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

Skip to comments.

Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case, in blunt challenge
Fox News.com ^ | June 8, 2015

Posted on 06/08/2015 9:58:50 AM PDT by Kaslin

resident Obama bluntly challenged the Supreme Court over a pending ruling on the validity of ObamaCare subsidies, complaining Monday that the court should never have taken up the case -- and warning that a ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law.

The president and his administration's legal team for months have fought the Affordable Care Act court challenge, which is over whether people who enrolled through the federal HealthCare.gov are entitled to subsidies.

But the president's comments on Monday, during a press conference on the sidelines of the G-7 summit in Germany, were perhaps his toughest to date. He strongly suggested the court would be running afoul of established legal guidance if it rules against the administration, and took the rare step of saying the court should have stayed out of this fight.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; obama; obamacare; resident0bama; scotus; supremecourt; tyranny; usurper; whowillridme; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
Here we go. It's either his way or the highway
1 posted on 06/08/2015 9:58:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here we go, another effort by Obama to intimidate SCOTUS. And hey, why not, it worked the first time!


2 posted on 06/08/2015 10:00:07 AM PDT by Obadiah (This is Bravo-6, we have Zips in the wire! I repeat, Zips in the wire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So if the Supremes require enforcement of 0bama’s law, that’s wrong?


3 posted on 06/08/2015 10:00:36 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (ISIS: Islam's Reformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

How dare the proletariat question the King!

How dare we!


4 posted on 06/08/2015 10:00:41 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Dam.....


5 posted on 06/08/2015 10:00:46 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Eat it Obummer!
6 posted on 06/08/2015 10:01:15 AM PDT by mongo141 (Revolution ver. 2.0, just a matter of when, not a matter of if!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well, he should know! He’s a Constitutional expert, after all... [/sheesh]


7 posted on 06/08/2015 10:01:18 AM PDT by DJ Frisat (Proudly providing the NSA with provocative textual content since 1995!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

For him go on the offensive on this issue overseas, he must already know he lost. He is getting a statement out for his liberal base.


8 posted on 06/08/2015 10:01:41 AM PDT by martinidon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
a ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law

The whole fricking law is twisted. The very way in which it came to be law was twisted.

Obama is twisted. A sick and twisted bastard (literally and figuratively a bastard.)

9 posted on 06/08/2015 10:01:58 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Wow, what a jerk.

Apparently he’s unfamiliar with separation of powers.

2016 can’t come fast enough.


10 posted on 06/08/2015 10:01:59 AM PDT by cyclotic ( Check out traillifeusa.com. America's premier boys outdoor organization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: FourtySeven

L’etat c’est moi!


12 posted on 06/08/2015 10:02:21 AM PDT by relictele (Principiis obsta & Finem respice - Resist The Beginnings & Consider The Ends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I wonder if he got a “heads up” that the USSC will vote in his favor. That is why he is acting so uppity.


13 posted on 06/08/2015 10:02:48 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Isn't it funny that Socialists never want to share their own money?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

panic.....


14 posted on 06/08/2015 10:03:22 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12, 73, ..... No peace? then no peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Obama said it has been well-documented that Congress never intended to exclude people who went through the federal exchange.

It's also well documented that Obama said, more than once, 'if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance'
15 posted on 06/08/2015 10:03:42 AM PDT by ratzoe (damn, I miss Barbara Olson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Pelosi’s secret source on the Court knows its not going to go well.


16 posted on 06/08/2015 10:03:50 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zathras

The Clown Prince nobama minions need to break out the secret NSA files and discretely show the to the judges...if history is any guide. How dare anyone question His Highness.


17 posted on 06/08/2015 10:05:23 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner

That explains why the flies seem to like him, doesn’t it?


18 posted on 06/08/2015 10:05:40 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Blank you Mr. President.

For an alleged constitutional law teacher, you are dumb as a bag of rocks. It is not up to the president to decide which cases the Supreme Court takes and which it declines to hear.

He really overstepped his bounds here. But the media will not call him out on it.

The plain text of the law sounds clear to me. Yet he claims that only a twisted interpretation would result in exchanges run by the states and not the federal government.

He should go talk to Nancy P. His real problem should be with a convoluted 2000 page law which was not read and understood before being rammed through on a party line vote. And the related issue of confusing language in this 2000 page law.

Will anyone in the media talk about what I just mentioned about confusing language and problems in ramming thru unread 2000 page bills? Its that confusion and misunderstanding of how this law is to be administered which resulted in this particular court case.


19 posted on 06/08/2015 10:06:07 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Well-said.

FUBO


20 posted on 06/08/2015 10:06:08 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next 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