Yes, please explain how the President can influence the Supreme Court, who's members are appointed for life.opcorn2:
I didn't say he could. I said he was attempting to. It requires a particular kind of blindness not to see that.
Reagan did not actually call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade in that blurb. What he called for was working to find a way to protect unborn life.
Essentially, President Obama is saying it should be upheld because it is popular, not because it is legally/Constitutionally correct.
Wow. Just... wow!
Ah, so he can't, but he was attempting to, because he's not as smart as you and I, or as up on constitutional law?
Oh, please.
Oh, please.
Your just mad because he stole your sides rhetoric. Remember....what's good for the goose......
A liberal compiaining about "legislating from the bench" How dare he.
Obama was obviously just making a short comment. If you want to know what the Obama administration's actual argument is, read the government's brief and listen to the oral arguments.
Be rational for just a second: wasn't this a misstep for Obama?
Yes, I think it was poorly phrased. He definitely needs to work on his right wing rhetoric.
Forcing me to buy something is unconstitutional. period.....
I wonder, given Obama's thinking, how he feels about the prop 187 decision. :lol:
How was he attempting to influence the outcome? Do Supreme Court justices no longer have lifetime appointments?
I didn't say he could. I said he was attempting to. It requires a particular kind of blindness not to see that.
That makes no sense. What does SCOTUS' role have to do with right wing rhetoric?
What if the POTUS aimed to veto a
Bill congress passed because it was thought to be unconstitutional, and a Senator warned him that he better not veto it, because Congress passed it.
Doesn't that show incredible ignorance to our structure of government?
The only partisan rhetoric here is Obama and his feigned ignorance.
Are you not following the thread? It is right wing rhetoric to accuse the Supreme Court of activism whenever it does something that right wingers don't like.
Saying that unelected judges are substituting their judgment for that of our elected representatives, i.e. "legislating from the bench" is torn straight from the right wing lexicon. Doesn't it sound stupid coming back at you?
Unless someone other than the right engages in it.
Coming BACK at me? I never made such an argument. Sure, the rightwing has many examples of stupidity re: SCOTUS decisions, but you're diverting, as many Obama apologists have been doing around here in response to these comments.
Unless someone other than the right engages in it.
Coming BACK at me? I never made such an argument. Sure, the rightwing has many examples of stupidity re: SCOTUS decisions, but you're diverting, as many Obama apologists have been doing around here in response to these comments.
Actually it would require a certain set of blinders to actually believe that he was trying to do something he has no power to do in a way that would not work.
He is making fun of certain right wing people who make identical arguments about topics such as SSM(see the ruling on prop 8 and the Mass rulings on DOMA, the comments are almost identical to Obama's) and trying to set up a hypocrisy claim by seeing who would make those comments about rulings and then complain about his comments.
Striking down a law as unconstitutional isn't judicial activism if the law really is unconstitutional.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.
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.
This is what I see Obama doing. It's not "trying to influence to judges", that is just stupid. He is making fun of certain right wing people who make identical arguments about topics such as SSM(see the ruling on prop 8 and the Mass rulings on DOMA, the comments are almost identical to Obama's) and trying to set up a hypocrisy claim by seeing who would make those comments about rulings and then complain about his comments.
Personally I would prefer Obama to not say **** like this. Just because I can see what he is saying does not mean I think it is a good idea. We have to assume that SCOTUS judges are going to rule based on law. Since there is no realistic way to get one out once appointed, we can either trust and accept, or be pissed off all the time. I do not always like how SCOTUS rules, but we appoint experts to SCOTUS for a reason, and I have to accept their rulings.
You think he was making fun? Sounded pretty serious about it to me. :shrug:
It is a hypothesis and not the only thing I think he is doing(Note the word "and", it is important). Since neither you nor I are in his head, neither of us knows for sure.
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?