FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
Sounds like my marriage. Lol..
LOL good one.....
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.
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?”
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.
Must have gotten word that they will rule in his favor.
Guess the attack on the Supreme Court focus-grouped badly or polled badly.
Ya think?
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.
One of these days?
Excellent points
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.
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
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.
The Supremes don’t give a rat’s bazoo what Barry thinks. They will do what they will do.
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
Comment 116 removed by April Lexington to save the moderator the hassle!
OK. That is fine as long I get the to the important fact.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
they have to write their opinions first
Translation: My remarks yesterday were disastrous.
But the walk-back he did today sounded like a bratty little adolescent being forced to apologize.
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.