• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case

Last edited:

No, understand it completely but none of what you posted has anything to do with FIT and what that is supposed to fund nor the state and local taxes people pay. Not sure you pay either.

Redistribution of someone else's wealth is not something I support regardless of the destination.
 
Conservative said:
Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case, in blunt challenge | Fox News
Click to expand...

That's the President's opinion. The Supreme Court has the constitutional authority and professional discretion to take up such cases. Of course, President Obama is not the first President to complain about the Supreme Court's choosing to hear a case and/or its rulings. Beyond the President, one frequently hears political pundits complaining about the Court exercising its authority to review myriad legal issues. Such complaints are par for the course for those who are unhappy about certain issues or cases coming before the Court for legal review.
 
Samhain said:
Clearly your logic also applies to food, water, living quarters, entertainment, transportation, a wage, retirement, and burial.
Click to expand...

Do you want to count how many from this list are regulated to some degree by the Federal Government? Or would you like me to count for you?
 

Then you oppose all taxes.
 
Montecresto said:
Then you oppose all taxes.
Click to expand...

Get some help with reading comprehension, I know the Federal Govt. has to be funded but I also know we don't need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. You don't seem to understand the role of the Federal, State, and Local governments. I suggest a civics class.
 
MrT said:
Do you want to count how many from this list are regulated to some degree by the Federal Government? Or would you like me to count for you?
Click to expand...

Do you pay state and local taxes? What do those taxes fund and provide? Why the duplication?
 
Conservative said:
I don't believe it is the other taxpayers' responsibility to pay for someone else's personal responsibility issue. If the states want to do it and get the support from their citizens then so be it, but NOT a national program funded by FIT dollars.
Click to expand...

It is now, like it or not. I like it.
 

I just noticed we both live in Houston. Good, now not only will some of your federal tax money go into my pocket, I also get some of your state and local money as well. Thank you.
 
Texmex said:
I just noticed we both live in Houston. Good, now not only will some of your federal tax money go into my pocket, I also get some of your state and local money as well. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Naw, doubt it. thankfully I don't live in Harris County so you get none of my tax dollars and TX is a very low tax state. We have dealt with each other before, still wonder why you live in this state.
 

I wasn't arguing amounts, also you are the one that needs civics lessons sense you fail to understand the federal dollars going to school lunch programs and police departments.
 
eohrnberger said:
Sounds like he's gotten a preview of how the court is leaning in their ruling and is already objecting to their pending ruling.
Click to expand...
I believe the Chief Justice doesn't want the legacy - the Roberts Court shot down Obamacare. He saved it once and he'll do it again, IMHO.
 
Conservative said:
Naw, doubt it. thankfully I don't live in Harris County so you get none of my tax dollars and TX is a very low tax state. We have dealt with each other before, still wonder why you live in this state.
Click to expand...

What county do you live in; I will move there. I just want to be close to you and your money. :lamo
 
joG said:
I wonder, if it is appropriate for the President to criticize the Supreme Court for the way it does its job.
Click to expand...

No, I'd be inclined to say that it's not appropriate. What would be more appropriate and good leadership, IMHO, would be to make a statement similar to 'the court has ruled and we all are bound by these rules, so let's move forward even though it may not be the decision we agree with' or something along that vein.

We already know that Obama's not bound by such decorum or solid leadership principals, as shown in how he criticized SCOTUS for the Citizens United v. FEC decision in the middle of SOTU address no less. Very poor form, if you ask me.
 
mudwhistle said:
What Obama is doing is essentially tampering with a court decision.
Click to expand...

How is having an opinion "tampering?" You think Roberts was wrong, correct? Why are you "tampering?
 

GOOD GRIEF!Six post in and youre already derailling your own OP?thread.:doh
 
joG said:
I wonder, if it is appropriate for the President to criticize the Supreme Court for the way it does its job.
Click to expand...

I think it's totally appropriate. President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But I suspect it only bothers you if it's a democrat doing it.
 

It's not appropriate because a democrat is criticizing a potential decision that may derail a piece of the PPACA, and make you happy. I doubt you were bitching when Bush did the same thing.
 
Montecresto said:
It's not appropriate because a democrat is criticizing a potential decision that may derail a piece of the PPACA, and make you happy. I doubt you were bitching when Bush did the same thing.
Click to expand...

Wonder if you have the stones to admit what the outcry would be today had that been Bush saying what Obama said?
 

I agree that the stunt President Pinocchio pulled about Citizens United, with the justices sitting right there in front of him, WAS very poor form. But aside from the fact this speech could have an effect just opposite the one intended, it is fairly tepid meddling, by historical standards. Franklin Roosevelt was determined to get rid of a couple justices who had been voting against his New Deal schemes--so determined that near the start of his second term, he suggested a clever new scheme for the Court. This would have increased it to twelve justices, while imposing a maximum age limit that would have forced his adversaries out. This "court packing" scheme was a clear attempt to bully the Court into calling things FDR's way, and even though it never was carried out, just the threat of it seems to have produced the desired results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…