- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?
Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court? | Swampland | TIME.com
Essentially, President Obama is saying it should be upheld because it is popular, not because it is legally/Constitutionally correct.
Wow. Just... wow!
Today it is the GOP decrying "influencing" judicial rulings of the Supreme Court because it is a law they want struck down, when they have been doing the same thing on the legality of abortion for decades. Both sides do it, and which ever way the Supreme Court rules, the opposing side will accuse the court of "judicial activism". Such is politics... get over it, because you can't have it both ways.
What's at issue is that our president thinks the Court should side with popularity, not the rule of law.
The hypocrisy of one side or the other is not at issue.
What's at issue is that our president thinks the Court should side with popularity, not the rule of law.
And the GOP thinks the rule of law shouldn't apply to something they don't like... opposite sides of the same coin. Hypocrisy of both sides IS the issue.
And the GOP thinks the rule of law shouldn't apply to something they don't like... opposite sides of the same coin. Hypocrisy of both sides IS the issue.
No, it's apparently your issue, and it's only half true -- you're not going after the Democrats here, only the GOP.
Hypocrisy of 'ponents both pro and op has nothing do with constitutionality.
And the GOP thinks the rule of law shouldn't apply to something they don't like... opposite sides of the same coin. Hypocrisy of both sides IS the issue.
And the GOP thinks the rule of law shouldn't apply to something they don't like... opposite sides of the same coin. Hypocrisy of both sides IS the issue.
No I'm saying BOTH sides are wrong. The Supreme court will determine constitutionality, that is it's role. In both cases.
The GOP thinks the rule of law should be changed on that issue to regard ZEFs as citizens. Personally I disagree with them.
But that's not what we're talking about. SCOTUS isn't hearing Roe v. Wade right now, so let's stick to the issue. This isn't about abortion or hypocrisy. It's about how the president thinks SCOTUS should arrive at its judgments.
In this case he's wagging his arrogant finger at the court and warning them NOT to check and balance the other branches of government. He should crash and burn for this.
1973 Pres Regan calling for overturn of Roe v Wade A president admonishing the Supreme Court about a decision isn't new.
Reagan was commenting 10 years after. Decision long ago made. Obama is commenting while the Justices debate. While they decide. That's bull****.
And your comparison fails, btw.
It only fails from a one side view. On the outside looking at both it really is the same. Watching the Dems and GOP anymore is like watching 3 year olds in the back seat of the car.... "He's touching me!!!!" "No I'm not"
1973 Pres Regan calling for overturn of Roe v Wade A president admonishing the Supreme Court about a decision isn't new.
And Obama did so -- attempting to influence the outcome -- by making untrue statements. Reagan said nothing untrue in that blurb.
No one's saying it's new that a POTUS would disagree with the SCOTUS. What matters is on what grounds. Obama's argument is that it should pass because Congress passed it. I can't watch your video right now, so, what was Reagan's rationale? If it was anywhere bear as ignorant of the Constition as Obama's being, I'll condemn him too.
How was he attempting to influence the outcome? Do Supreme Court justices no longer have lifetime appointments?
No one's saying it's new that a POTUS would disagree with the SCOTUS. What matters is on what grounds. Obama's argument is that it should pass because Congress passed it. I can't watch your video right now, so, what was Reagan's rationale? If it was anywhere near as ignorant of the Constition as Obama's being, I'll condemn him too.
Except that he's dead, RvW was 39 years ago and not the topic of this thread, whereas PPACA and Obama are current, and they are the topic of the thread.
Oh, please.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?