e-mails they have forwarded about the President - our judicial system has become a laughing stock!
Then there's that little issue down in Sanford FL....
If President Obama is correct when he states that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn a law that involves interstate commerce, then he de facto supports the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Fugitive Slave Law. And, therefore, he opposes the later decision reversing the previous court.
Of course its race. It always is with you. When you have no answer for anything it is racial.
Yawn.
Politics from the President, condemning SCOTUS to set the blame on then for his ACA problems.
In an AP story today from Sanford FL, two Afro-American teens arrested for death by hammer on a 50 yr. old white man.
Where is your outrage for this death? A loss of life is a loss of life.
wHinemaker-#'s,
No outrage. They were arrested and charged for killing an umarmed man. No outrage necessary as justice has been served, which is not the case in the Treyvon Martin case. Do you need me to spell it out more clearly?
In case you missed it - they were ARRESTED!
Bryan,
Don't waste your time - you can't educate those who revel in their ignorance!
rukidding?
I was talking about Supreme Court decisions and interstate commerce. You're the one to first mention race.
"C" for effort, "F" for logic, "F" for the really bad deflection
i can point my finger and laugh though. The louder i laugh the more people notice what i'm laughing at. etc, etc.
Corupt, greed, and inferiority seems to be the root cause of our survival as a ONE NATION UNDER GOD......
Why a laughing stock, Feisty? Because they don't see things your way? Here's a clue, 72% of Americans don't see things your way. Blather on.
Fiesty,
Regardless of party or politics, the president oversteped here. Let the court do thier job. We will have to accept the outcome. So will he.
denver
I was not answering you.
C for attempt to be witty. F is grade for your president and all who follow him in is attempt to destroy America.
rukidding,
Sorry for the confusion. Barack Obama is my president.
Glad someone claims him.
The president said exactly what 88% of the people in the USA are thinking !
Bought and paid for like the senate and congress !
The professor side of the president debates the separation of powers and danger of any one branch becoming too powerful, and this is too intellectual for public consumption. It would be better to have surrogates and the media discussing the matter. However, repeated 5-4 decisions is a legitimate issue of concern.
In the meantime, there is a fifth circuit federal judge who attacked a DOJ lawyer over the president's comments, proving the point the president makes -- That there is right-wing activism in our courts and it's not a good thing.
As usual, give the right-wing a long rope and they'll hang themselves.
True
Not realy. He wanted to know if anyone in the administration knew anything about the law and the powers granted to them.
A test if you will. Another F if your counting
"Unelected people"....those are Obama's words, right?
ObamaCare was passed by ONE vote as I recall. And one could argue that the ONE vote was that of "Senator" Kirk. Senator Kirk was never "elected" and appointed in MA to replace Senator Kennedy who passed away.
The appointment of Kirk was questionable if not illegal according to MA state law.
Wrong. In fact the Democrats agreed after Sen. Kennedy died, that the health care would not be voted on UNTIL after the special election. And it wasn't passed by 1 vote, it was 10 votes (the 9 additional votes needed to conduct any business in the Senate beyond the filibuster).
Uh oh Rob In Ma, you forgot some details. <Points finger and laughs as hard as possible at rob>.
Wm
It passed the Senate in December 2009 while Kirk was there to vote on it which he did. The House passed it later on when it didn't matter what the split in the Senate was. So Rob is correct. In fact it passed with just the Democratic 60 votes in the Senate (59 wouldn't have cut it as you know).
Just to set the record straight. Points finger and tries not to laugh as hard as possible at Bryan E., PA but is unsuccessful.
Okay, now let's review this with FACTS. ACA passed by one vote with a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate, and a more than sufficient majority in the House.
True it was barely bipartisan, and along Party lines. But this is the same argument for "unelected" SCOTUS judges, that the pendulum swings between Parties during which time they may hold majorities in congress, or a president who makes appointments to the SCOTUS.
It does not negate the fact that a law was passed with a majority, or that a 5-4 ruling is a majority. All that matters is the constitutionality of it, and I hope this SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of ACA and not personal politics.
The SCOTUS judges do and will vote according to ideology. The problem is when it's always a 5-4 decision, or worse when judges like Alito display his ideology publicly against a president, or Scalia clearly uses Teabagger talking points in his questioning. Or the federal judge who used the derogatory term "Obamacare" -- WTF? There needs to be dignity and a public appearance of neutrality.
With that said, the right-wing activism we've seen from the SCOTUS since Bush v Gore only illustrates the importance of getting out the vote to re-elect the president. The SCOTUS obviously leans to the right, and we cannot afford to tip the court any further to the right.
Obama/Biden - 2012!
Amazing to read the complaints on this site about Scalia, Kennedy, et al.
I guess that means only the liberal leaning Justices are doing their jobs correctly and can be considered to be unfettered members of the bench who make decisions with unbiased thought.
Surely no biases would come from Ms. Kagan, who worked as a legal advisor when the ACA mess was being put together.
And of course Justice Ginsberg always spends vast resources of unbiased thought while studying constitutional law and how it applies to case before her...while she's reading out near the cee-ment pond as Ellie Mae cooks the vittles in the kitchen.
Barry told lies and more lies during his little attack on Judiciary system.
First, regarding the strong chance of Obamacare being overturned: "“an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Strong majority? Try 219-212 in the House, and only the 60 necessary votes in the Senate. All Democrats. How you get a "strong majority" out of that can only be figured out with some serious psychiatric care for Mr. President.
On Obama's assertion that it would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court to overturn legislation, the Supreme Court has overturned, the SC has since 2010 ruled 165 times that laws passed by Congress were unconstitutional. It is hardly uncommon.
And then the snark of Obama to call the Judiciary "Unelected officials", those judges will remember that little insult for a while.
Obama now has to turn to lies to state his case. You'd think he'd keep those insulting statements behind close doors and just have them during a bull session with his staff. But no, somehow this uncouth little man manages to bring these insults and lies up in a public speech. Way to go Barry, you the man.
Carney is as big a liar as Obama saying Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. How about using his real title of Senior Lecturer? Not elite enough? Talk about out of touch.
Where do you get your numbers? The SCOTUS hasn't even decided 165 cases since 2010. In fact this SCOTUS on an annual basis has decided the fewest cases of any court since the 1950's.
Barack absolutely lost his mind when trying to bully the Judiciary. What in the world was the intent of that speech? One plausible answer it was a campaign speech in that he got some inside information on how the vote in the SC went, and it didn't go well for him, so now in addition to running against the Tea Party, Republicans, and Congress, now he's running against the SC too.
Barack is a busy man, he doesn't appear to agree with anyone.
And the SEIU is out in force gathering signatures for support of the BarryCare legislation. Will this soon be presented to the media as a sign that the nation wants the court to allow this legislation, or will it be presented after SCOTUS junks BarryCare?
The Great Divider Joanna didn't lose his mind, it's part of the division tactics he believes will garner votes for his election.
Good catch Wm. the quote from the article: "According to the Congressional Research Service, the court through 2010 had ruled 165 times that laws passed by Congress were unconstitutional."
Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-supreme-court-comments-stir-debate/2012/04/04/gIQAtI8EwS_story.html
Thanks for pointing this out, I regret the error.
Who in their right mind would want to re-elect a man, a man that went to Harvard law school, a man that is a so-called Constitutional lawyer, that didn't know that his signature legislation will be overturned because you cannot compel people to buy a product they do not want, back for four more years? What qualities does he possess that warrant such a thing to happen? He doesn't know what he's doing, he doesn't get along with others, he's a divider not a uniter, he blames others for his problems. What merits him another four years?
I feel bad for the guy nearly every time I see Jay Carney in front of a roomful of reporters. It seems he is always trying to recatergorize the president's public statements into something that can cling to some level of coherence. Must be a tough job to do...working for someone who we have always been instructed to believe is a masterful communicator...but is not. Half the time the president opens his yap, his foot follows.
Maybe Mr. Carney should respond with answers like "it depends upon what the meaning of 'strong majority' is".
And if Mr. Obama has a problem with "unelected" people making major decisions on his agenda items, how come he had no problem with his HHS Secretary making her own decsions on the fly over the flap with the Catholic Church last month ? Who "elected" Ms. Sebelius ?
JoAnna,
Nothing merits another four years of THE BARRY.
First his ACA was a concocted backroom deal brokered with pork for those who supported him. Yeah, I wonder how the left will cry unfair or the courts are controlled by the corporations when his signature legislation is thrown out?
Time for an adult in the White House.
Rob
None of these people want to hear that the bill that they love so much (but don't want to campaign on) was passed with no republican support and that they had to use so many games and sleight of hands to get it by, that the American people still don't support it even as the "benefits" are displayed.
The fact that it may even be unconstitutional really twists their shorts. We shall see soon enough.
Even liberal reporters are questioning this guys idea of judicial review now.
and only the 60 necessary votes in the Senate.
And here's how they got those 60 necessary votes. The Massachusetts legislature rewrote a law to give Kennedy's replacement Kirk free reign and freeze out Scott Brown, a DULY elected Senator who campaigned on voting AGAINST Obamacare.
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2010/01/can-senator-kirk-vote-after-january-19.html
The bill passed because of some "UNELECTED" guy that should not have been in the seat to begin with.
And as far as the Supreme Court's authority. For a Harvard Law student to not understand the role of the court that even a high school student does is shocking.
No wonder Obama never puts his grades out there. He was obviously too busy snorting lines to attend classes.
He probably flunked lunch but we have to pass him or be called raciest.
For someone who flunked spelling, you got a lot of balls...
And Rob, see post 2.1. The jigg is up robbie.
Spelling error in post #5.10 Beenie-boy. Get on it!
Just two more than you Bryan
Spelling errors can generally be blamed on George Bush. This is 'Newsvine' after all !
Judicial review is not the issue, which, of course one would not expect the Fox "news" crowd to get.
The issue is the court staying out of political posturing. This judge has shown his hand, he is nothing more than a political shill for the far right wing, and he should be impeached for abandoning the impartiality that he is supposed to model.
I don't believe that was the issue under discussion here. It is Obama's words to the media and then Jay Carney's "explanation.
The Texas judge is something entirely different but does tag on to this as it was brought up AFTER the president made his ideas known.
Nothing about Fox news in the article either. Looks like you are looking for something that isn't there.
My, that's the standard line from the Libs. Impeach this guy, imeach that guy! It never ends.
My, that is the standard line from the Libs. Impeach this guy, impeach that guy! It never ends.
Don't watch Fox ndd...r. Obviously you do though. You do look like strong material for being a MSNBC audience lemming.
Clearly the SCOTUS has ruled recent laws unconstitutional such as the attempt by Congress to make as federal crimes certain local offenses committed with guns. But Obama comments were that since the New Deal, the SCOTUS has not overturned any large federal economic legislation - Medicare, the Clean Air and Clear Water Acts, even the Civil Rights Acts which ordered private businesses to provide services to all members of the public.
ndd is part of that Libs R Funny crowd who parrot the party line while blaming the rest of us who disagree as RWNJ's.
But I do enjoy the Queen of the One Liners, that female Henny Youngman.
The government cannot forcibly compel a person to buy a product they do not want. That is what Obamacare is attempting to do. The other programs you listed do not compel anyone to buy a product.
Really? So how about flood insurance?
If you don't want to pay for flood insurance you have the option of not purchasing the property.
Obamacare requires you to purchase insurance, else pay a hefty fine.
Clear now?
Smiffy,
I believe the question was how about flood insurance, not whether or not someone can buy the property. If you buy the property, the gov't MANDATES YOU BUY FLOOD INSURANCE. Get it?
And by your logic, you could just NOT go to the doctor. Problem solved.
You don't get it do you? You have the option of not buying the property if you don't want to pay the insurance. That differs with Obamacare that mandates everyone purchase an insurance policy.
Do you know the difference between an option and a mandate?
You're kind of slow. Maybe a try a more liberal blog that is more forgiving of your intelligence.
NewDay--I don't seet how any litigant can go into the courtroom of one of these judges and feel as if they have a chance at an impartial decision. How could an African-American go before the judge who he knows has circulated racist jokes about our President? How could someone go before the judge in Texas and think he will be fair when he makes public statements like he did?
Steeler Fan,
Skip the racist crap, it's BS, you know it and we're getting sick of hearing it. This President tried to usurp the majority of the people, by forcing something on us, that we don't want. Period! There is nothing racial about it. What he did was illegal and will cost billions to clean up. His color had nothing to do with it, it was his over inflated ego.
Bryan E., PA
Not really true there Bryan. Even if you don't go to a doctor you still have to buy Obamacare under the law.
If you don't want to buy flood insurance you can either not buy the property or not have it financed by a government regulated lending institition.
BTW, the mandatory flood insurance purchasing became law in 1973 (Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973) during the 93rd Congress which had large Democratic majorities (56 in the Senate and 242 in the House).
Dave...
The arrows of "racism' will be fired more and more often as the election nears.
JoAnna: if Medicare is constitutional, and therefore single payer, why not ACA which tries to preserve the private insurance market (you know - private enterprise)? It's simply a fact of life that health insurance companies don't want to be stuck covering already sick people or people only wanting insurance after they become sick. If the federal government has to power to legislate an even more intrusive scheme (although much simpler), don't they have the power to do the less intrusive?
sop when challenged. pull out the race card, point out spelling errors fox news. what really is the difference between t- dems., t- repub's. both spew hate. assume if someone disagree's. they are republican,or democrat. either side can be fed up with mr. obama. it comes with the job.
From the beginning Obamacare was a tax whenever Obama and the Democrats wanted it to be, and a fee whenever is it was convenient for them. They were real loose with their language. The Supreme Court put an answer to what it was in that they would not ruled on anything if it had been a tax and had not harmed anyone yet. So we know now it's a fee. So a fee can be considered commerce.
Justice Kennedy asked the question: "Can you create commerce to regulate it". To that question the Solicitor General had no coherent answer. So it would seem the answer is no.
And the level of an intrusiveness of a law doesn't make it just.
Well that didn't take long to stir up the Fox "News" nuts. Hard to make the complex simple for people like that, but let's reduce it down to the simplest statement we can:
It is the burden of a Federal Judge to maintain the impartiality (look it up) and integrity (since Fox "news" nuts are devoid of that characteristic, I don't think looking that word up will help them.) of the judiciary. This judge failed, and should be impeached.
And by the way: were any of you equally outraged when Gingrinch wanted to dissolve the 9th Circuit and send Federal marshals after justices that he suspected were liberal? What's that? Silence? Yeah, I thought so.
I guess thier ratings and the acutal facts that are presented on the network shoulc be ignored.
You truly can not handle the truth.
newday...
The Democrat Party and Mr. Obama in particular make their living off the votes of many, many "simple people" who are certainly now viewers of Fox News or any other news program.
You may have every reason in the world to believe you are a wise individual, but it cannot be denied that a lot of people who aren't wise..."simple" even... vote the exact same way you do.
Tony: That is President Obama, elected President of the United States by a majority of your fellow American voters. Do you not respect your fellow American voters enough to call the person they elected President Obama?
gingrich is a idiot. quite the na na na booboo. who are u nancy pelosi. the justices will make a ruling. whatever way it goes we will all have to live with it.
tony
It's "Democratic Party". I know you wouldn't want to continue saying it wrong in ignorance.
you're welcome
Dragon,
Tell your hypocritical friends that too, every time they make reference to President Bush.
Dragon...
Okay..."President Obama"...happy now ???
And to be honest, "no" I do not have a high level of appreciation for every voter in this country. Folks that cannot find the time to register to vote over a 364 annual window, but need special accommodations to zip in at he last moment to register at the last minute. In my state, I have little respect for the votes of city voters who are piled into SEIU vans to be hauled to the polls to vote the way they are instructed to vote by state government union employees...as in the famous example of the voter interviewed at the polls in our 2010 election for governor and who was quoted stating " They told me one guy wanted to give me more stuff and the other guy wanted to take my stuff away".
I didn't even have a whiff of respect for my beloved Grandmother's last vote...where she told us she voted for the candidate with "the better hair".
And in the 2010 governor's election in my state, the winning DEMOCRAT candidate (sorry, Rick in Savannah) won by just over 6000 out of 1.3 million votes...but in the 6 poorest cities in my state he won by 75,000 votes. With the high school graduation rate of around 50% in those cities, am I supposed to believe that's where all the wise voters are now living ?
And the gift we state taxpayers received for "respectfully" swearing in our new governor was the immediate largest state tax increase in the history of our state in the middle of a recession...while the state's unions got a no layoff clause and the folks in the cities got checks in the mail known as "Earned Tax Credits".
You can disagree with my view and that's just fine and dandy...but I am honest enough to refuse to don the rose-colored glasses and agree with the limp statement "never underestimate the intelligence of the American voter".
In truth, I believe that "intelligence" is over-estimated...and that applies to folks on both sides of the political aisle. The DEMOCRAT PARTY (sorry again, Rick in Savannah) just happens to be much more proficient at dragging votes to the polls and has the government union personnel to get that job done to the benefit of politicians who best serve their interests.
Rick in Savannah...
Thanks for your valued input. I'll try to become wiser someday.
@!$%# u and bush
bill t...
Nice !!!
"and bush".
Are you just a cryptographically cursing Democrat or a beer salesman with poor spellimg skills ???
wHinemaker-#'s,
Where is your demonstration of intellectual prowess on display? So far all i've seen is right wing hackery, performed by you.
To quote you "...BarryCare..." and we're supposed to take you seriously?
Douche.
Bryan,
"Douche" and we're supposed to take you seriously?
Can we just stay on the topic, I am trying to learn something here.
Thank you.
proved my point. suggest u leave the debate,and go,and join ur other paranoid lefties. better yet go form a coalition with ur equally paranoid. righties. u deserve eachother. i doubt very much. mr. obama,or mr. carney want ur help.
" Douche ".
"Never underestimate the intelligence of the American people".
Why not ???
Always so wrong, poor JoAnna: flood maps were just redrawn here which is causing people to buy flood insurance that were not previously required to buy it.
Flood insurance is done to protect the mortgages for the bank. If you don't want to pay the insurance, which secure mortgage loans backed by federal agencies such as the FHA, you can either pay off your mortgage or sell the place. Again, you have an option.
Show us your big brain now ndd...r and tell us where the option is with Obamacare.
JAS1 - she can't. You are also correct about the flood insurance requirements too.
Jo; And you have an option not to purchase healthcare insurance, you pay the fine.
Good deal! No wonder the SCOTUS thinks it's illegal. Thanks for clearing that up Dragon!
Yes that is quite the option with Obamacare. Either pay now, or pay later, but you still have to pay.
buy,or fine. that is the option. how about more options from more companies so we can shop. neither side wants that option. it would truly help the working class. something neither side has an interest in. this is a poor attempt on mr. obama's administration. to not rile up the wealthy insurance,and pharmacutical firms. neither side will rile up the wealthy.
You get Medicare taken out of your paycheck each month, it is a MANDATED federal healthcare tax/fee...call it whatever you like, but it is taken out whether you want it or not, whether you use Medicare, or are even eligible for it.
So the federal government has already MANDATED citizens pay for healthcare, whether they want to or not.
Poor JoAnna, always so outraged...always so wrong. In the event that the Feds have come in providing grants or money to flood disaster victims, they can and will require that you buy insurance. Further, banks are mandated to require flood insurance for loans in certain areas. The question is, JoAnna, does the govt. MANDATE insurance. The answer is yes.
Now, do get a clue, and when you get a clue, buy a bigger clue.
Newsflash !!!
I got back from the tax accountant's office, one and a half bourbons ago.
I feel like the blonde-haired surfer-dude 21 year old hit and run driver sentenced to five years at a sweaty prison on the bayou.
Can a politician simply say "thanks for your help" ??? Or do I just wait my turn, as a four-to-five percenter, to be informed that I am no longer paying what has been determined to be my "fair share" ???
My "unfair" share hurts...unfairly.
Could we please try not to insult each other. We may have different views on policies but we need at the very least be civil. When we cease being The United States of America we only harm ourselves.
The President did not impact SCOTUS decision on ACA, so what is the big deal. Plenty of past presidents talked about SCOTUS.
GOP is desparate to find fault with President Obama, if he sneezes they make it a big deal.
But But Dragon.....it's news and all over the liberal press.....I am sooo confused.......why is the liberal press and the SCOTUS pickin on the POTUS?.....could it be that the legality of Obamacare is just BOGUS or so sayeth the SCOTUS in last Friday's secret ballot with a little HOCUS POCUS?
Dragon What your President has done (not just this week but with his is insult of Supreme court justices during his state of the Union) unprecedented since FDR. It proves once again the he will go down in history as the divider in chief of Americans. He will not be happy untill you are all at each other throats.
JoAnna Smith, you are correct when you say if you don't want to buy flood insurance then don't buy the property. But if you do buy the property and the insurance and then get flooded no one else is responsible for the repayment of your loss.
Health insurance is a completely different animal. If you don't buy health insurance and then need to seek medical help, someone else, namely you and me pick up the tab
Are we clear now?
If the Court overturns the ACA on the basis that it is unconstitutional, the President, who claims to be a Constitutional Scholar is going to look pretty stupid. If Obama can pick a fight with the Court before they issue their decision, then he can blame them and accuse them of playing politics with the health of the citizens.
And while it may be true that the Court has historically show deference to laws passed by the Congress, I would guess that such deference is reserved for laws that have actually been read by the legislators before being passed.
SCOTUS has already decided on ACA, it just won't be made public until June. Regardless of what President Obama says, it has already been decided.
If Medicare is constitutional (single payer), then is some lesser system that attempts to preserve the private health insurance market not therefore also constitutional? Ideally, the simplest alternative is a public option/co-op (but not on the Medicaid model) that is subsidized by private insurance who cast off their too sick to insure. A problem that Obama was trying to avoid with a public option (which is happening with Medicare and Medicaid) is reluctance by future Congresses to fund the program. We too often recognize the need, but now fall into the trap of no longer having the community fiscal will to carry it out.
Whoo-boy. Here we go again.
For the benefit of caption writers, there are nine justices on the Supreme Court, not twelve.
Second, although the nine are not to be partisan they are hardly without their individual predilections and understandings of the Constitution. Each justice brings his or her history, both personal and intellectual, to the bench. The real complaint from those embittered by the current court is that the presidents who have appointed the more conservative justices did a fairly good job of selecting candidate who were consistently conservative.
In the mid-1950's President Eisenhower appointed William Brennan, then a moderate to conservative chancery court judge to the Supreme Court. By the time Ike died Brennan was one of the most liberal justices on the most liberal Court of the last century and the 34th president was calling the appointment "the biggest darn mistake of my presidency."
I do not agree with all or even most of the decisions of the Court. As a libertarian I find both conservative and liberal justices far too comfortable assigning power to the various levels of government and far too reluctant to let the individual enjoy the benefits and burdens of individual choice. The fault is not with the Court. The fault lies with the political process that makes doctrinal purity and ideological litmus tests central to the process of appointment and confirmation.
Nor would electing justices improve the process. How unseemly would it be to have the rights of citizens depend on their ability to fund a justices election or re-election? Would we want decisions on fundamental human rights to depend on majority rule? If that were the case, Brown v Board of Ed. would never have been decided as it was. Given the resistance to school integration all over the country, not merely in the old Confederacy, no judge facing reelection could have voted to send black and white children to school together.
A note to Dragon-1573721. The preliminary vote has been taken but the process of crafting an opinion to gain five signatures is ongoing. Several cases have ultimately been decided counter to the initial vote. As justices circulate and comment on the opinions, votes do change.
Note, also, that the Roberts court is far more collegial and far less fractured and fractious than was the Burger Court. Apparently Justices Sotomayor and Kagan have found it possible to disagree agreeably with Justices Scalia and Alito far more than the press which shares their proclivities. Perhaps that out to make us think twice about so harshly vilifying those with whom we disagree.
Too, liberals can take comfort in the likely re-election of the Vacilator-in-Chief. Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas, were appointed by presidents Reagan and Bush 41. One wonders if all three will survive in good health and vigor through January 20, 2017. On the other hand, President Obama couldn't pass gas in his first two years and had 60 votes in the Senate and a 45 seat majority in the House. Perhaps blaming the Court for a lack of political savvy at the other end of Pennsylvannia Avenue is just a bit extreme.
Unfortunately, we have reached an era when the current Justices will die on the court rather than retire. Both for personal and political reasons. When Gore was initially declared the winner in 2000, Sandra Day O'Connor is reported to have blurted an expletive at a party she was attending. Despite her husband's advanced illness, she wasn't going to retire except during a GOP presidency. I will be curious was the GOP in the Senate will do if Obama is reelected. I can easily envision a situation where there will be fewer than 9 justices on the court. The Constitution doesn't prescribe the number. It's simply by Congressional act.
WM your rant is nothing but hearsay and innuendo and would not be given the light of day in anybodies court.
Ours is an age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds for exemption from the examination by this tribunal, But, if they are exempted, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination. Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804)
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
It is very simple Daniel. You do not (in all your self perceived eloquence) understand the basic fundamental way in which the government under the constitution works. You like Mr. so called Harvard Law Professor President are trying to fundamentally change in peoples minds what they in civic grade school lessons learned. Please re re-read the constitution. Thomas Jefferson no matter how great of an American he was or how passionate he was towards his dedication to personal freedom lost out on these debates many years ago.
The patient protection and affordable healthcare act was nothing more that the feds over reaching to take power away from the states. This is an absurd use of the commerce clause.
It should go down 9-0. But it will go down 6-3.
"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
Danny this is not a court ruling or filing of judgment this is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Many people can say many things but this has nothing to do with law, the constitution or reality. Are you a community organizer too?