Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case
CBSNews ^ | April 3, 2012 3:42 PM | Jan Crawford

Posted on 04/03/2012 2:10:13 PM PDT by mwilli20

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 last
To: Chuzzlewit

it seems as though things are finally coming to a head..

BO really stepped in it this time. His childishness got the better of him. People are really beginning to question his intelligence and I have noticed more on FOX that everyone is truly beginning just to flat out say he lies about everything.


101 posted on 04/03/2012 7:35:41 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Sounds to me like he never went to class. Affirmative action dude got passed anyway. He clearly knows little about the Constitution and the USA. He’s as ignorant as they come.


102 posted on 04/03/2012 7:41:20 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

One should assume the Federal Judges know full well where they stand with regard to the Constitution and do not take lightly any other Branch trying to usurp, regardless of their political persuasion.

They probably do with the exception of Kagen and the wise Latina.


103 posted on 04/03/2012 7:44:57 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ElenaM

Wow, everyone ought to listen to this audio file. The three judges aren’t particularly sympathetic to the plaintiffs but the one judge goes after Holder’s lawyer. Starts at 17:00 in. Judge starts in at just before 18 minutes. The DOJ lawyer is obviously stunned!


104 posted on 04/03/2012 7:47:21 PM PDT by ElenaM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

Events like this helps me restore faith that maybe this country isn’t on its deathbed. Kudo’s to the judge for challenging the arrogant and narcisist Obama.


105 posted on 04/03/2012 8:21:38 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule (Lets institute SARAH-ia law in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl

Your observation is dead on! Center mass.

By the way, did you hear any of the oral arguments where the “wise latino” drop the WISE part in her street level questions and points of view? I always thought the Supreme Court Judges were at least intellectual and honest.


106 posted on 04/03/2012 8:26:47 PM PDT by X-spurt (Its time for ON YOUR FEET or on your knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

No, I didn’t hear her, but did hear Mark Levin say she was not impressive AT ALL. Republicans were stupid to let those two appointments get through so easily.


107 posted on 04/03/2012 8:30:58 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20
Intercourseth thou, Mr. alleged President. intercourseth thou...
108 posted on 04/03/2012 8:49:27 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the Constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM

Just remember, M, that it was our friends and neighbors who elected this fraud...


109 posted on 04/03/2012 8:52:23 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the Constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom; CitizenM; Thank You Rush; bonfire
I'd like to echo the sentiments of these fine FRiends. That post was simply outstanding. Thank you for putting that up.
110 posted on 04/03/2012 8:55:06 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


111 posted on 04/03/2012 8:57:11 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington
Just remember, M, that it was our friends and neighbors who elected this fraud...

There were a lot of dead people and people who never existed who pushed him over the top.

112 posted on 04/03/2012 8:59:27 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: max americana

Just like the Game of Thrones ad: War is Coming.


But who wins?


113 posted on 04/03/2012 9:16:55 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dandiegirl

To a large degree, “our” GOP Congress’ stance of Go along to get along, is what brought us to this situation we have today.


114 posted on 04/03/2012 9:18:55 PM PDT by X-spurt (Its time for ON YOUR FEET or on your knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

The Fifth Circuit is now my favorite U.S. Court of Appeals. Don’t back down!


115 posted on 04/03/2012 9:20:14 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

Hey TraitØr ! . . . betcha this was Unexpected™ !


It’s only going to make him more brazen.

The bastard might crack. Somebody with some gonads had better be watching him.


116 posted on 04/03/2012 9:20:47 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk

He is simply a “man of perdition”.


That guy had a bad ending.


117 posted on 04/03/2012 9:24:28 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...
Not exactly a SCOTUS ping but close enough.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

118 posted on 04/03/2012 9:28:55 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Some are predicting at least five justices may strike down Obama’s unconstitutional law. Does this mean the other four are political activists willing to circumvent our Constitution?

If so, what does this infer regarding the integrity of the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t this mean the Supreme Court has been compromised by political activism? Where maybe five are willing to adhere to the Constitution, and the other four are willing to proscribe the US Constitution as a condemned writ.

I think we have a right to expect the USSC to be politically blind. Yet, each POTUS election we hear many arguments how one will appoint conservative justices, and the other liberal justices. Justices should be neither conservative nor liberal. Justices should be politically blindfolded.

My interpretation of the USSC is that this entity is by law required to form it’s decisions based on the US Constitution. Which begs the question, what has led to this misalignment of the stars? How has political activism infiltrated the sanctity of the USSC? Where it is now predicted at least four members may vote the Obama(could really)Care(less) as Constitutional?

Nancy who routinely Peesonselfsi states Obama(could really)Care(less) is Constitutional since it follows the pursuit of happiness concept set forth in our US Constitution. How on earth could any reasonable Justice argue with her interpretation of our US Constitution? /s
Meanwhile, Obama declares the Supreme Court Justices as invalid since they are unelected officials.

Beam me up Scottie! Please hurry!


119 posted on 04/03/2012 9:28:59 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Constitutional Conservatism is Americanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter

Don’t be too shocked if the DOJ challenges the Judge’s authority to.........


If he’s re-elected, this judge might simply disappear or have an accident.


120 posted on 04/03/2012 9:31:09 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

I was going to wonder if the Justices were really serious about the rule of law or just for Bush.

The law is arrogant as OBama, but, still, this guy is a joke.


121 posted on 04/03/2012 9:31:59 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

Wise latina is another term for a latina getting her wisdom from doing a job as a whore on the sidewalk.


122 posted on 04/03/2012 9:39:57 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM

ping ... excellent post!


123 posted on 04/03/2012 9:40:45 PM PDT by Nobel_1 (bring on the Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

To tell you the truth, it does not matter. Obama has the media like Clinton did. All cover up and the left has the re-education so most of the public has not a clue about the constituional form of government.

With the GoP backing progressive Romney and staying silent as obama moves to communism, that is what is going to happen. We are kicking against the pricks; wasting our emotions and mental energy. It’s all b.s.


124 posted on 04/03/2012 9:47:34 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

Amazing indeed.


125 posted on 04/03/2012 9:48:07 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Nancy who routinely Peesonselfsi states Obama(could really)Care(less) is Constitutional since it follows the pursuit of happiness concept set forth in our US Constitution. How on earth could any reasonable Justice argue with her interpretation of our US Constitution? /s

I'd guess the main reason she is basing her argument on the "pursuit of happiness" concept is because that is exactly where the Supremes found the "right to privacy" that lead them to the 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. This ruling invalidated ALL of the laws of the 50 states on this subject and the companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, pretty much sewed up the right to kill your unborn child for ANY reason, at ANY time, ANY where (a doctor is found willing to do it). We see where THAT slippery slope has brought us. God help us if this administration is given carte blanche to tell us what will make us happy!

126 posted on 04/03/2012 10:16:10 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: CitizenM

We both know his vision to transform America involves a spiral toward socialism/marxism. Yet from our electives in congress, and from those currently running for POTUS, when it comes to his stated intent, all I hear is **crickets**

I can’t help but wonder what it is, which keeps them silent? Is it fear? Is it ignorance? Or, are they all in on it? Since they all go about as if Obama is merely misguided. Yet, we know nothing could be further from the truth.

Obama is on mission. He is focused. Obama intends to do what his cousin Osama attempted to do...totally annihilate America, to the extent she resembles absolutely zero edifications her past glory. Obama intends to drive a stake through her heart. He has stated so from the beginning, when he said he intends to transform America.


127 posted on 04/03/2012 10:20:31 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Constitutional Conservatism is Americanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs

Please ping me too if you find it. thx


128 posted on 04/03/2012 11:09:49 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mondonico

Well I guess that explains that!


129 posted on 04/04/2012 3:02:02 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Interesting post. Thanks.


130 posted on 04/04/2012 6:29:28 AM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

Newt has on numerous occasions called Obama extremely radical and dangerous.
He’s the one gasping for political air, however.

:-(


131 posted on 04/04/2012 6:44:34 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
I don't often get long-winded, so please excuse in advance this copy/paste from another thread.


The deliberate mischaracterization of the Judicial branch as 'unelected' is a straw man fallacy of the first order being used by Øbama and his cømmunist sycophants to stampede the ignorant.

That it's duplicitous premise has not been fatally attacked here at FR surprises me, and I say that as a man many years removed from academia.
And the true evil of said premise lies not in it's attempt to hoodwink the uninformed re the Supreme Court, but in its brazen frontal assault on the essence of our republican form of government !

Nominees for direct elections for offices from dog catcher to Congress are decided upon by US citizens via a simple majority vote.

Henceforward, those elected are empowered to act on our behalf in their respective posts until such time as their term of office expires.

To wit: under our Constitution, the citizenry elects Senators from each state to represent us in the upper house for terms of six years.

Those Senators, under authority of Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, must either approve or reject - via a 2/3 majority - any nomination by the Executive for:

Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.

Nominations for the offices above under A2S2 must therefore, in fact, pass the muster of a 'super majority' (2/3) of our elected Senators to assume their respective posts.

How then is the latter not an example of the very basis of our Founders' desire that we be a Republic ? !

And how is Øbama's brazen attack on the Court's legitimacy not a frontal assault on the very basis of the Republic itself ? ?

132 posted on 04/04/2012 7:20:14 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
Bohener appears to be working for Obama the past 6 months or so.

Keep in mind it was Boehner who was "accidentally" recorded by 'Rat operatives when he was on his car phone "helping" the enormously effective Gingrich with a strategy to deal with Gingrich's "ethics charges". IMO Boehner is on Boehner's side.

OTOH Obama's thugs may have his grandchildren...

133 posted on 04/04/2012 8:03:00 AM PDT by Sal (JournOlisters are all PIMPS! Nothing but little PIMPS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

I never said that we shouldn’t go after Obama hard on this. I think it is perfectly appropriate for the political branches and politicians to blast Obama for his Supreme Court comment. I just don’t think it is appropriate for judges to do that because it feeds into the narrative he was trying to create.


134 posted on 04/04/2012 8:47:09 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Is it possible that our Republic would be saved by the Judicial branch, even while stacked with Clintoon/Zero appointees?

I kept wondering when the someone within the alphabet agencies would do something, leak info, take some action to protect us. Nothing visible has happened. Could it be that Roberts will exonerate himself after swearing in the impostor?


135 posted on 04/04/2012 9:48:43 AM PDT by CPO retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

Someone should write a children’s book:

“The Little Dictator that Couldn’t”


136 posted on 04/04/2012 11:24:59 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (Obama is looking more and more like Trayvon's dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

137 posted on 04/04/2012 11:26:11 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (Obama is looking more and more like Trayvon's dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MyronCopacetic
This may be unprecedented. I need to do some research.

What did you come up with. I cannot remember a similar event, but perhaps back in FDR's administration?

138 posted on 04/04/2012 11:54:26 AM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

Audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/JudgeSmithDOJOrder.mp3


139 posted on 04/04/2012 2:59:52 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

The MSM has done there best to botch the context and bury the lead, even pave it over.

This is transcript in full context:

Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Justice Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.


140 posted on 04/04/2012 3:06:38 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

I talked to an attorney friend who works for an appellate court. Neither of us had ever heard of anything remotely like this.

(We also agreed that it was a serious abuse of discretion but I probably should not say that too loudly here).

FDR’s intimidation of the courts actually worked. I don’t recall any court really fighting back against him - at least not in such a blatantly political manner.


141 posted on 04/04/2012 3:14:09 PM PDT by MyronCopacetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

*


142 posted on 04/04/2012 4:58:23 PM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Where in the constitution does it say the USSC is the final determinate as to what is or is not constitutional? Nowhere. There is a reason early presidents told the USSC to pound sand. They were following the constitution.


143 posted on 04/04/2012 5:40:10 PM PDT by Founding Father (The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mwilli20

Just checked out some of the comments on the article itself and was stunned at the Obama supporters! thank God for the sanity of free republic.
Obama is an arrogant POS


144 posted on 04/04/2012 6:49:46 PM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JusPasenThru

I saw that too! shocking there are so many supporting Obommie the commie. Lot’s of leftwing comments attacking the republican candidates and party.


145 posted on 04/04/2012 6:52:19 PM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

Actually, it was taken as a given by the founding fathers as judicial review in the state courts, for their state constitutions, was used even before the US constitution, and no fewer than seven of the delegates to the constitutional convention had been state judges or lawyers directly involved in that type of constitutional review.

But that was further cemented by from both Article III and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, phrased in such a way as to make this an implied power of the SCOTUS, and such subordinate federal courts as congress created.

And it is entirely logical, as it means they have to explain their judgment. Were it not to determine constitutionality, court cases would be beauty contests just based on the personal opinions of justices.


146 posted on 04/04/2012 7:12:25 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." -- Nancy Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
And how is Øbama's brazen attack on the Court's legitimacy not a frontal assault on the very basis of the Republic itself ? ?

Well, you are 100% correct about that. Obama knows good and well how our republic works and his idiotic "straw-man" fallacy was worded that way because he also knows the majority of those who support him are idiots and swallow whatever tea he brews for them. The same goes for his ubiquitous use of the word "unprecedented" - a word he has used to describe his own "audacious" (another favorite word) actions to bolster his elevated opinion of himself. Everything he has done has been called unprecedented and has always been intended to be taken as a positive. In this case, though, he either used the word mistakenly - since it is always on the tip of his tongue anyway - or he wanted to get a rise out of his syncophants about someone else, or something else, acting in the same way for a change, though, in this case, it was negatively.

Obama is not an idiot, even though he does and says some pretty idiotic things, so he knows very well that the court overruling a congressional law is very much in their job description as they determine the constitutionality of lawsuits brought before them every year. He knows very well that HE is elected and HE, as President, nominates Supreme Court justices and that the Senate, ALSO elected, approve or disapprove those nominees. He is playing word games and he knows it, we know it and he knows we know it, but he also knows he'll get away with it anyway. I despise this man more every day!

147 posted on 04/04/2012 7:45:30 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 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