...and this POS has the unmitigated gall to question the Supreme Court.
He QUESTIONS how the Supreme Court can strike down a law? Ok it goes something like this YOU FREAKING DUMMY!!!!: The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. For a law to stay in effect, it requires the assent of ALL THREE of the separate and co-equal branches of government. NOW GIT THE HELL OUTTA MY HOUSE!
To think this headline was satire a few hours ago....
I’m actually encouraged by this.
I am 100% sure that Elena Kagan leaked the results of the vote to Barry as soon as it was over.
This reaction sounds like a bit of a freakout, indicating that he has lost and lost big.
I wonder if or Supreme friends have received quiet warnings and offers in the Chicago manner.
Per wiki.answers between 1789 and 2002 the supreme court declared 158 laws by Congress unconstitutional. Hardly unprecedented.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_laws_has_the_US_Supreme_Court_declared_unconstitutional
I am sure Kagan has informed him of the result and which Justices might be “changeable”
“We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution” says Comrade Obama.
bump for later read
He’s right for a change. If he had Obamacare, Michael Jackson would still be with us! Singing. (An upcoming re-election slogan test.)
This tells me that Obama knows the decision, which is that the SCOUTUS will uphold Obamacare. This will give him bragging rights of providing universal coverage AND that he faced down the white man's court. He'll go down in history as the baddest brotha evah.
Obama is a racist Communist egomaniac but he's not stupid and he wouldn't be getting into the face of the SCOTUS unless he knew he held the winning hand.
If they allow him to get away with it, then only an act of God can stop him.
A few thoughts:
(1) That last quote will go down in the annals of presidential tautological tautologies. The law “will be upheld because it should be upheld.” Such insight!
(2) Yes, the US Supreme Court is — and always has been — an “unelected” body. And? Are you hinting, Mr. President, that the American people ought not respect the final decisions of the High Court, or that the institution no longer serves as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality? Such a departure would, indeed, be “unprecedented” — the true definition of which appears to elude our Harvard Law graduate president. Also, since when does this president object to panels of unelected, unaccountable federal appointees making decisions about people’s lives, with no possibility for further appeal? Suddenly, it’s no longer a feature.
(3) In all seriousness, in what conceivable way would SCOTUS striking down a law it determined to be unconstitutional constitute an “unprecedented” act? Supreme Court majorities have been doing exactly that since establishing the practice of judicial review in 1803’s landmark Marbury v. Madison decision. Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reports that the Court has struck down 53 federal laws in the last 30 years alone. Unprecedented!
(4) Actually, a “strong majority” did not pass Obamacare. You’ll recall that the 24 hours directly preceding Obamacare’s passage was fraught with desperate vote whipping and deal-making. It was eventually dragged across the finish line in the House by a razor-thin margin, with dozens of Democrats joining a united Republican front opposing the law. Besides, the size of a congressional majority has no bearing on a law’s root constitutionality — a point one might assume a former law school lecturer would grasp.
(5) As for the president’s “confident” (is he ever anything but?) prediction that the American people won’t stand for such an exercise of “judicial activism,” perhaps the president should re-examine, you know, virtually every single piece of polling data on the matter. In fact, the American people are demanding that the court rein in the Reid/Pelosi Congress’ worst piece of legislative excess.
Trying to “tamper” with the SCOTUS? Obama must be getting nervous
...and this POS has the unmitigated gall to question the Supreme Court.
What’s frightening is the number of question marks in the responses to this post.
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
I bet you every one of those “unelected” Supreme Court members is a natural born citizen.
I wonder how many people in this country are having the same thoughts I am?
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?
He really has no respect for the Constitution at all... UGH!!
"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.