- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Essentially, President Obama is saying it should be upheld because it is popular, not because it is legally/Constitutionally correct.
Wow. Just... wow!
In words echoed by Obama this week, Reagan reminded Americans that “in our democracy, it is the elected representatives of the people, not unelected judges, who make laws.” And Reagan warned what would happen if justices ignored that civics lesson: “If that happens,” he said, “the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite.”
So the executive branch arresting judicial branch for the decisions they made. That's different how? lol
If the case is because they didn't explain their decision, as if the executive branch has any say on how the judicial branch does their business, Clarence Thomas would never see daylight again.
Did not the 5th Circuit last week order to DoJ to explain statements made by Obama. 3 pages ? Single spaced ?
Sorry, but the issue is not, and never has been, as you misstate it "arresting judges for decisions". Its that Congress has the write to interview judges about decisions. If a judge ignores a Congressional subpoena, lawfully prepared, then the Judge is in contempt of Congress. Works both ways
Don't forget that he also suggested that the whole Federal 9th Circuit should be dissolved because he doesn't agree with their liberal tendencies. Somehow the "genius" doesn't quite get the whole separation of powers dealie.
The closest case to Ubama’s situation is probably when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices.
Or....when Reagan said virtually the same exact thing Obama did.
Except it was not the same. Not even close. Obama lied about what judicial activism is. Reagan did not.
Who cares? That's like saying what the guy next door says matters. He is not in a position of power nor will he ever be again.
Of course...it's only judicial activism when it's a ruling against your sides legislation. I'm so tired of conservatives who have spent the past 3 or 4 decades decrying activitist judges and ruling from the bench now aghast the President is saying the same things they have for longer than I've been alive.
So be very tired then ! Clearly Dems struggle with what judicial activism is.
Maybe one of the liberals here can answer Justice Kennedy's question "What is the limiting principle here". Then once you figure out what he meant, you might then start to grasp what it is that defines activism vs. judical restraint. Then you can tell Obammy.
Nobody struggles with what judicial activism is. It just seems as if Conservatives have a problem with thinking they are some ordained arbitrators of the Constitution and anything a conservative court shoots down or rules on...well by definition it's obviously just following what the Constitution says....I mean they are conservatives.
Well, he's a former Speaker, current GOP candidate, and still a VIP in the Republican Party, so I think that everyone should care when he espouses blatant disrespect for the separation of powers.
In the cases where government is involved it is the inverse correlation--the longer the bill the lower the quality.I guess I never knew that there was a direct correlation between quality and page count.
Never underestimate the stupidity and perfidy of the half of the shrinking working population who pay no federal income taxes. They live with their hand out, looking for the next federal hand out. Will they vote against their sugar daddy, their lord and master?Not at all...But as an educated guess, I would say that should HC fall in the SC, and gas prices continue to rise, along with dismal jobs reports then it would be nearly impossible for him to gain a second term.
j-mac
Never underestimate the stupidity and perfidy of the half of the shrinking working population who pay no federal income taxes. They live with their hand out, looking for the next federal hand out. Will they vote against their sugar daddy, their lord and master?
Not sure why you blame them...did they write the tax code?
They voted for those that did. You understand that ....... right ? It is known as "voting the largesse out of the public treasury".
Look it up, and you will then be a more informed slightly liberal. :roll:
Not sure I'm following you...are you saying that the 47% of people who don't pay federal income tax don't because of Obama's tax policy?
No. What I am saying is that your pathetic retort of "did they write the tax code" was just that.
Pathetic.
Sorry, I don't hang out with conspiracy theorists so I'm not up on your lingo...no need to explain, you've shown your true colors...you may wanna stay off the coffee this late...
I blame them because their votes result in our undoing. That is all.Not sure why you blame them...did they write the tax code?
Jason, You might not want to try this with the adults.Sorry, I don't hang out with conspiracy theorists so I'm not up on your lingo...no need to explain, you've shown your true colors...you may wanna stay off the coffee this late...
Jason, You might not want to try this with the adults.
You have show all of us two sides, your ignorance and your willingness to remain ignorant. Run along now.
In the cases where government is involved it is the inverse correlation--the longer the bill the lower the quality.
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?