Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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 thehill.com ...


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 1-5051-100101-132 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

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_laws_has_the_US_Supreme_Court_declared_unconstitutional


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; ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I think it has to do with the fact that the ONLY thing Zero has done IS the health care law! And even his supporters know it!

I asked a friend who is a supporter of his to answer me one question: Without using the words Republican, Tea Party or health care, explain why you are voting for Obama in November. The response was hilarious!!


121 posted on 04/03/2012 11:59:31 PM PDT by Nobama_ever (Newt/Santorum or Santorum/Newt...NO Rombama and NO 0bama!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
He’s flipped a couple of the Jurists.

And he has until June to flip 'em all. Tough situation when facing total corruption. It would take a healthy dose of honesty and integrity to refuse a several million dollar bribe, or death threats to family and friends. Obama's got the cash for it too. If we suddenly see some SC judges "retiring", or reversing opinions, we'll know it's time.

122 posted on 04/04/2012 1:12:57 AM PDT by Scooter100 ("Now that the fog has lifted, I still can't find my pipe". --- S. Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wilco200

im sure the justices that vote to overturn this will end up Breitbart’d


123 posted on 04/04/2012 5:04:37 AM PDT by eak3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
What’s really funny about this whole thing is that he’s more than willing to go around Congress with EOs if he feels “we can’t wait.”

I don't think it is funny at all. His recent wording change through a martial law order, gives him exactly that power. Call me a paranoid nutcase, but in him changing the language from emergency to national need gives him the power to enact a single payer system should the SCOTUS strike down his precious unread 0bamacare.

124 posted on 04/04/2012 5:24:34 AM PDT by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EBH
I don't think it is funny at all.

My bad. I didn't mean funny as in "HAHA", but funny as in twisted, strange.

You are correct, though. He will use every tool as his disposal to accomplish his goal of destroying us as a country.

125 posted on 04/04/2012 5:33:16 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
He’s flipped a couple of the Jurists.

Or he's reacting to the 5th District COA calling him out on his earlier remarks.

126 posted on 04/04/2012 7:00:53 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Of course mb will say this after being confronted. Looks like bad boi got called on his wolf ticket.


127 posted on 04/04/2012 7:03:28 AM PDT by No Surrender No Retreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Neanderthal

I think they (the Justices) are intimidated by him, Roberts included. Roberts swore him in, while literally choking on it.


128 posted on 04/04/2012 9:41:29 AM PDT by CPO retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter

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.
_______________________________________________________

Yes, and also I wonder if the SCOTUS may consider just how this rotten sausage was made: by locking one party out; by ignoring the very public opposition to it; and by passing it at midnight on Christmas Eve. Never has there been such deception, payoff and corruption in the passing of a bill that I know of. I hope the judges are concerned with that aspect.


129 posted on 04/04/2012 1:09:11 PM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: NotTallTex

Yes, and also I wonder if the SCOTUS may consider just how this rotten sausage was made: by locking one party out; by ignoring the very public opposition to it; and by passing it at midnight on Christmas Eve. Never has there been such deception, payoff and corruption in the passing of a bill that I know of. I hope the judges are concerned with that aspect.

_____________________________________________

Very good point. The lawlessness of the administration and the Democrats in getting the thing done, the wanton disregard for the will of the people certainly undermines their argument and may lend weight to concerns for checks and balances. I wonder why these issues do not appear to have been argued by the Appellants in the Obamacare case. As an attorney for over 20 years, my best guess is that attorneys usually appreciate that judges at all levels are very reluctant to overturn legislative acts based on procedure. To begin with, judicial review of legislation always has a presumption of validity of the statute, ordinance, regulation as a starting point. You might say the bias is built in. It could be argued that a bias towards deference to legislative acts is, itself a judicial expression of regard for the separation of powers.


130 posted on 04/04/2012 1:21:13 PM PDT by JewishRighter (Anybody but Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

- He’s going [illegally] implement much of the [unconstitutional] law anyway and congress will do nothing

- He will issue [illegal] executive orders implementing portions of the law. Again, congress will abdicate its Constitutional responsibility and do nothing.

A SCOTUS ruling against this law (the passage of which should have sparked a genuine rebellion) will be a Pyrrhic victory at best. And our legislative branch will be rendered completely impotent and irrelevant.


131 posted on 04/04/2012 5:43:46 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Well, that’s real white of him!


132 posted on 04/06/2012 7:58:13 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("Madison, Wisconsin is 30 square miles surrounded by reality.", L. S. Dryfus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-132 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