Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama says he will ‘respect’ Supreme Court's ruling on his healthcare law
The Hill ^ | 4/3/12 | Sam Baker

Posted on 04/03/2012 12:43:05 PM PDT by Nachum

President Obama softened his rhetoric Tuesday about the possibility of a Supreme Court decision striking down his healthcare reform law, after Republicans accused him of “threatening” the high court. (Snip) Obama said Tuesday that he would respect the court’s opinion, but still believes the justices should not overturn the healthcare law. “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: courts; judicialreview; obama; ruling; scotus; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last
To: goat granny

Sounds like my marriage. Lol..

101 posted on 04/03/2012 4:09:42 PM PDT by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: goseminoles

LOL good one.....

102 posted on 04/03/2012 4:22:03 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Based on my observations of Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings and listening to him speak at the SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare, he strikes me as a very mature, sober individual with a very disciplined intellect and the ability to wall off emotional distractions from his thought process.

Which is sort of unfortunate. Because, if Roberts were the kind of individual to take the offense so brazenly offered by Obama in his remarks of the last 2 days, he would be incapable of upholding Obama’s giant steaming pile of health care legislation. If there were any hesitation about it in his mind or in Kennedy’s mind, all doubts would be erased by Obama’s offensive remarks.

But I wonder if, on another, primarily intellectual level, Obama’s remarks might still push Roberts and Kennedy past any obstacles to ditching Obamacare. This might occur If they regard Obama’s statements as more than bluster, as attempts to dramatically shift power away from the courts in favor of the executive branch. This may seem an obvious “take-away” from Obama’s remarks and, candidly, he wouldn’t be the first POTUS to try to enhance the power of the presidency at the expense of another branch. But Roberts and Kennedy may look upon the rising tide of Obama’s power grabs, the recess appointments, the promiscuous use of executive orders, the untethered cadre of czars, the statements to simply go around the legislature to get things done. And the Justices may see the issue of the Obamacare decision as more than just a purely intellectual examination of the limits of congressional power under the commerce clause or the proper application of severability to the outcome. They may see their duty, fully within the proper scope of their constitutional role, as further considering the impact of the statute on the balance of power between the tri-partite branches of the federal system. Handing Obama a victory would not only endorse his signature legislative accomplishment and ensure his re-election, but it would also shift enormous power to a vast regulatory apparatus, over vast economic resources and ultimately, the very power over life and death. Seen this way, Obama may unwittingly be giving the SCOTUS just the right nudge to put the final nail in the coffin. G-d, I hope so.

103 posted on 04/03/2012 5:22:07 PM PDT by JewishRighter (Anybody but Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cld51860

It is easily enforceable. Anyone not wishing to pay the tax or penalty for non-coverage by insurance could go to court (probably through a legal services lawyer or Internet legal forms) and get an immediate cease adn desist order to not try to collect tax. If IRS persisted, they would go to jail for contempt of court. U S Marshalls would arrest them. They work for the courts. Jackson ignoring a court order to quit messing with Indians is totally different. Besides, is Bambi now taking sides against the Indians? Is that what’s up? I can just hear Tonto, “What do you mean “we” half-white man?”

104 posted on 04/03/2012 6:00:14 PM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Say what you want about conspiracies, but at some point a Scotus justice, even if sold out to the dark side, wants to be among the top dogs. And if Obama threatens to make them a byword, then they’ll kick back.

If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate they will be surrendering all their constitutional authority to the Executive and Congress. There would be no constitutional limit to any act of congress that could in any way be linked to commerce.

I would think that the liberals on the court would be concerned about the kinds of mandates that a "Right Wing" majority and President could foster on the nation.

The mandate is not only a power grab to take power from the people, but also to strip the Supreme Court of its oversight responsibility.

105 posted on 04/03/2012 6:27:59 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Must have gotten word that they will rule in his favor.

106 posted on 04/03/2012 7:01:43 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

Guess the attack on the Supreme Court focus-grouped badly or polled badly.

Ya think?

I don’t think it’s that. From what I’ve been reading, the left wants him to disobey a ruling that goes against him. And as far as I know, no donks in Congress have criticized him for his remarks about un-elected people deciding what is Constitutional or not.

107 posted on 04/03/2012 7:08:53 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Omullah dippin too deeply into the nose candy yesterday.

He Had a colonoscopy today and they told him they discovered his head was in there.

108 posted on 04/03/2012 7:41:48 PM PDT by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

One of these days?

109 posted on 04/03/2012 7:47:46 PM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Excellent points

110 posted on 04/03/2012 7:50:27 PM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

My guess is Kagan tipped him off over the weekend about last Friday’s initial vote, and he went into a narcissistic rage. Today she probably told him about the rest of the court’s response to yesterday’s rant.

111 posted on 04/03/2012 7:50:46 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This is an interesting factoid: How many laws and regulations has the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional:

The list would be too long for this format. The US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.

The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to the Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

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

112 posted on 04/03/2012 8:14:16 PM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

He had no business going and talking with them or sending them any kind of communication at all.

Doesn’t he understand civics?

Three branches of govwernment, judicial, legilative and executive are independent and thus balance each other.

113 posted on 04/03/2012 8:19:53 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebird5850

The Supremes don’t give a rat’s bazoo what Barry thinks. They will do what they will do.

114 posted on 04/03/2012 8:25:25 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

How Many Acts of Congress the SCOTUS declared unconstitutional:

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

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

115 posted on 04/03/2012 8:25:37 PM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Comment 116 removed by April Lexington to save the moderator the hassle!

116 posted on 04/03/2012 8:58:05 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the Constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

OK. That is fine as long I get the to the important fact.

117 posted on 04/03/2012 9:03:18 PM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

118 posted on 04/03/2012 9:24:37 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebird5850

they have to write their opinions first

119 posted on 04/03/2012 9:41:21 PM PDT by markman46 (engage brain before using keyboard!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Translation: My remarks yesterday were disastrous.

But the walk-back he did today sounded like a bratty little adolescent being forced to apologize.

120 posted on 04/03/2012 9:51:27 PM PDT by denydenydeny (The more a system is all about equality in theory the more it's an aristocracy in practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 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
Topics · Post Article

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