Posted on 04/02/2012 10:08:49 AM PDT by John Semmens
A handful of senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court not to overturn the Affordable Care Act—more widely known as Obamacare.
“The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) said. “The President is Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful army in the world. Congress has control over more spending than any other entity in the world. The Justices need to consider whether they want to lock horns with these other branches of government.”
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) took issue with contentions that the 2700-page health care law hasn’t been properly vetted. “I admit I didn’t have time to read it before I voted for it,” Kerry said. “But I was assured by Solicitor General Kagan that the bill was Constitutional. I’m sure that now she is on the Supreme Court she will uphold the law’s validity.”
“And let’s not forget that there have been more than 30 lower court decisions upholding the health care law,” Kerry added. “Let’s face it, the President conceived it. Congress passed it. The people want it. And fellow judges have upheld it. Do the members of the Supreme Court really want to swim against this tide?”
The possibility that President Obama might just ignore an unfavorable Court ruling cannot be discarded. “It wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened,” Press Secretary Jay Carney observed. “President Jackson set the precedent for it back in 1832. President Obama will enforce the laws as he sees fit. The Justices should keep that in mind as they mull over their decision.”
http://azconservative.org/2012/03/31/president-defends-flexibility-remarks/
Absolutely UNREAL to think that in the USA we would have such stupidity and arrogance.
What a shame. Kerry is a disgrace.
Hey Dems ... its called “checks and balances.” Look it up.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh oooh. A real head shaker John.
Threats?
Threats to the Supreme Court?
Wouldn’t that me at a minimum, interfering with court business, or possible attempting to intimidate the judiciary.
What does the army have to do with it? The Court determines if it is Constitutional. It doesnt say you cant re-write it.
Let’s see, imagine you are 1 of the 9 Supremes - you have dedicated your life to the study of the law, and having reached the pinicle of your career - you are given a LIFE-long appointment to the highest court of the land. You never run for election, you serve your post until you either die, or decide to resign it.
Now - some Congress-critter decides that you need to be threatened to decide a bill before you. How would you respond?
If I were ‘on the fence’ before, I’d have a very strong opposition now. People don’t like to be threatened; especially by bed-wetting, incompetent and impotent fools.
Let me remind these senators that:
The president is there thru the will of the idiots that elected him.
Senators are only there at the will of THE PEOPLE who elect them
Congress is there at the will of THE PEOPLE
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE THERE FOR LIFE!!
Seems, in their rush to explain how the Gov. works, these blind Constitution haters left out the biggest part of the equasion. WE THE PEOPLE. I expect nothing less from socialist idiots.
Nov. 2012
They wouldn’t know anything about that.
Folks, it’s satire.
DUDE!.........satire........get it?
I don’t recall any other time in history when one branch flat out threatened another like what I read in this article. It is absolutely disgraceful.
The sad thing is, the satire from this site is so accurate, I generally get three or four paragraphs into it before I realize it is fake and who it is from.
Very well done, sir - as usual.
Kerry and Blumenthal. No credibility problem there.
Oh brother, and it’s not even April 1st anymore. I got nailed. LOL
WTF do you think this is, Blumenthal??? Your little liberal feifdom of Connecticut?? Screw off.
Let’s see, imagine you are 1 of the 9 Supremes - you have dedicated your life to the study of the law, and having reached the pinicle of your career - you are given a LIFE-long appointment to the highest court of the land. You never run for election, you serve your post until you either die, or decide to resign it.
Now - some Congress-critter decides that you need to be threatened to decide a bill before you. How would you respond?
If I were ‘on the fence’ before, I’d have a very strong opposition now. People don’t like to be threatened; especially by bed-wetting, incompetent and impotent fools.
Makes my blood boil, comments on each:
“The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) said. “The President is Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful army in the world. Congress has control over more spending than any other entity in the world. The Justices need to consider whether they want to lock horns with these other branches of government.”
-Does this idiot understand checks and balances? Is he threatening the Supreme Court Justices? I think Dick Blumenthal should be censured and tossed out.
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) took issue with contentions that the 2700-page health care law hasn’t been properly vetted. “I admit I didn’t have time to read it before I voted for it,” Kerry said. “But I was assured by Solicitor General Kagan that the bill was Constitutional. I’m sure that now she is on the Supreme Court she will uphold the law’s validity.”
- Kerry delegated his responsibility to Kagan, how nice... I doubt Kerry has YET to read the bill. I’m also sickened over Kagan’s failure to recuse herself as a SCOTUS justice.
“And let’s not forget that there have been more than 30 lower court decisions upholding the health care law,” Kerry added. “Let’s face it, the President conceived it. Congress passed it. The people want it. And fellow judges have upheld it. Do the members of the Supreme Court really want to swim against this tide?”
- The people want it? What is this clown smoking?
The possibility that President Obama might just ignore an unfavorable Court ruling cannot be discarded. “It wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened,” Press Secretary Jay Carney observed. “President Jackson set the precedent for it back in 1832. President Obama will enforce the laws as he sees fit. The Justices should keep that in mind as they mull over their decision.”
- I’m confident that Barry intends to ignore it. If he does, the GOP in Washington had better make clear to the country what a dictator is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.