Skip to comments.Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
Posted on 04/02/2012 12:46:07 PM PDT by Deo volente
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I’ve said this on many threads. We will be hearing all summer long,”They took your healthcare! They took your healthcare!”
More pitting citizens against one another.
Yep again, SandRat. ;-)
BINGO!!! We have a winner! It is about whipping up his class to riot as in the Martin case as in you name it.
Once again, he is way over his pay grade.
Is he really so stupid as to think that Justice Roberts doesn't get the warning and ignores it.
Of course Kag & Soto are probably so proud of him - backing them and trashing the Constitution at the same time. What courage, what strength!
Ginsburg has already stated her views on the US Constitution - old goat.
He’s preaching to his ignorant base. “Yeah! Unelected! What nerve!”
I worry that all this unconstitutional action and rhetoric will end up casting the actual Constitution in a bad light when it prohibits the handouts that some people want.
Is this spoken by one who himself has failed to provide convincing evidence that he is not an unconstitutional imposter as POTUS?
As more and more laws in this country go unenforced and less and less constitutional adherence is applied to our governance, the less the “rule of law” will mean.
If the President can assume power of influence over the court (not that he has but seems to think so), if Black Panthers can put a bounty on a citizens head, if our government can force us to buy something or enter into and enforceable contract, the rule of law is dead or near to it. When civil cases start to be won using a defense case based on precedence set by our government, the law is dead.
Explain to me what Illegal immigration really means anymore. It’s not apparently illegal to be here without permission, documentation, etc. It’s just illegal to get here? That is, we only enforce the law if you get caught getting here illegally. Otherwise you can vote, collect welfare, unemployment, etc. all without fear. Just don’t get caught anywhere in the US trying to get into the US.
When will some nutcase NeoNazi put a public bounty on the head of the Black Panthers? Will there then be a prosecution? They can’t now. They would have to arrest both that launched the bounties. Right?
...we won't ******* eat your mushrooms either...
Obama had hs minions go out and threaten SC. I have no doubt that obama was made aware of las Friday’s SC vote. Kagan was his solicitor general....a political appointment...she was on the phone to obama within 2 minutes after the meeting broke up.
If it was 5-4 for striking it down before, it’s 7-2 now. SCOTUS does NOT like to be told how to rule.
After this stunt I wouldn’t be surprised if Obamacare goes down 7-2.
We know who the “2” would be.
You beat me by 25 seconds.
And you know he has already tried all the behind the scenes blackmail, threats and bribery.
Kennedy will. Breyer or Ginsburg, unlikely, but slim chance they might. Sotofatass, or Boatload Kagan, they’re just happy to be there.
I think he went a bit off the reservation with this one, though. Politico is reporting the story with a lot of quotes, except they didn't quote his "strong majority" statement. It's an interesting bit of editing:
"Overturning the law would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate, he said. I just remind conservative commentators that for years weve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And Im pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html#ixzz1qusOkOdA
They knew the "strong" was false, so they conveniently edited that out so their favorite canddiate didn't look like he'd said something so stupid.
“If it was 5-4 for striking it down before, its 7-2 now. SCOTUS does NOT like to be told how to rule.”
7-2 would be sweet; I’m betting on this.
He saying that to US SUpreme court he suppose be LAW professor boy talk about inflated ego