Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
FoxNews.com ^ | April 2, 2012

Posted on 04/02/2012 12:46:07 PM PDT by Deo volente

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2012election; backoffbarry; bhofascism; bhotyranny; bullyinchief; contempt; contemptofcourt; contemptofscotus; corruption; cwii; democrats; dictator; dictatorinchief; donttreadonme; elections; fubo; govtabuse; impeach; kagan; liberals; lping; marxism; narcissistinchief; obama; obamacare; obamapoleon; obamathreatensscotus; obamatruthfile; obameltdown; remembernovember; scotus; separationofpowers; socialistdemocrats; socialisthealthcare; treason; tyranny; tyrantinchief; unconstitutional; waronscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-319 next last
To: mrsmel

Given the mental capacity she’s demonstrated, her brother may be a doctor who is looking forward to “practicing” under Obamacare. Be a lot easier to give pain pills and write end of life orders, then get bonuses for saving the hospital resources.


151 posted on 04/02/2012 2:14:56 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
In arguing against the absurd, the most sure defense is outright ridicule or physical violence. There's a lot to be said for a well placed insult or a punch in the nose. Something the "stuffy Grand Old Party" won't stoop to for whatever moronic reason.

Look how they treated the one guy who dared to stand up and say "You Lie!"

If you try to play nice and fight their lies with facts, you legitimize their claims by entering a serious debate with them. The MSM, and other Left-wing organs, then turn around and frame the whole thing as "inflexible Right-wing kooks at it again"...

152 posted on 04/02/2012 2:15:40 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

“but it’s real clear he wasn’t very strong in math. “

He wasn’t a shining star in American History and US Geography, either, considering he thinks we have 58 states. (He said he’d visited 57, and only had one more to go.) I expect those subjects weren’t part of the curriculum in Indonesia or the Bowels Of Hell — wherever this abomination came from.


153 posted on 04/02/2012 2:17:55 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam (Don't blame me; I voted for the American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
and get the Catholic bishops to shut up since they would be off the hook.

Which would free up a whole lot of Catholic voters to go back to pulling the straight party "D" lever as they've always done, freed from weekly ear-beatings from the pulpit about this.
154 posted on 04/02/2012 2:20:25 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
"Seems our only hope is for the Supreme Court to Bit@h slap the executive branch."

Adding this to my prayer intentions.

155 posted on 04/02/2012 2:20:47 PM PDT by getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL (chirping birds + basket weavers who sit + smile + twiddle their thumbs + toes They're coming to take)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Congratulations! From the archives of Time Magazine you have found a picture of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack that captures his very arrogant down-the-nose sneer to perfection.

The nostril flare
From his snot-nosed stare
Projects his smirk and sneer
As the Democrats cheer.


156 posted on 04/02/2012 2:21:49 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
He’s having a tantrum because his “signature piece”, the healthcare abomination, is about to go down in flames.

Both Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder (he has both) find this type of challenge to be totally unacceptable).

157 posted on 04/02/2012 2:22:13 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
Wannabe Dictator Alert
158 posted on 04/02/2012 2:22:44 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”

The cancer of Obama”care” now has invaded World Finances as Obama last week choose a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.

Romney has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”

Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”

According to Michelle Bachmann (R Min), there are currently over 10, 000 REGULATIONS attached to Obama”care.”
_______

The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.

As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.

Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.

Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!

Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.

IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.
____________

To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” was 2409 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.

Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

BTW, impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.


159 posted on 04/02/2012 2:26:33 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
The American LEFT....masters of legislating from the bench....

...and this POS has the unmitigated gall to question the Supreme Court.


160 posted on 04/02/2012 2:27:03 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

Ummm, white house reporters want to remain white house reporters. We all know this and why Il Douche doesn’t get this question.


161 posted on 04/02/2012 2:27:17 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Most people who have ever been to an emergency room know that NO ONE can be turned away!

FALSE! The ER has only to stabilize a life threatening condition. They are not required to treat beyond that. If there is no such condition in the first place, and no insurance, the patient can be, and often is, turned away.

162 posted on 04/02/2012 2:30:33 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I wouldn’t say I am encouraged, but I am definitely a bit surprised. You’d think that Barry’s handlers would have warned him about his low ratings with the Supreme Court right now.

After ragging on them during the State of the Union Address to the cheers and jeers of Congress — something that was universally agreed to be bad tactics — issuing them a “warning” is going to stick in their collective throats like a sideways chicken bone.

When the dust settles from this, he might have Sotomayor and Kagan, but he runs a strong risk of losing Ginsberg who is at an age where she probably is somewhat intolerant of under-educated whippersnappers telling her what to do.

If any of the Liberal Justices vote against it, he’s cooked. The best he can hope for at this stage is a five/four ideological split.


163 posted on 04/02/2012 2:35:02 PM PDT by Ronin (Sarah.... We really need you now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

What’s frightening is the number of question marks in the responses to this post.


164 posted on 04/02/2012 2:35:40 PM PDT by Crawdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

And I’m warning the pipsqueak in the white house that there is such a thing as a separation of powers for a reason and he’d better learn to deal with it


165 posted on 04/02/2012 2:36:22 PM PDT by LUV W (Obama's foot soldiers are repulsive human debris and the voting public is sick to death of them! *RL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

I bet you every one of those “unelected” Supreme Court members is a natural born citizen.


166 posted on 04/02/2012 2:39:03 PM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

I wonder how many people in this country are having the same thoughts I am?


167 posted on 04/02/2012 2:39:45 PM PDT by SMM48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
I worry that all this unconstitutional action and rhetoric will end up casting the actual Constitution in a bad light when it prohibits the handouts that some people want.

It already is...that's why it is a "living document." Or, "deeply flawed." --

“African-Americans were not -- first of all they weren’t African-Americans -- the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a ‘nagging problem’ in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

“And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro.

---

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro.

168 posted on 04/02/2012 2:42:59 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Well, the USSC has no army, so they have no power. This is what we heard over the weekend.

As some may recall, obamma complained earlier that he could so much more if congress would not get in his way.

Now this. What is obamma up to?


169 posted on 04/02/2012 2:47:45 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby

It’s called Checks and Balances President Doofus.


Yeah, he’s threatening the court, but come on. Republicans/conservatives aren’t exactly squeaky clean when it comes to playing the “judicial activism” and “unelected officials” cards when court decisions don’t go our way.


170 posted on 04/02/2012 2:51:02 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

He really has no respect for the Constitution at all... UGH!!


171 posted on 04/02/2012 2:56:01 PM PDT by blinachka (Vechnaya Pamyat Daddy... xoxo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
This is the Fox version of what Obama said:

"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.

This is the Rueter's version:

"Ultimately, I am 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 at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Initially, I thought that Obama today and Biden on Sunday were expressing confidence that the law would be upheld because they had received some leak from the court on the results of the vote on Friday.

I still believe that the WH received some feedback on the vote, but now I think their remarks are meant to put pressure on the court, not defend a decision they have made. Why? The word "ultimately" gives some clue that Obama is trying to pressure a decision to go his way that otherwise would not. I hope that Rueters is providing the correct language. And I find it odd that Politico, Fox, and others would leave that key word out.

172 posted on 04/02/2012 2:56:15 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

True. It’s always been difficult to combat shamelessness.


173 posted on 04/02/2012 3:00:02 PM PDT by pghoilman (Earth First. We'll drill the rest of the galaxy later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Every demoncRat despise the Constitution


174 posted on 04/02/2012 3:01:01 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

Regarding the first point, that the Framers did not consider black people, that is just bad history. They did. They were faced with the problem of getting this piece of paper approved. I am not a great history person, but they did do a pretty good job of paving the way for what they must have seen as a future battle on this issue. They omitted “property,” for one thing, although they certainly believed in property, since at that time slaves were “property.” They did not want to enshrine that institution. Many other facts and clues could be supplied by knowedgeable freepers, I’m sure. I am not making excuses for the Founders.

The second issue was carefully explained to me by freepers, in person, soon after I became active on FR. I can’t remember who these people were who instructed me on negative vs. positive rights, but I am grateful to them and to all the other people who took me in hand as a former “Democrat” (it was for practical reasons) who lived in a very blue area of a blue state. I think I even called the Constitution a living document at one point.

Meaning my ideas on the Constitution were all screwed up, as those of many others still are.

Hard to understand that our very existence as a Republic depends on that old piece of paper, but so it does.


175 posted on 04/02/2012 3:01:23 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: steve86

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

Congress passed EMTALA to combat the practice of “patient dumping,” i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual with a medical emergency “and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition.” It does not matter whether the condition is visible to others, or is simply stated by the patient with no external evidence.

An emergency medical condition is defined as “a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual’s health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs.” For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.

http://tinyurl.com/4j864r


176 posted on 04/02/2012 3:02:16 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

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.


Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_laws_has_the_US_Supreme_Court_declared_unconstitutional


dumbo used the words “passed by a strong majority.” Maybe the 158 Congressional acts overturned had been passed by a weak majority? I don’t know.


177 posted on 04/02/2012 3:06:01 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
"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.

Strong Majority my ass !!! IIRC, the vote in the House was 219-212, or about 50.3% !!!

178 posted on 04/02/2012 3:06:47 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

I agree with your initial reaction as well. Some Freepers are too paranoid and cynical. If Obdumbo had some secret midnight call from his special buddy on SCOTUS and it was good news for his healthcare bill there’s noway he’d publicly be calling the members of this court “unelected” in a threatening way, as if they have no right to strike down his flopcare bill.
If he knows it was upheld I would think he’d praise the Supremes and sound less angry.


179 posted on 04/02/2012 3:10:49 PM PDT by snarkytart (http://www.freerepubli224%2C1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

WHY does anyone listen to this loser???


180 posted on 04/02/2012 3:16:22 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby

oh right after that secret vote by the court you can bet Kagan was on the phone calling her boss what and how the results and and who voted how went


181 posted on 04/02/2012 3:17:16 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leep

?????


182 posted on 04/02/2012 3:17:40 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

“questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.”

Congress? The 8% approval rating Congress?

Guess what 0bysmal - You are done! So are the rest of our lame-@ss “leaders” in DC. The tide is turning.

Please hold the line, people. This can be a turning point if we don’t wimp out.


183 posted on 04/02/2012 3:21:29 PM PDT by APatientMan (Pick a side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Looks like he’s warning them that if they don’t uphold obamacare, he will ignore the decision based on it was judicial activism by unelected people. It wouldn’t be the first time a president has ignored a SC ruling. And Ginsberg would probably agree with him.


184 posted on 04/02/2012 3:27:09 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL
"Seems our only hope is for the Supreme Court to Bit@h slap the Executive Branch."

Marbury v. Madison is the landmark case that Democrats revere, where Justice John Marshall stated:

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is ..."

Or did our "esteemed" Constitutional Perfessor forget this ???

If I was a law student who was "taught" by Obama - I'd ask for my fuggin' money back ...

185 posted on 04/02/2012 3:27:52 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

And how do we deal with this little arrogant pr#ck? In November we vote in mass, we give him such a smack down that his mother will feel it


186 posted on 04/02/2012 4:01:46 PM PDT by ronnie raygun (B B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

And how do we deal with this little arrogant pr#ck? In November we vote in mass, no matter who the nominee is, we give him such a smack down that his mother will feel it


187 posted on 04/02/2012 4:03:51 PM PDT by ronnie raygun (B B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

And how do we deal with this little arrogant pr#ck? In November we vote in mass, no matter who the nominee is, we give him such a smack down that his mother will feel it


188 posted on 04/02/2012 4:04:16 PM PDT by ronnie raygun (B B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Obama sets a very high bar for himself but this may be the most arrogant and offensive thing I have ever heard him say. It ought to be noted that 22% of this “unelected” court are his own nominees and that all seven were confirmed by the votes of 100 elected U.S. Senators.

Maybe we should remember this the next time Eric Holder of one of the hundreds of other “unelected” czars and cabinet appointees makes a decision.

If I’m Romney or Santorum, I hit this comment with both barrels.


189 posted on 04/02/2012 4:06:15 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

FUBO!


190 posted on 04/02/2012 4:07:16 PM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Aren’t his Czars an “unelected group of people”

That’s what I thought.

Friggin pathetic excuse for a pResident.


191 posted on 04/02/2012 4:10:02 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMM48

right here.


192 posted on 04/02/2012 4:11:20 PM PDT by Michael Barnes (Obamaa+ Downgrade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

What about the panel that decides who gets health care? Who elected them?


193 posted on 04/02/2012 4:13:05 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

This tact could backfire badly for BO. I still think this is going 6-3 to overturn the whole enchilada; but the legal opinion for the majority could be great fun to read after this Al Sharpton move by the President.


194 posted on 04/02/2012 4:13:12 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Bowbama and his unelected Attorney General and his minions, are going after the states who have passed certain laws Bowbama doesn’t like! What about those laws passed by elected officials? What a putz!


195 posted on 04/02/2012 4:13:36 PM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

A strong majority? LOL Barely passed by bribes and lies


196 posted on 04/02/2012 4:16:17 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
Paging John Semmens!!

Somebody is trying to take over the SEMI-NEWS/SEMI-SATIRE concession....

197 posted on 04/02/2012 4:19:28 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

“Good news. This indicates he did not get a secret phone call from the SC saying they voted to keep Obama care. If anything the call was bad news for him.”

I kind of agree. The SC judges had a preliminary vote in chambers Friday. The most likely leak back to the White House is that sleazebag Kagan, his former solicitor general, who should have recused herself anyway. I was looking for Obama to start attacking the SC preemptively if he did get word back from her that it did not look good for Obamacare.His attacking the SC today may be a good sign.


198 posted on 04/02/2012 4:19:53 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

The SC can rule it is unconstitutional. But it has no ability or power to enforce its ruling. If Obama continues like it didn’t happen, who will enforce it? Holder? Good luck. He can continue pressing forward like it never happened. CMS has already issued guideline that regardless of the ruling they will continue implementing all the parts of the law related to cost savings and compliance. He is laying the groundwork for ignoring the ruling.


199 posted on 04/02/2012 4:20:53 PM PDT by lynn4303
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: chuckee
..who should have recused herself anyway.

I keep seeing this over and over. I'm wondering if there are cases already that show reversal of a decision due to a judge NOT recusing themselves. If so, even if O-care is held up, why not more suits due to Kagan herself? She clearly has a conflict of interest here and cannot be impartial.

200 posted on 04/02/2012 4:25:32 PM PDT by Michael Barnes (Obamaa+ Downgrade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-319 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson