Comrade Obama's arrogance is simply unreal

[garn]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

 

[jigs]

I hope he gets into a heated battle with the Supreme Court, then they decide to look at his birth certificate...... fun to see him go from the White House to the jail house...

 

[Sandhusker]

Basically, he is threatening the court not to do their jobs.

What is the defense of this man from his supporters?

 

[hopalong]

oldtimer what is you defense of this idiot, you have been screaming let SCOTUS decide, now when it does not look too good for your boy, do you defend this action???

Kinda like the kid on the block that takes his ball and goes home because he cannot make up the rules

EH????

 

[Larrry]

So he is advocating mob rule over the Constitution. Does thast worry anyone

 

[Steve]

It was 1936, and it had been a difficult few years for President Franklin Roosevelt at the Supreme Court. Congress moved quickly to pass Roosevelt's New Deal agenda, and the nine justices ruled swiftly to throw much of it out.

"No Supreme Court in history had ever struck down so many laws so quickly,"

Much like 2012 for President Barack Obama, 1936 was also an election year

Roosevelt's secret plot was his so-called court-packing plan, which would have allowed the president to appoint a new Supreme Court justice when a sitting judge reached the age of 70. The proposal would "bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work," Roosevelt contended in a fireside chat in 1937. "This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries."

It was a political disaster. Roosevelt couldn't get the proposal passed, and the effort was resoundingly rejected by the public as an inappropriate power grab.

there has not been a meaningful challenge, not on this scale, to a centerpiece economic policy since the 1930s. There was no challenge like this to any of the Great Society programs. Not in a meaningful way."

So the historical parallels to the current moment for President Obama are at once legal and political. Like the constitutional challenge to the health insurance mandate, many of the Supreme Court defeats in Roosevelt's first term hinged on Constitution's Commerce Clause.

but this line struck me as ironic...

it's unlikely that Obama will try to capitalize on the campaign trail.

"He's not campaigning against the Court," Shesol said about Obama's likely reaction to a defeat in the Court. "I think the president is wise enough to see that there's no margin in it.

That's in line with Roosevelt's winning reelection talking points that took pains to avoid the judiciary.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2012/mar/28/last-incumbent-courtwatcher/

with his recent "court" attacks.. it is clear Obama is not nearly as clever or smart as some make him out to be...

we have a separation of powers for a reason...

 

[Tam]

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

And can anyone remember what happen to those democratically elected Congressmen that supported Obamacare when the voters got their chance to vote? :? Oh yea I REMEMBER

Election 2010: Democrat losses ran wide and deep - from coast to coast
From Politico this wrap up of the 2010 midterm election is damming for the Democratic Party. Far from being a regional loss their losses were across the board. The Democrat message was repudiated from coast to coast in dozens of "blue" states. Very interesting:


Republicans have already gained as many as 60 seats in Congress, but when GOP gains are looked at on a state-by-state basis, the bloody picture for Democrats nationwide becomes even more gruesome. Several state legislatures made historic transitions to Republican hands — some for the first time since the 19th century — and nearly an entire generation of state Democrats saw its ranks obliterated

Oh and this headline had to have put a smile on all Conversatives faces

Republican tsunami: Democrats lose control of the House as voters slam Obama with worst losses for 62 years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326053/MID-TERM-ELECTIONS-2010-Democrats-lose-House-Republican-tsunami.html#ixzz1r0Lhure0

 

[Tam]

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

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

Doesn't really look so unprecedented and extraordinary does it. And Obama is suppose to be SOOOOOO SMART. :roll:

 

[Faster horses]

He's just BS'ing his followers and the uninformed who won't look any deeper than what he SAYS.

 

[Tam]

Obama might be BS'ing but I doubt the Judge that ordered Holder to write a three page single placing explanation of the Obama Administration's idea of what the Justice systems job is, is. But what makes me think Holder will not comply with the Court order?

 

[Faster horses]

Obama might be BS'ing but I doubt the Judge that ordered Holder to write a three page single placing explanation of the Obama Administration's idea of what the Justice systems job is, is. But what makes me think Holder will not comply with the Court order?

The best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour.
That's why you don't think Holder will comply. His boss doesn't
have any regard for the law, so why should Holder? :x

 

[cowman52]

You know, taking all the past 3years in, you Need to study a bit, Threating the court ain't a smart idea, even if you do have 4 (maybe) votes in your pocket but most judges don't care for a smart a@@ trying to tell them what to do.
Couple that with the little thing like a birth cert that might not stand a lot of sunlight, a sheriff in Az that tends to make life not to comfortable, a rising stink in Fl over an incident that the white house should have never touched until a lot of digging was done, an investigation into voter fraud that is going to be at worst uncomfortable and what have you got?????

A president that has GOT to count on an uninformed electorate, bunch of non working 99 per centers, all his Chicago cronies, and hopefully he can stand after November.
An October surprise is coming, these people are going to pull all the stops, and it might just blow up in their face

 

[Faster horses]

I too, thought it was very arrogant of him to say what he did about
the SCOTUS. He insulted it and the judges along with it. I hope they
rule against Obamacare because it is the right thing to do and
because of the lack of respect exhibited by the Prez.

About time he got his due, it's been too long coming.
Nothing in or about America is sacred to him.

But time will tell. He might get away with this too. So far he's made
a monkey out of the law.

 

[Steve]

I think the students that had Obama as a wannabe constitutional law adjunct instructor should get a refund...

 

[Tam]

I heard today that he tried to step back away from what he said yesterday but may have made the issue worse. Today he said those that strike down the act will have a "heavy burden" to carry. Some think this was a swipe at Kennedy, the one deciding vote, for questioning of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli about whether the government has a "heavy burden" of demonstrating constitutional authority for the law. :roll: