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

Skip to comments.

Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law
Yahoo News ^ | 4/2/2012 | Stephen Collinson

Posted on 04/02/2012 6:38:31 PM PDT by pterional

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: bullyinchief; dictatorinchief; healthcare; kagan; narcissistinchief; obamacare; obamapoleon; obameltdown; scotus; separationofpowers; supremecourt; tyrantinchief; waronscotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

1 posted on 04/02/2012 6:38:45 PM PDT by pterional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

What is this insufferable ass gonna do if the Court overturns “his” law?!

Not invite them to the annual Christmas/Kwanzaa party?!


2 posted on 04/02/2012 6:40:56 PM PDT by MplsSteve (Amy Klobuchar is no moderate. She's Al Franken with a nicer smile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional

I can’t believe this.


3 posted on 04/02/2012 6:41:11 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional

Sounds like he’s worried.


4 posted on 04/02/2012 6:41:20 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Well, he has the wise-ass Latina in his pocket plus Kagan, so all he has to do is threaten the other 7.


5 posted on 04/02/2012 6:42:52 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pterional

I can’t remember a time that the President of the United States of America has threaten the US Supreme Court. We need to impeach this street thug!


6 posted on 04/02/2012 6:43:07 PM PDT by pterional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

He is going to get the Queen of Hearts to chop off their heads.


7 posted on 04/02/2012 6:44:15 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pterional
Maybe it's time for the Supremes to rethink taking up his eligibility issue.
8 posted on 04/02/2012 6:44:45 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pterional

I can’t help but wonder what the Justices think about this.

And it’s only “judicial activism” if they don’t agree with him, isn’t it?


9 posted on 04/02/2012 6:44:45 PM PDT by kevslisababy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional

I’d love to borrow Rush’s line about the Bamster, glittering gem of spectacular ignorance (hope I have that right). But in this case he’s too dangrous to be taken lightly. What will he do if Obamacare is deemed struck down? Will nothing stop him?


10 posted on 04/02/2012 6:45:08 PM PDT by Cookies4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional

FDR did, a switch in time saved 9.

FDR threatened to add 3 liberal Justices to the court to make it 12.


11 posted on 04/02/2012 6:47:03 PM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pterional

Not since the detestable Andrew Jackson have we seen such hubris from a President toward the Supreme Court. Well, FDR had his schemes, too, but Obama might as well have echoed Jackson’s “let him enforce it” after Worcester v. Georgia.


12 posted on 04/02/2012 6:47:22 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional

FDR packed the court in the 30’s after failing in his try to expand the number of justices.


13 posted on 04/02/2012 6:47:46 PM PDT by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pterional

The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.

“Five years ago, President Chávez’s supporters helped to enshrine the principle of judicial independence in a new democratic constitution,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Now, by packing the country’s highest court, they are betraying that principle and degrading Venezuelan democracy.”

The law passed in May expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. In addition to the justices named to the 12 new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and 32 more were named as reserve justices for the court. Members and allies of President Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement (Movimiento V República, or MVR) form a majority in Congress.

In 1999 a constituent assembly convoked by President Chávez drafted a constitution that guarantees the independence of the judicial branch and the autonomy of the Supreme Court. The Constitution specifically seeks to guarantee the independence of Supreme Court justices by establishing an impeachment process according to which justices may only be removed for “serious offenses” by a two-thirds majority vote by Congress.

But in May, President Chávez signed a court-packing law that allowed his governing coalition in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of seats on the country’s highest court. The 17 new justices (and 32 reserves) were selected yesterday by a simply majority vote of the governing coalition, which did not reveal the names of the nominees to the opposition members of Congress until the time of the vote.

The court-packing law signed in May also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the Court without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution. In June, two justices retired after facing possible suspension from the Supreme Court as a result of these new provisions.

The political takeover of the Supreme Court will compound the damage already done to judicial independence by policies pursued by the court itself. The Supreme Court, which has administrative control over the judiciary, has failed to provide security of tenure to 80 percent of the country’s judges. In March, the court summarily fired three judges after they had decided politically controversial cases.

Chávez supporters have justified the court-packing effort largely as a response to pro-opposition rulings in a deeply divided court, such as a highly questionable decision that absolved military officers who participated in the 2002 coup.

“President Chávez and his supporters should be taking steps to strengthen the judiciary,” Vivanco said. “Instead, they are rigging the system to favor their own interests.”


14 posted on 04/02/2012 6:48:28 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevslisababy
The Justices are laughing at his stupidity and severe lack of knowledge in the way the US government has worked for 300 years. They know more than ever that he needs to go. I would imagine that even the libs on the court are a little nervous to see their hero acting this way. I think the supremes know the difference between activism and constitutionality of laws. BO is ignorant and stupid and it shows every single time he's off the teleprompter.
15 posted on 04/02/2012 6:49:09 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pterional
If any Republican president, the outcry would be deafening. We would have a non-stop parade of Democrat committee chairmen, left-wing professors of law, prominent writers and scholars, being given air time on every news broadcast, every cable show, every Sunday morning show.

They would be given platform after platform to explain to the President -- schoolmarm style -- how, if he had listened better back in Civics class, he would know that the Supreme Court of the United States was established as one of three co-equal branches of the US Government, and that, as head of the Executive Branch of that government, he had no right to threaten, cajole, jawbone, or intimidate another of the co-equal branches.

Of course, that would be happening if a Republican president said anything like this.

Because Obama is a left-wing Democrat, the MSM has not a word to say in protest.

16 posted on 04/02/2012 6:49:23 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cookies4ever

I’m seein’ black helicopters and martial law in our future. Tin foil hat off (for the present moment).


17 posted on 04/02/2012 6:49:50 PM PDT by Wicket (God bless and protect our troops and God bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pterional

The little pencil-necked pansy has lost it - he will say whatever his handlers [names and addresses, please] tell him to say. Threatening the Court, eh???? The girly man will start gibbering anytime soon. We all can hope we catch it on live video.


18 posted on 04/02/2012 6:50:30 PM PDT by Bedford Forrest (Roger, Contact, Judy, Out. Fox One. Splash one.<I>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

This COMMUNIST SON OF A WHORE has a cousin named FIDEL CASTRO ODINGA and went to Kenya in 2006 to campaign for his commie cousin Rail Odinga (FIDELS DADDY)who lost the election but set his supporters to murder the winners to the point that they agreed to share power.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HIS PARTY ARE COMMUNIST MONSTERS.

Prepare accordingly.

A supporter of the presidential challenger Raila Odinga (OBAMAS FIRST COUSIN WHO HE CAMPAIGNED FOR) in Kibera, a sprawling slum near the capital, Nairobi.

19 posted on 04/02/2012 6:50:59 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pterional

I wouldn’t call him combative, more like Uppity or Militant.


20 posted on 04/02/2012 6:51:49 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cookies4ever

He will have a total meltdown if they strike it down. He will incite riots and all kind of civil unrest. He is a spoiled brat that likes to have his way. He will be one nasty piece of work which is great because this is what people need to see. Plus his loving wife, that thinks he’s so cute and funny, will beat the crap out of him for embarrassing her.


21 posted on 04/02/2012 6:52:45 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pterional

I’m not sure what the Justices’ vote was on Friday, but I’m sure the unethical liberal scum on the court immediately leaked it to Obama.

let’s be honest, those stupid cows don’t even belong in the spectators’ seats.


22 posted on 04/02/2012 6:52:45 PM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl
I would imagine that even the libs on the court are a little nervous to see their hero acting this way. I think the supremes know the difference between activism and constitutionality of laws.

The Libs aren't nervous, most likely they're helping him. Kagan and Wise-Latina are ignorant place markers on the Court, they were not qualified for the positions. Most likely they neither know anything about the Constitution or care.

23 posted on 04/02/2012 6:53:32 PM PDT by madison10 (The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pterional
a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Strong majority? Wan't the only GOP member of Congress who voted for this POS law that Vietnamese putz from LA?
24 posted on 04/02/2012 6:56:12 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas; Rome2000

Come and look at post #19.


25 posted on 04/02/2012 6:59:34 PM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pterional

“...a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance”

Just say NO!


26 posted on 04/02/2012 7:03:59 PM PDT by Captain7seas (FIRE JANE LUBCHENCO FROM NOAA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I’m just hoping that those 2 women realize that they will still be there long after BO is gone. Surely they have a tiny bit of integrity especially after being around the other Justices. They are libs however. There is no such thing as integrity in a lib-not even a wise Latina.


27 posted on 04/02/2012 7:04:37 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pterional
Der fuhrer speaks!

I hate ****ing dictators.

28 posted on 04/02/2012 7:05:40 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (It's time to WEAN the government off of our money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional
I'm really puzzled about something. Weren't Alito and Roberts grilled on the concept of stare decisis with regard to Roe v Wade during their confirmation hearings? If that applies to Roe v Wade, should it not also apply to health care?

How about applying Gibbons v Ogden, 1824 which held that "..., health laws, ... are not within the power granted to Congress. Or New York v Miln, 1837, which confirmed the State's retained authority over the subject of health laws. Or Linder v United States, 1925, which acknowledged that Congress is without power to regulate medical practices in the States.

What's sauce for the goose . . .

29 posted on 04/02/2012 7:08:58 PM PDT by benldguy (Obama delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl

My Disenchanted Meter has lobbed all the way over to Exorbitantly Cynical.

I don’t think there is ANY integrity in ANY Liberal, ANY where ANY longer. The few times one of them comes out with an ounce of integrity it is my opinion that those incidents are purely accidental.


30 posted on 04/02/2012 7:10:29 PM PDT by madison10 (The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl
"He will be one nasty piece of work which is great because this is what people need to see."

Bump that, dandiegirl.

And the narcissist will crack because he just won't be able to help himself. The bulk of his commie work will have been undone, and he'll squeel like a stuck pig.

And it won't be a pretty sight.

31 posted on 04/02/2012 7:11:39 PM PDT by Miss Behave (All ways, always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl; potlatch; PhilDragoo; bitt

I don’t even think he was talking to the Court. He’s setting up his propaganda campaign that only he can save you from a meanspirited conservative court that aims to take away your health insurance (and kill babies).

Meanwhile, his Education Secretary is grasping control of the curriculum from pre-school to graduate school to make sure our intended system of government and our history is soon forgotten. Homeschooling as a legal option will vanish in a second term.

The worst thing our candidates can think to say about him is that he’s out
of touch.


32 posted on 04/02/2012 7:16:06 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pterional

5-4 against or more.

Obama was told by Kagan and is doing what he knows best, acting without thinking.


33 posted on 04/02/2012 7:20:37 PM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

If 0-care totally goes down. Nervous breakdown?


34 posted on 04/02/2012 7:29:52 PM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est; zero sera dans l'enfer bientot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pterional

der 0berFuhrer Hussein 0bama thinks he is dictator! Well the so-called Constituitional Professor has another think coming!


35 posted on 04/02/2012 7:36:45 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

No, he ignores the ruling.


36 posted on 04/02/2012 7:38:06 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romney - Santorum: Twin Sons of Different Mothers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl

Yes, riots! Because we’s gotsta haz our HELF care!


37 posted on 04/02/2012 7:38:25 PM PDT by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Obama is not a left wing democrat. He is a full blown marxist, and I pray that the Constitutional Judges are being covered so that there will not be any “accidents” to Justices who do not believe in the all powerful state.


38 posted on 04/02/2012 7:38:57 PM PDT by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

We have a tyrant on our hands. 25th amendment needs to be reviewed.


39 posted on 04/02/2012 7:41:43 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: pterional

Vile disgusting scumbag continuing to use Chicago thug politics in Washington. It wouldn’t be beneath him to arrange a drive-by by Holder’s people.


40 posted on 04/02/2012 7:43:07 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional

Constitution for the New Deal

by H. L. Mencken

THIS SATIRICAL PIECE FIRST APPEARED IN The American Mercury,, 41 (June 1937), 129-36, and was reprinted in condensed form by The Reader’s Digest, 31 (July 1937), 27-29. In order to indicate what reached the widest audience, the condensed version appears here.

The principal cause of the uproar in Washington is a conflict between the swift- moving idealism of the New Deal and the unyielding hunkerousness of the Constitution of 1788. What is needed, obviously, is a wholly new Constitution, drawn up with enough boldness and imagination to cover the whole program of the More Abundant Life, now and hereafter.

That is what I presume to offer here. The Constitution that follows is not my invention, and in more than. one detail I have unhappy doubts of its wisdom. But I believe that it sets forth with reasonable accuracy the plan of government that the More Abundant Life wizards have sought to substitute for the plan of the Fathers. They have themselves argued at one time or another, by word or deed, for everything contained herein:
PREAMBLE

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish social justice, draw the fangs of privilege, effect the redistribution of property, remove the burden of liberty from ourselves and our posterity, and insure the continuance of the New Deal, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
ARTICLE I

The Executive

All governmental power of whatever sort shall be vested in a President of the United States. He shall hold office during a series of terms of four years each, and shall take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will (in so far as I deem it feasible and convenient) faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will (to the best of my recollection and in the light of experiment and second thought) carry out the pledges made by me during my campaign for election (or such of them as I may select).”

The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia, Boy Scouts, C.I.O., People’s Front, and other armed forces of the nation.

The President shall have the power: To lay and collect taxes, and to expend the income of the United States in such manner as he may deem to be to their or his advantage;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to provide for its repayment on such terms as he may fix;

To regulate all commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and within them; to license all persons engaged or proposing to engage in business; to regulate their affairs; to limit their profits by proclamation from time to time; and to fix wages, prices and hours of work;

To coin money, regulate the content and value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to amend or repudiate any contract requiring the payment by the United States, or by any private person, of coin of a given weight or fineness;

To repeal or amend, in his discretion, any so-called natural law, including Gresham’s law, the law of diminishing returns, and the law of gravitation.

The President shall be assisted by a Cabinet of eight or more persons, whose duties shall be to make speeches whenever so instructed and to expend the public funds in such manner as to guarantee the President’s continuance in office.

The President may establish such executive agencies as he deems necessary, and clothe them with such powers as he sees fit. No person shall be a member to any such bureau who has had any practical experience of the matters he is appointed to deal with.

One of the members of the Cabinet shall be an Attorney General. It shall be his duty to provide legal opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the President, and to gather evidence of the senility of judges.
ARTICLE II

The Legislature

The legislature of the United States shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Every bill shall be prepared under the direction of the President, and transmitted to the two Houses at his order by their presiding officers. No member shall propose any amendment to a bill without permission in writing from the President or one of his authorized agents. In case any member shall doubt the wisdom of a bill he may apply to the President for light upon it, and thereafter he shall be counted as voting aye. In all cases a majority of members shall be counted as voting aye.

Both Houses may appoint special committees to investigate the business practices, political views, and private lives of any persons known to be inimical to the President; and such committees shall publish at public cost any evidence discovered that appears to be damaging to the persons investigated.

Members of both Houses shall be agents of the President in the distribution of public offices, federal appropriations, and other gratuities in their several states, and shall be rewarded in ratio to their fidelity to his ideals and commands.
ARTICLE III

The Judiciary

The judges of the Supreme Court and of all inferior courts shall be appointed by the President, and shall hold their offices until he determines by proclamation that they have become senile. The number of judges appointed to the Supreme Court shall be prescribed by the President, and may be changed at his discretion. All decisions of the Supreme Court shall be unanimous.

The jurisdiction and powers of all courts shall he determined by the President. No act that he has approved shall be declared unconstitutional by any court.
ARTICLE IV

Bill of Rights

There shall be complete freedom of speech and of the press – subject to such regulations as the President or his agents may from time to time promulgate.

The freedom of communication by radio shall not be abridged; but the President and such persons as he may designate shall have the first call on the time of all stations.

In disputes between capital and labor, all the arbitrators shall be representatives of labor.

Every person whose annual income fans below a minimum to be fixed by the President shall receive from the public funds an amount sufficient to bring it up to that minimum.

No labor union shall be incorporated and no officer or member thereof shall be accountable for loss of life or damage to person or property during a strike.

All powers not delegated herein to the President are reserved to him, to be used at his discretion.


41 posted on 04/02/2012 7:43:32 PM PDT by seowulf ("If you write a whole line of zeroes, it's still---nothing"...Kira Alexandrovna Argounova)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pterional
If there is a Just and Equitable God, may He strike down this insufferable little twit through the Graces of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.

Please your Honors, let him have it.

42 posted on 04/02/2012 7:44:10 PM PDT by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Roosevelt's court packing scheme didn't work because Congress didn't go along with him. Some of his worst Fascist Solutions were ruled unconstitutional and forgotten.

One of the better pieces on this on the net (See: http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-01-15.asp) starts out

Among the things that pro-New Deal advocates hardly ever bring up is one of the most shameful acts by a president in U.S. history. That’s the infamous “court-packing” scheme that President Franklin Roosevelt proposed when the Supreme Court was declaring much of his New Deal unconstitutional.

It would appear that the Democrats, like Obama, have not only failed to bring it up, they don't even know it happened! (IGNANT dude said "unprecedented" proving he had no clue).

43 posted on 04/02/2012 7:46:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Captain7seas

Michael Savage had the brilliant suggestion of challenging it as unequal treatment of religions under the law. The Amish, Christian Scientists and Muslims don’t have to buy health insurance because it is against their religion - and this is unequal treatment for everyone else.


44 posted on 04/02/2012 7:56:04 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pterional

Is Obama stupid or what?? He humiliates the Supremes at the SOTU address and now he challenges them to trash his Obamacare?

I’m dreaming, I know, but I’m hoping Souter goes thumbs down for a 6-3 vote against the whole thing.


45 posted on 04/02/2012 7:58:44 PM PDT by citizen (Santorum: Man up, stop being selfish and get the hell out. Dragging this thing out only helps Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: research99
The scheme to expand the court to 12 from 9 was, in fact, the "court packing scheme".

He lost that battle in Congress.

Eventually the Justices he found troublesome retired or died leaving him free to appoint people more amenable to instruction ~ servile lackeys to a man.

If the Supreme Court were reduced to just one member, the Chief Justice, we'd have a top administrative/legal structure highly representative of the ancient Roman system of TWO TRIBUNES, except their's was a bit more complex and less responsive to changing conditions ~ almost let Hannibal conquer Rome in fact.

So much for the wisdom of the founders ~ we still don't have the Executive/Judicial interface just right. Permanancy in office didn't really make the judges independent ~ just allowed them to be more partisan.

46 posted on 04/02/2012 8:02:36 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pterional

Isn’t this the second time Obama’s threatened the Court, with the first being a State of the Union address?


47 posted on 04/02/2012 8:04:43 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: citizen
I’m dreaming, I know, but I’m hoping Souter goes thumbs down for a 6-3 vote against the whole thing.

I'm pretty sure Souter no longer sits on the SC - he's retired. But you're not the first to mention him - am I missing something?

48 posted on 04/02/2012 8:05:01 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

Don’t Worry!
The handwriting is on the wall...

Obama will soon be a thing of the past
AMEN


49 posted on 04/02/2012 8:14:31 PM PDT by hapnHal (hapnHal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13; tbw2

“Following Souter’s retirement announcement in 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor as his successor.”


50 posted on 04/02/2012 8:15:37 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 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