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

Skip to comments.

Obama Asks ‘Unelected’ Supreme Court Not To Take Extraordinary Step Of Overturning Health Care Law
mediaite.com ^ | | 6:05 pm, April 2nd, 2012 | Noah Rothman

Posted on 04/03/2012 10:48:26 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

In a Rose Garden press conference on Monday alongside the Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President Barack Obama reminded the Supreme Court justices that they have a responsibility to show “judicial restraint” while considering the constitutionality of the president’s signature health care reform law.

RELATED: Senate Democrats Warn Overturning Health Care ‘Grave For Nation,’ Good For Democratic Electoral Hopes

“I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care,” Obama said. “So there’s not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.”

President Obama issued a veiled warning that the public would not take kindly to the court’s overturning of the health care law and may view it as the overstepping of the court’s narrowly defined constitutional jurisdiction. “Ultimately, 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.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; court; democrats; judicial; obama; obamacare; obamathreatensscotus; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
Video at website.
1 posted on 04/03/2012 10:48:28 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
And...:

Judge Napolitano Slams Obama’s SCOTUS Criticism: ‘No Pres. Has Questioned This Since Andrew Jackson!’

Video of the Judge....second image....at the link.

2 posted on 04/03/2012 10:50:58 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Wannabe DICKtator Obama may not get his way!! Waaaah!! Waaaah!!!


3 posted on 04/03/2012 10:53:21 AM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; SierraWasp; Grampa Dave; Carry_Okie; tubebender; Marine_Uncle; TigersEye; ...

fyi


4 posted on 04/03/2012 10:53:55 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Hopefully the supremes tell the marxist punk to get bent.


5 posted on 04/03/2012 10:54:00 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Didn’t they already vote before he “suggested” they should uphold that bad law? White House lawyers are probably trying to come up with an end run around the Court.


6 posted on 04/03/2012 10:55:15 AM PDT by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Maybe the Supreme Court will ALSO take the ‘unprecedented step’ of denouncing one of their own for refusing to recuse herself for voting on a matter she helped create.
7 posted on 04/03/2012 10:59:20 AM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Anything that’s good for Dem Electoral Hopes is grave for the Nation.


8 posted on 04/03/2012 11:02:47 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

“Didn’t they already vote before he “suggested” they should uphold that bad law? White House lawyers are probably trying to come up with an end run around the Court.”
_______________________________________________________

I’m sure they planned their end run well in advance; this is the formulated righteous indignation that’s going to “justify” it.


9 posted on 04/03/2012 11:05:30 AM PDT by wally-balls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

The “Bulldyke” already got word to the little girl, Obama. He lost!


10 posted on 04/03/2012 11:06:13 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Unelected?
Members of the Supreme are nominated by the president and then confirmed by Congress. That’s an election by elected representatives of the voters. There may only be one candidate at a time, but the Congress is free to approve or turn down any nominee.

Calling them unelected sounds like they are being set up to be removed from office by the usurper and his henchmen.


11 posted on 04/03/2012 11:11:35 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (End Obama's War On Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

My suspicion on this vote is somewhat mixed. IMO it will be 6-3 against the individual mandate with kennedy and Ginsburg joining the other 4.

I suspect, the regulation portions will be left in tact as within the perview of the G...that vote will be 5-4.

Just my thought based on the questioning during the hearing.

Meanwhile, Obunghole will not be happy, even with half a loaf so watch for him to try something extra legal. Recall how he sided with the marxist in central america against their courts when they tried to remove him.


12 posted on 04/03/2012 11:12:01 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla

No....their opinion is expected by June,....but with this presidential outburst....maybe they will reply sooner.


13 posted on 04/03/2012 11:17:30 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

If your scenario plays out, Obama had better hope that they strike the whole law and not just the mandate.

If they strike the mandate but not the regs, Obama will have essentially double-crossed the health insurance industry. The deal they were offered was 50 million new paying customers at gunpoint, in exchange for the pain of Sebelius and her regulations. The lack of severability was done to protect them in case the mandate were to be tossed.

For Obama, crossing the insurance industry is the political equivalent of crossing the Mafia. Remember Harry and Louise? They are going to use their massive warchests, plus Citizens United, to absolutely bury him under a blizzard of negative ads this fall.


14 posted on 04/03/2012 11:22:44 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I suppose this means that Obama would have preferred that “Seperate But Equal” not been overturned. It was, after all, established law voted on buy the people’s elected representatives.


15 posted on 04/03/2012 11:23:44 AM PDT by PA BOOKENDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
Priceless Toon:

************************************


16 posted on 04/03/2012 11:24:18 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
but with this presidential outburst....maybe they will reply sooner

Nah, keep Barry stewing until Fourth of July weekend. That should send him into total meltdown mode.
17 posted on 04/03/2012 11:24:28 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

LOL....OK by me....He needs some good stewing.


18 posted on 04/03/2012 11:29:08 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

Funny how “constitutional scholar” Obama just discovered that the unelected SCOTUS can overturn laws. As if that’s something new. Also funny at how the Left considers upholding the Constitution “judicial activism”, yet having the Courts make law out of whole cloth is OK.

And, of course, the MSM can’t be bothered with such blatent hypocracy.


19 posted on 04/03/2012 11:29:32 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

He’s given them little choice, to wit “don’t legislate from the bench” which they’d have to for repairing any excised components, and “don’t overturn anything passed by Congress”, leaving them no option but to rubber-stamp approval of an existing law which is incompatible with the Constitution. This, plus your points about double-crossing the industry, brings every potential outcome to simple & complete overturning of the entire law as the only viable path. Notwithstanding the judges having already decided, any justice still persuadable would have to side with vacating the law in question insofar as this is the only way to satisfy such extraordinary demands by POTUS.


20 posted on 04/03/2012 11:32:34 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 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