Skip to comments.Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare (Obama's trying to intimidate the SCOTUS)
Posted on 04/02/2012 2:41:10 PM PDT by tobyhill
President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.
Obama, a Democrat, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court's deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week.
Known as the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare," the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.
A rejection by the court would be a big blow to Obama going into the November 6 presidential election.
Republican presidential candidates, who are vying to take on Obama in November elections, have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House.
Obama's advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president -- who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law -- made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes down the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
What you say is true, but not applicable to this situation. It is not judicial activism when an unconstitutional law is shot down. It is judicial activism when a right that is not in the Constitution is created. There is a big difference, and Obama knows that. He, as a student of Alinsky, knows that framing the language is key to the debate. He loves to make words into their opposite.
I question that. The ninth amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Constitution doesn't specify how those unenumerated rights become recognized, but I don't see that it rules out such by the courts. The legislature doesn't seem to be the correct place because it should be based on a petition from the people who already own these rights.
I've often wondered how the founders envisioned these rights becoming identified and honored.
LOL. It really ain't that serious :-)
Let me urge you to carefully re-think your position.
If you choose not to vote, or to vote for some third party candidate, you effectively will b voting for Obama.
Do you really want Obama to be President for four more years?
Heh. I can just hear Scalia saying “Bring it, punk!”
It’s no use.
Some freepers feel Obama is preferable to Romney.
I cannot believe that ANY FReeper will sit this election out, or vote third party!
We must work to elect a conservative House and Senate and defeat the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist SOB in the White House.
PS I do not believe that it is a waste of time to urge folks to vote against Obama.
If we don’t defeat him, we’ll surely get the government we deserve!
The rights referred to in the 9th Amendment were rights that existed at that time, in 1789. They were saying, basically, that if they left anything out, it was "retained" by the people. Not that rights that did not then exist could be created willy-nilly by the courts out of thin air, but that rights that the people already had would continue to be recognized.
Abortion, gay marriage and the right to a taxpayer paid lawyer were not rights that existed in 1789, to give three examples. They were created by judges acting in a legislative capacity.
The way to recognize a right not referred to in the Bill of Rights would be to assert it in a court of law, and then cite precedent for it. American law accepted the precedents of English common law up to the time of the founding, and then separated at that point. After that point, the only principled way to create a "right" was through legislative action, an action taken by the elected representatives of the people.
We have to get Obama and his minions out of the White House.
If they refuse to leave, who will oppose them? Congress? A good portion of Congress will made up of Democrats When is the last time Congressional Republicans have battled nose to nose and toe to toe with the Democrats and obama? For that matter, when was the first time?The Courts? A good number of the Courts [Judges]are controlled by the Democrat Party and other the people's will to comply, They have no enforcement power. The Republican Party? If the Republican Party was serious about returning the Constitutional principles, do you believe that they would be nominate and be backing someone such as Mitt Romney? The police? The police long ago sold their souls to the Federal Government for Federal dollars. They are now a fully owned subsutsy of the Department of Homeland Security, which is under the control and irection of barack obama. The people? As long as their balls are empty and their stomaches are full, they have beer to drink, dope to smoke and sports to watch on t.v, 99% of the people could not care less about things that effect the lives of them and their families.
In short, we have a hell of a job cut out for us. It can be done. That it is a big job and it can be done is not the issue. What the issue is, do we have the stomache to do what is necessary if push comes to shove. it is an individual decision and I pray that we do. But time will tell.
>>> ... to carefully re-think your position.
Your implied assumption is wrong.
I was at your stage of thinking around Sept - Nov 2008.
And I’ll tell you now even if Romney chose a STRONG conservative as his running mate, it won’t matter as much as the Palin pick.
There is not a remote chance that mitten is going to croak on the job hence let the conservative take over.
This Motherhugging Kenyan Socialist Muslim Marxist Crack Smoking D**k Sucker (also known as President Barack Obama) knows full well that Judicial Review, which is their precise function, has been the job of the Supreme Court since the country was founded.
Unprecedented???!? This is the use of Hitler's Big Lie premise!!!
Let me give you a feew precedents to the Supreme Court "overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"
Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional. The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Initially the case involved Secretary of State James Madison, who refused to seat four judicial appointees although they had been confirmed by the Senate.
And that's just two examples. There are more.
“We have to get Obama and his minions out of the White House.”
Yesterday is not soon enough. What damage they have done to our country already.
If that was the preliminary vote, when is the final one? Should a judge become metabolically challenged, how do we know the final vote was/wasn’t taken?
Well, Sir Napsalot, sit out this election, then.
Go take your nap and see what you wake up to!
Are you sure you want to be a part of the Obama re-election?
Because that is exactly what you will be doing, and I’ll tell you what: Obama and his LIEberal hangers-on are counting on you and millions of others to do the same.
Pretty damn selfish, I’d say, for you and your ilk to say “If I can’t vote for my guy, I’m not gonna vote at all!”
Reminds me of 5 year old kids in the sandbox fighting over the red fire truck.
What does Obama NOT understand about the three independent branches of government?
Why in the world is he trying to influenece the SCOYUS? Hopefully they will rebuff him. Soundly!
‘morning. Maybe. He’s doing the same today though. Doesn’t sound confident either.
‘morning. He’s doing the same today though, condescending to boot (”I think the justices should understand...”). Doesn’t sound confident either. ~crossing fingers~