Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 2, 2012

[ArmyTeach]

What the heck! Justice Clarence Thomas is the mountain and Obumble is the molehill.

[DemforBush]

Obama condemning judicial activism?

It’s official, folks, I’ve somehow stepped into the Twilight Zone/Bizzaro World.

[caww]

a balance of powers is kryptonite to the leftist

Not so sure Mombo would agree....seems he's going it however he chooses...solo power is his game.

[Crucial]

No dummy, if the USSC creates law, then it is engaging in judicial activism. Simply striking down laws is not judicial activism.

[fortheDeclaration]

It would be defending the Constitution.

Activism is expanding the Constitution to make it mean anything.

[qaz123]

his whole life is being held up by activist judges and those that support them.

And he didn’t have much to say about it, when he nominated to total and complete incompetents to it....just sayin’

[jonascord]

IF there is rioting this summer, using it as an excuse to reapply Obamacare as an executive order would be WAY down on his list, since there is a high probability that he would be more concerned about fighting off a Final Solution to the Socialist Problem.

Recall that no one expected, when the Yugoslav government collapsed, that Serbs would be feeding Croat bodies into a lead smelting plant to dispose of them.

Anything can happen in a race/civil war, and The Fraud seems to want one. He's stupid enough to think he'll win

[commish]

THIS MAN IS RUINING YOUR COUNTRY Have a nice day. :)

There, fixed it for you. :-)

[redgolum]

Ground work for the next play. If it gets stuck down, Obambi will just say “So what?”

[grey_whiskers]

Obama: "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?"

Cheers!

[aruanan]

Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism

In exactly the same way that voting his ass out of office would be racism.

[redgolum]

Congress doesn’t have the stones to impeach, no matter what.

[3rdcoastislander]

This is coming from someone who taught Constitutional Law. He must have forgot that the reason that these justices are not elected is for checks and balances just such as this case. You heard it straight from him that it was a strong democratic vote. Which is why the SCOTUS is looking this over very carefully. They are right to do so. Obama already left a bad taste in their mouths in the state of the union speech. Why would they want to help someone that is against them anyway and support a bill that is wildly unpopular with the public?

You can tell when Obama is in a hard place he starts attacking anyone and everyone that is against him and his takeover agenda. Also, the fact that he said this with two foreign leaders beside him further divides the country which may be what he wants to do anyway.

[chessplayer]

He has conveniently forgotten that it took 5 votes from un-elected Senators to help push o-care over the top. I believe Bennett, Kaufman, Burris, Kirk, Gillibrand were appointees?

[oceanagirl]

The most important issue of this case is whether the Commerce Clause can be stretched far enough to allow Congress to force individuals to purchase certain products from private parties or face a tax or penalty.

I went to law school and did practice for a number of years, but the reach of the Commerce Clause is taught in the first year Constitutional Law class. I find it unbelievable that Obama could not see that a radical extension of the clause as a possible hole in the legal argument (not the policy argument) underlying this enormous program.

[Still Thinking]

Stretch it, hell! I’d like to stop it where it is and start pruning it back to a manageable size (read very very small).

[factoryrat]

F-— ‘em all, we’ll make it work, even if we have to drag them kicking and screaming into it. That’s the American way.

[RocketMan1]

[quote][i]I am glad to hear him saying this - it reinforces my guess that the straw vote yesterday was pretty bad for Obamacare, and the Wise Latina has already leaked the results to him. I think he is going to be very disappointed with the results of running against the Supreme Court.[/quote][/i]

[p]I thought the same thing when I heard him make those idiotic comments. I just hope that our gut is correct. SInce it appears that we’re stuck with Mittens, I would feel a whole lot better about him if the Supremes dispense with this damn Bill. Because I know Mittens will NOT repeal it!

[RocketMan1]

Sorry for my crap formatting. I set it up like all of the other boards I frequent. Why is this board so different from every other board on the internets?!