In the modern era, it would be fairly unprecedented for the Supremes to overturn an entire new Federal program. This is what Obama meant, I think.

Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: It is why it was seen as crude of Obama to call them out at his SOTU speech a few years back.

Was it seen as crude when GWB did it and Reagan did it - twice?


Totally unfair-- That's like comparing apples and black people.
/Not true!

Weaver95: I_C_Weener: Weaver95: But on this issue, suddenly the GOP is cold and hard hearted. they're doing exactly the opposite of 'christ like'.

So, Weaver, are you saying that we should in fact govern from the Bible?

the Republicans certainly say that. Quite often, in fact. Oddly enough, when given a chance to follow true 'biblical principal' they seem to do exactly the opposite.

They seem more interested in the old testament than the new, with all of that caring for the poor and the sick, and rhetoric about how the rich are going to have a hard time getting into heaven.

This drama is a ruse.

Federal Appeals Court judge/s bought off by the powers that be to put on a show that makes the courts look bad in order to undermine the ruling authority of the Supreme justices.

Sway the public opinion against the courts by creating a false conflict.
I would not be surprised at all.

questions to ask
~what are these Federal Appeals Court judges political ideologies
~watch their bank records for odd deposits.

Have fun with the rest kids.

/conspiracy theory for today
//adjusts tin foil hat

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.

dishonest much?

lets look at the words you decided to omit.

The part you left out is what the Appeals Court Judge was referring to.

At least put some effort into your lying next time.

You know what would be really unprecedented?


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316386

hillbillypharmacist: If the law dictates that you can go to a Buggywhip Emergency Center and get a buggywhip for free, even if you can't pay, and the federal government or states end up paying for those buggywhips, then certainly choosing not to buy a buggywhip directly affects interstate commerce.

Are you suggesting that I cannot drive my buggy across State Lines? What if superior buggywhips are available in a neighboring state? Am I to be forbidden by the Federal Government to obtain them?

Suppose that my inferior buggywhip breaks whilst I am sojourning in a sister state? What then, sir, I ask you?

What then?

MrBigglesworth: Wow, You too huh? Look up above, I already corrected myself.

Oh, Crimea River. Not everybody refreshes every ten seconds. Boo Farking Hoo.

sprawl15: Deucednuisance: Not buying buggywhips but a real crimp in the "economic activity" of the buggywhip industry, wouldn't you agree?

Sure. In the buggywhip industry's activities. The people who didn't buy buggywhips, however, were not involved in that industry. Which is why it went out of business.

This is a pretty textbook example of why bad analogies used by ignorant people tend to be wastes of everybody's time.

People who don't buy health insurance are ultimately involved in that industry.

cameroncrazy1984: Isn't this the same argument in Wickard v. Filburn in which the Supreme Court upheld the ability of the Congress to regulate it?

Yes, I think it was.

No.

Wickard v. Filburn concerned a general price fixing law on the wheat market that prevented growing of more than a certain amount of wheat. This was not argued to be unconstitutional, the argument centered around individuals who did not intend to sell into that market falling under purview of the general law. The court ruled that the aggregate effect of such an exception would undermine the constitutionally sound law, and did not allow such an exception.

It's pretty much the complete opposite.

Serious Black: To everyone who thinks that 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith is 100% in the right, how do you feel about Greta Van Susteren telling the Department of Justice to refuse to comply with the order and dare Judge Smith to hold the DOJ in contempt?



I will answer that when Greta is the President of the United States, or even when she is nominated by a party to run for that office.

Hint, the President should at least know about judicial review and support the balance of power

tenpoundsofcheese: hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.

dishonest much?

lets look at the words you decided to omit.

The part you left out is what the Appeals Court Judge was referring to.

At least put some effort into your lying next time.

I like when the appeals court asked him to take time out of his day to explain to them the legal precedents of Obamacare. I think, had I gotten that order, I would have spent the entire 3 pages listing all of the accomplishments of congress between 2008 and 2010, and then pointing out that Congress never passed anything called Obamacare.

Weaver95: I_C_Weener: Weaver95: But on this issue, suddenly the GOP is cold and hard hearted. they're doing exactly the opposite of 'christ like'.

So, Weaver, are you saying that we should in fact govern from the Bible?

the Republicans certainly say that. Quite often, in fact. Oddly enough, when given a chance to follow true 'biblical principal' they seem to do exactly the opposite.

They've cloaked themselves in Christianity and patriotism.

Someone warned us about people like that. I forget his name though...

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.

President is being an asshole too.

imontheinternet: Actually, Marbury v. Madison has a serious problem. Chief Justice Marshall had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself.

The case involved appointments made in the final days of the Adams administration, which his Secretary of State failed to finalize through delivery. The Secretary of State was John Marshall.

/why yes, I am fun at parties
//the people I trap in corners love hearing lots of archaic trivia

The whole thing was shaky. That's why they gave the win to Jefferson, and didn't use the power of judicial review for another... what was it twenty or thirty years? They didn't want to allow anyone to challenge the concept. halfof33: Serious Black: To everyone who thinks that 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith is 100% in the right, how do you feel about Greta Van Susteren telling the Department of Justice to refuse to comply with the order and dare Judge Smith to hold the DOJ in contempt? Money quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: I imagine the discussion tonight at the Justice Department - I would certainly be having this discussion - is to refuse to do it. Because it really is beyond what is necessary in the case. It has nothing to do with the case. And the lawyer answered the question in court. And it's clearly just, you know, the judge is mad. And to refuse to do it, maybe you draw a contempt charge but then I would then take it up with the full court. I'm not so sure the Department of Justice has to comply with this.

She's an idiot. Oh la di da, I'm just going to take it up with the whole Court.

Yeah, that is how that works, moran

I actually watched that segment. I was shocked by how unbiased it was, for the first half at least. And that IS how it works. This appeals court would have 3 judges sitting, but probably only one judge was hearing this motion. If it comes to an order to show cause (contempt hearing) they could ask for the 3 judges to preside over it. And those other two would be more likely to restrain this one judge.


This is scary. A democrat is saying the court is a bunch of judicial activists. The court is being attacked on ALL sides. There is no champion for the court anymore. This judge may have been illadvised to do this, but this is a scary time to be a judge. And if the judge had the power to do this (he probably doesn't but I don't know the sua sponte power of federal courts) then it might actually be a brilliant maneuver. Forcing the Department of Justice to write an opinion saying that their president and boss is full of shiat. It's a great way to temper Obama's rhetoric.

Geotpf: In the modern era, it would be fairly unprecedented for the Supremes to overturn an entire new Federal program. This is what Obama meant, I think.

Yeah, he said as much afterward.

qorkfiend: People who don't buy health insurance are ultimately involved in that industry.

No, they're ultimately involved in the health care industry. Which may have secondary effects on the health insurance industry.

Deucednuisance: badaboom: What an ironic and idiotic statement.

Explain yourself.

The statement was factual. In what way was it either "ironic" or "idiotic"?

Difficulty: Must include the continued candidacies of the four remaining GOP presidential candidates, and the apparent resurgent relevance of Sarah Palin.

Blaming partisanship on the OTHER guys. "Can't YOU see how unreasonable YOU are?". You don't agree with me therefore you are partisan.

Pro Zack: hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.

President is being an asshole too.


Your point?

Peeks in on thread...sees all the raging liberal butthurt...leaves satisfied.

cameroncrazy1984: Geotpf: In the modern era, it would be fairly unprecedented for the Supremes to overturn an entire new Federal program. This is what Obama meant, I think.

Yeah, he said as much afterward.

except that 6 out of 8 of FDR's major new deal legislation was overturned mainly due to overextension of commerce clause.

besides passing a federal program means that you don't need to care about constitionality anymore? really??

Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: ///next time maybe they'll actually take steps to lower HC costs

Like, I don't know

-making many preventative care options copay free
-ending bankruptcy via the ER because people have health insurance
-having pre-existing conditions covered

Stuff like that?

Yeah, they really should've put that stuff into the bill.

They didn't do anything to make HC costs come down on either the insurance side or the business side. Evan Bayh flat out admitted this on a radio interview a couple of years ago.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-senator-evan-bayh-admits-health - care-bill-does-not-stop-rising-health-costs/

The real issue that was not addressed, Laura, that you've raised now, and I think appropriately, is the cost, the cost to both the government and to your listeners. We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.

How do you inject cost control into something that has no inherent cost controls without having it look like rationing? The people who can control costs - the doctors and patients - are the ones least interested in doing so.

Deucednuisance: badaboom: What an ironic and idiotic statement.

Explain yourself.

The statement was factual. In what way was it either "ironic" or "idiotic"?

Difficulty: Must include the continued candidacies of the four remaining GOP presidential candidates, and the apparent resurgent relevance of Sarah Palin.

And your own statement is partisan. Why shouldn't it include the partisan campaign of the current President. Let me guess, you don't see him as partisan.

strawman'd in one.

Wendy's Chili: WombatControl: Someone who used to teach Constitutional Law should know better.

There's nothing in the Constitution about judicial review.

"...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and to Fact..."
-Article III, Section 2.

I_C_Weener: Weaver95: I_C_Weener: Weaver95: But on this issue, suddenly the GOP is cold and hard hearted. they're doing exactly the opposite of 'christ like'.

So, Weaver, are you saying that we should in fact govern from the Bible?

the Republicans certainly say that. Quite often, in fact. Oddly enough, when given a chance to follow true 'biblical principal' they seem to do exactly the opposite.

So, should we or should we not? You seem to be very upset about their failure to follow the biblical teachings in government. :)

Stop being an ass. He's angry about the hypocrisy of the Republicans. In a book full of terrible shiat, they are ignoring all of the the redeeming aspects of their faith, while trying to enforce a bronze age morality on people, but still, somehow, missing the part about how Christians aren't supposed to be wealthy.

halB: This appeals court would have 3 judges sitting, but probably only one judge was hearing this motion. If it comes to an order to show cause (contempt hearing) they could ask for the 3 judges to preside over it. And those other two would be more likely to restrain this one judge.

What motion? There is no motion, there is only an Order.

halfof33: halB: This appeals court would have 3 judges sitting, but probably only one judge was hearing this motion. If it comes to an order to show cause (contempt hearing) they could ask for the 3 judges to preside over it. And those other two would be more likely to restrain this one judge.

What motion? There is no motion, there is only an Order.

The trance is the motion (new window)

RowdyRough: halfof33: halB: This appeals court would have 3 judges sitting, but probably only one judge was hearing this motion. If it comes to an order to show cause (contempt hearing) they could ask for the 3 judges to preside over it. And those other two would be more likely to restrain this one judge.

What motion? There is no motion, there is only an Order.

The trance is the motion (new window)

It's got groove, it's got meaning

Bf+: Pro Zack: hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.

President is being an asshole too.


Your point?

By "is being" I mean "Is".

NTTAWWT - but "peacemaker" and "asshole" don't usually appear in the same package. I remember the heady days of Obama's first campaign for President, when we would all sing songs down by the river, and move into a post-racial world, because the great peacemaker had finally arrived.

but no, he's just another arrogant prick.

badaboom: Blaming partisanship on the OTHER guys. "Can't YOU see how unreasonable YOU are?". You don't agree with me therefore you are partisan.

OK, let's try again.

In what way was the statement counter-factual?

And you're certainly welcome to address the difficulty factor that you ignored last go `round.

badaboom: And your own statement is partisan. Why shouldn't it include the partisan campaign of the current President. Let me guess, you don't see him as partisan.

Because "partisanship" wasn't the claim that you asserted was "idiotic" and "ironic".

The claim was "psychotically asshole-ish". I've yet to see a refutation of that assertion. Hence my insertion of the difficulty factor. Feel free to refute it as to any of the candidates, or those voting for them.

It should be hilarious.

halfof33: halB: This appeals court would have 3 judges sitting, but probably only one judge was hearing this motion. If it comes to an order to show cause (contempt hearing) they could ask for the 3 judges to preside over it. And those other two would be more likely to restrain this one judge.

What motion? There is no motion, there is only an Order.

Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

That is, if you're finished having your stroke.

halB: imontheinternet:
This is scary ...

Yeah i don't think a sitting President has ever attacke dthe Supreme court in this way. Oh, wait....

Ronald Reagan ... campaigning in Birmingham, Ala., Thursday, blasted the court's most recent abortion ruling as "an abuse of power as bad as the transgression of Watergate and the bribery on Capitol Hill." ...

All the pearl clutching by the right wing is pretty rich considering their history. Bunch of hypocritical liars.

I_C_Weener: qorkfiend: How do you inject cost control into something that has no inherent cost controls without having it look like rationing? The people who can control costs - the doctors and patients - are the ones least interested in doing so.

Except when they are. (new window))

A request from a medical panel for doctors to make certain suggestions to patients is not equivalent to industry-wide cost controls.

themeaningoflifeisnot: It's absolutely bizarre that a Court of Appeals judge would interject a President's remarks that are not part of the record of the case into oral argument.

Talk about being political.

Mostly that. The icing is that it appears to be a mis-quotation.jigger: I can't tell if this is a stupid statement or a scary statement.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.

WTF? If Congress exceeds its powers it should be reigned in by somebody. If that's the duty of the courts, then they've been asleep at the wheel for the past 100 years or so.

It's neither stupid nor scary. It's completely accurate. Duly elected officials, representing their respective constituencies craft and vote on legislature which has to be signed by the executive. The Supreme Court, made of 9 justices, are the final say in that law if that law is challenged and the case is accepted by the bench.

At this point, there are 9 people, unelected, unbeholden to political and partisan realities (ostensibly anyway) who have a fundamental choice.

1. Assume that the process works. Review the law in terms of only its constitutionality and 99.9999% of the time, the law will pass. Congress, despite itself, isn't that dumb. They tend to not craft blatantly unconstitutional bills. The constitution however has some... flexibility. So many large laws can be simultaneously (and convincingly) argued to be both completely constitutional and legal, as well as completely unconstitutional and illegal. Really, it's amazing.

2. Assume the process doesn't work at all. Review the law in terms of it's entire body. Scrutinize with a fine-toothed comb looking for reasons it can't be implemented, or enforced, or precedents it would set, or constitutional ambiguity...

2 is not their job.
1 is their job.

This crossed your desk in the SCotUS because of some kind of challenge, hear the challenge and address the challenge. Erring from this narrow legal path in any way is almost guaranteed to be partisan, or at least politically motivated, which is why they aren't farking elected in the first place.

The president's point was phenomenally well made, even for him. It doesn't undermine their authority, but at a moment when the entire country was just starting to really talk about the process of judicial review, he interjected that very truthful observation about the system.

Deucednuisance: badaboom: Blaming partisanship on the OTHER guys. "Can't YOU see how unreasonable YOU are?". You don't agree with me therefore you are partisan.

OK, let's try again.

In what way was the statement counter-factual?

And you're certainly welcome to address the difficulty factor that you ignored last go `round.

badaboom: And your own statement is partisan. Why shouldn't it include the partisan campaign of the current President. Let me guess, you don't see him as partisan.

Because "partisanship" wasn't the claim that you asserted was "idiotic" and "ironic".

The claim was "psychotically asshole-ish". I've yet to see a refutation of that assertion. Hence my insertion of the difficulty factor. Feel free to refute it as to any of the candidates, or those voting for them.

It should be hilarious.

Yeah, you left out the Republican part. The statement, to summarize, was that things suck in the judiciary now because the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans are partisan.

But thanks for playing.

Precedent is ineligible. There is no proof of its long form birth certificate.

cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?