Posted on 04/03/2012 5:00:17 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Has any of our representatives in congress used a blowhorn and made any statements at all? They should be yelling and making a scene IMO....otherwise anything they might say will never get thru the Media Wall.
I think it is a crisis here and right now by plan. I think that this posturing by 0bama is all part of a plan—which the Zimmerman case plays into. I suggest we all be ready.
Just as a reminder some of what’s at stake:
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
** Page 50/section 152:
The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59:
The government will have ‘real-time access to an individual’s bank account’ and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164:
The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members,.. union retirees.. and for community organizations... (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15:
The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
** Page 241 and 253:
Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the ‘government will set all doctors’ fees’.
** Page 272. section 1145:
Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.
** Page 317 and 321:
The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12:
The government ‘mandates’ advance-care planning consultations..... Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
** Page 429, line 13-25:
The government will specify ‘which doctors’ can write an end-of-life order.
Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:
“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress....... Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs........ If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”
- Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas
They were asking an OB lawyer what the WH meant by his comment. ....they are about to make a ruling in a case in front of them.
Oh I do hope so! However, I hold not illusion. Only if the court takes on the very justice department they are part of and the administration. If they do, how will they enforce their rulings?
I do agree though we don't know from one day to the next when this will explode...it's moving that direction. Zimmermans Attorney, Crump, connected with A Hard left lineral Congresswoman, who very much votes for all the "freebies".... to get the 911 tapes released...she is instrumental in the Zimmerman case, behind the scene.... and has more than once been in trouble for using Gov. monies and or avoiding payments on her debts...and been investigated for these.
So the crooks are truly in the WhiteHouse and Congress. We are truly in serious trouble as a nation.
Got it !
Thanks
He was the lowest level of adjunct instructor and was nowhere near being a professor of any kind.
Whoa! That’s HUGE! Hit me if I’ve missed this on FR ..but I never knew Bamster was just an adjunct prf. ant Univ. of Chicago. As a former adjunct prf., I know adjuncts are the lowest form of humanity in the collegiate systems!
The blame-stream media always refer to his creds as a “Constitutional Law Professor at Univ. of Chicago”
But they’d never give such creds to conservatives who teach classes at universities as adjunct prfs.
It’s like claiming that you’re a college basketball star when you just play a game every weekend in the local YMCA.
Someone call Rush, Sean, Levin...this is big!
That was only a part of his fabricated bio. Always remember that obama and "friends" are your enemy.
Not sure. Enlighten us please.
Is this the beginning of the showdown I hope for or is it just about power instead of principles?
Like I said to Lurker, is this about principles and the rule of law or just power?
That’s a good question.
“When was the last time you can recall a sitting President directly calling out the SCOTUS?”
I just don’t think what Obama says in some campaign speech carries any constitutional weight at all.
I think wolf’s example of the “recess” appointments is much more a crises than what Obama said about the Court’s possible action.
He’s very foolish if he thinks he can intimidate the Supreme Court.
This is just stunning for the World’s Smartest Law Professor and the world’s Greatest US President. The man is in over his head anytime he is not obeying the TOTUS
I'm amazed too. But the connection is that the defendant in the case is the U.S. government, represented by the Justice Department, and Obama picked the head of the Justice Department and has the authority to set its policy.
In effect, Obama is the defendant. If, for example, Obama didn't wish to defend this case, then it would not be defended.
The recent Nordyke hearing in the Ninth Circuit illustrates, perhaps, the reason for the Judge's action.
The Nordykes are in the twelfth year of litigation against the county of Alameda in California because the Alameda County Board of Supervisors outlawed gun shows at the county fairgrounds.
The case proceeded based upon a joint statement of undisputed facts. This is evidently a mechanism used by the courts to make certain that they are focussing on the disagreements between the parties.
In the middle of the hearing, the counsel for Alameda County stated that it would be permissible under Alameda's ordinance to hold a gun show if the guns were tethered to a table. Prior statements by the county indicated that gun shows could only be held if there were no guns present.
The Ninth Circuit Panel jumped on the opportunity to send the case back to the lower court without making a Second Amendment ruling. It remains to be seen whether the county "blinked" and decided that they didn't want a Second Amendment ruling against them, or whether the Nordykes counsel failed to recognize some change in the county's interpretation of their own ordinance at some time during the last twelve years.
The relevance to the Fifth Circuit request to the Justice Department is that the President has suggested that his Justice Department may disagree with the established concept of "judicial review". If so, then the matter should have been raised at the lower court.
The government, through Obama's statements, appears to be saying that any decision that the Fifth Circuit might make regarding "consitutionality" is irrelevant, that Obamacare may or may not be constitutional, but that Obamacare will remain the law of the land regardless of the Fifth Circuit's decision. This justifies the Fifth Circuit's attempt to clarify the dispute in the case before their court.
ping for later
BUMP!
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.