qorkfiend: Salt Lick Steady: qorkfiend: That would be why I corrected myself less than 2 minutes later. Reading is hard!

Sorry if I don't refresh constantly to ensure that you come back to correct colossally ignorant statements.

You should be.

I know, but my self-flagellation ceremony takes both internet hands.

RDixon: Official Transcript

Straight from the horses mouth.

From your link
And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

Is this what I'm supposed to align my outrage machine with? I just need to make sure it's finely tuned.

I need some talking points too. So far I'm going with "he's black", Arugula and teleprompter.

thamike: Twatface judge said "Obamacare" twice.

Did you miss the memo where Obama stated everyone could call it obamacare?

mitchcumstein1: Scerpes: mitchcumstein1: He was asked his opinion and he gave it. What's he supposed to do?

It is well within their rights, and I have no issue with them reversing something...if it's based on the law, and not their own political beliefs. The best judges and lawyers I have ever met can easily argue the complete opposite of their political views if they see the legality in them.

That's wonderful in theory. However, their political beliefs shape their view of the law.

Silly me, I thought it was reason and logic.

In a perfect world, it's perfectly reasonable and logical. In reality, politics shapes judges' views of the law even before they become judges.

someonelse: Mentat: Obama's original comment was sloppy and should have been worded better, but the judge's response could not have proven the President's point any better.

Which makes me wonder if the original comment wasn't purely meant to troll the right wing to begin with, in order to goad them into saying spectacularly ridiculous stuff like this. I'm going to choose to believe that's the reason, because it's hilarious.

Lol. I said this completely ridiculous statement to get you to say something ridiculous! God liberal logic is retarded.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Scerpes: themeaningoflifeisnot: Kinda? He's clearly being an ass, very inappropriate and obviously biased.

That's what happens when presidents take on the judiciary. It tends to piss off judges.

No, it's really not what happens. This is a very unusual situation. Federal appeals court judges do not normally ask the DOJ to defend statements by a president in a press conference that has not previously been part of the appellate record for some reason germane to the legal dispute before the court.


When you have one party making statements outside of the court that call into question the very authority of the court, yeah...it pisses judges off.

Sure it does. But judges rarely respond to any criticisms, either publicly outside of court or during argument of a case.

If it affects the case, they absolutely will respond. Here, the individual responsible for setting the government's policy called into question the ability of the courts to overturn the case that judge was hearing. He handled it poorly, but it was relevant to the case.

MyRandomName: thamike: Twatface judge said "Obamacare" twice.

Did you miss the memo where Obama stated everyone could call it obamacare?

He said people can call it Obamacares. Presumably because it's more European socialist lingo like "maths".

Fart_Machine: Pro Zack: 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.

Did you burn a few strawmen to keep warm?

I have a bunch left over from this winter, because of global warming.

so I send them to you.

cameroncrazy1984: relcec: 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.

the judge is being an asshole, but you seem to predicate your decision about whether the judge is being an asshole on whether obama said something stupid (which he did, but you intentionally left out part out), and that means you're an asshole too.

"take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

FTA:

"Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care."

Would it not? How is that stupid?

Commerce clause powers have been overturned in the last 10 years, hardly unprecedented. Obama then brought up lochner as an example of commerce clause when lochner discussed due process, not commerce. Obama did not offer an intelligent statement, why are liberals so reticent to admit that.

halfof33
lulz

"Become"? What is it farking 1789?

You're going to pretend that the courts have always been so hyperpartisan? I think that's a hard one to prove. For example, Brown v. Board of Education was a 9-0 decision. There was substantial debate with the SCOTUS as some members were not initially in favor of Brown for various reasons, but ultimately a unanimous decision was reached. Partisanship was put aside.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------
hillbillypharmacist Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-04 09:35:03 AM


"...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.

Gee, too bad that isn't the only thing President Constitution said. You are wilfully being obtuse.

"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example," he said. "And I'm pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step."

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

"unprecedented?" "extraordinary?" Hardly. What Obama said was both wrong and unpresidential. For someone who claims to be a Constitutional expert, he damned well should have a little more respect for SCOTUS.

Edsel: For the record, here was Obama's explanation of his initial comments that pissed off the right-wing judge:

"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, Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has."

The burden to overturn is never on plantiffs. The burden is on congress to.demonstrate where a laws authorization originates. Again Obama says something stupid.

Pro Zack: Fart_Machine: Pro Zack: 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.

Did you burn a few strawmen to keep warm?

I have a bunch left over from this winter, because of global warming.

so I send them to you.

Sorry, nobody believes in anthropogenic global strawmen.

Scerpes: mitchcumstein1: Scerpes: mitchcumstein1: He was asked his opinion and he gave it. What's he supposed to do?

It is well within their rights, and I have no issue with them reversing something...if it's based on the law, and not their own political beliefs. The best judges and lawyers I have ever met can easily argue the complete opposite of their political views if they see the legality in them.

That's wonderful in theory. However, their political beliefs shape their view of the law.

Silly me, I thought it was reason and logic.

In a perfect world, it's perfectly reasonable and logical. In reality, politics shapes judges' views of the law even before they become judges.

One might even argue that a judge's political views are taken into consideration when their appointment is under discussion.

patrick767: badaboom
Link (new window)

What's your point? Ever heard of embracing the term that the other side uses as a pejorative? It doesn't change the fact that it's a loaded word created by the right wing. A federal judge has absolutely no business using it in court.

But you make an assumption is that the use of the word by the justice could only be because they are partisan. Like it or not, most people don't know the real name of the act and Obamacare is what is used in most discourse.

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.

... = redacted presidential assholery.

patrick767: You're going to pretend that the courts have always been so hyperpartisan? I think that's a hard one to prove. For example, Brown v. Board of Education was a 9-0 decision. There was substantial debate with the SCOTUS as some members were not initially in favor of Brown for various reasons, but ultimately a unanimous decision was reached. Partisanship was put aside.

Every time Obama calls out the Supreme Court in public, he's politicizing the Court. A large part of this is his doing.

Moreover, the 4 liberal members of the court are more than welcome to join the rest of the court in a unanimous opinion, if they see fit.

mitchcumstein1: In a perfect world, it's perfectly reasonable and logical. In reality, politics shapes judges' views of the law even before they become judges.

I know, I just don't remember it being this overt. I'm sure it was, I just don't remember it.


When politicians start calling out judges, you can't really just expect them to quietly sit back and take it.

badaboom: Like it or not, most people don't know the real name of the act and Obamacare is what is used in most discourse.

Are you in fact arguing that the JUDGE reviewing portions of the law didn't know the real name of the act?

Mentat: Scerpes: When you have one party making statements outside of the court that call into question the very authority of the court, yeah...it pisses judges off.

So what? Judges are appointed for life specifically so that they are protected from finger-wagging Presidents or Congressmen who suggest they should be arrested for activism. But again, Judge Smith didn't seem to have a problem with Republican Congressmen over the past ten years screaming bloody murder about activist judges and he seemed to have no problem with Newt Gingrich saying on the campaign trail that liberal judges should be removed from the bench, but one comment from a Democratic President requires a DOJ attorney to get lectured and assigned homework?

For the record, Gingrich is an asshole and he was wrong if he said that.

It's not just one comment. It's the attitude of this President that he's going to call out judges. They're not going to sit quietly by if they have a chance to take a shot back.

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: What did he "actually say" then?

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Has the court overturned a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress in the last, oh, 100 years that regulated interstate commerce?

No?

Then it's unprecedented.

Do you mean besides the 6 out of 8 major components of the new deal that were struck down while FDR was in office? besides those? yeah, there were others.

sprawl15: 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.

The health insurance industry is entirely subordinate to the health care industry, and the former would cease to exist without the latter. So if that's the standard, then it shouldn't be controversial that a mandate to regulate the latter might extend to the former as well.

Scerpes: It's not just one comment. It's the attitude of this President that he's going to call out judges. They're not going to sit quietly by if they have a chance to take a shot back.

It is a string of pussy Conservative judges whining about the "attacks" on them. The whole "attitude" thing is just pablum bullshiat. As was stated, the GOP has, for years, been incredibly hostile and wasted no opportunities to call out judges who are seen as "activist" in their eyes, yet the GOP has (and continues to have) been given pretty much zero flack for it.

More of the GOP self-made martyr syndrome in play. They seem to do nothing but take whatever they can in a context that makes them a victim, with this whole recent dust-up yet another shining example in a cavalcade of being an eternal victim.

We can all breathe a sigh of relief....................


Pelosi predicts 6-3 victory for health law

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday predicted the Supreme Court will uphold the health care law on a 6-3 vote, saying she and her colleagues "wrote the bill in an ironclad way."

"I'm predicting 6-3 in favor," Mrs. Pelosi told the Paley Center for Media. "We shall see. It's a lesson in civics, and I respect it."

She didn't say which six justices she thought would uphold the law.

badaboom
But you make an assumption is that the use of the word by the justice could only be because they are partisan. Like it or not, most people don't know the real name of the act and Obamacare is what is used in most discourse.


Yes, I think the judge knows what the correct term for "Obamacare" is. If he doesn't, he's a moron of epic proportions and has no business hearing a case about the law. His use of the Republican pejorative, not to mention his ridiculous order, irrelevant order described in TFA show conclusively that he's a partisan hack.

As for the Obama administration embracing the term "Obamacare", google it. This happened very recently and is a calculated political decision to claim what's been used as a negative term for the last couple years. There are a number of articles about it. Here's one. (new window)

Scerpes
Every time Obama calls out the Supreme Court in public, he's politicizing the Court. A large part of this is his doing.

Bullshiat. The SCOTUS had become hyperpartisan well before Obama said a word. Their job is to be above the fray even when politicians talk about them. You cry about Obama "calling them out" and ignore years and years of GOP politicians whining about "activist judges". Give me a farking break.

Moreover, the 4 liberal members of the court are more than welcome to join the rest of the court in a unanimous opinion, if they see fit.

And the conservative members of the court are more than welcome to join the supposedly liberal members in a unanimous opinion. What's your point? It's almost certainly not going to happen.

Biological Ali: The health insurance industry is entirely subordinate to the health care industry, and the former would cease to exist without the latter.

Which is irrelevant to people without health insurance.

Biological Ali: So if that's the standard, then it shouldn't be controversial that a mandate to regulate the latter might extend to the former as well.

Upthread:

sprawl15: Nobody's arguing that not buying insurance doesn't have an effect on interstate commerce, merely that not buying it is not in and of itself interstate commerce - and cannot be independently regulated - and that the chain of causality is too large without a theoretical limiting factor that nobody has yet managed to come up with.

badaboom: partisanship

No, that wasn't the point, at all. No matter how many times you say it.

Try again.

MyRandomName: The burden to overturn is never on plantiffs.(sic)

Um, Counselor, you realize that at anything above the trial level that there no "plaintiffs"? But at the trial level, it is always the plaintiffs that bring suit? To do things like, you know, overturn laws?

Run along, now.

I_C_Weener: On the other hand, if they have appellate jurisdiction as to "law" then they have the right to decide if the law is appropriate, right?

Before Marbury, no. The common law tradition allowed appellate judges to review the trial court's application of relevant statutes and judicial precedents, but not the fundamental validity of legislative acts. That's what made Marbury such an important case.

By the way, for those of you claiming that Obama's comments were beyond the pale, stuff it. Pretty much every president in history other than William Henry Harrison has openly tussled with the judicial branch in public - there's nothing unusual or improper about it. This judge is way, way out of line. If I were the U.S. Attorney supervising the lawyer appearing in this court, I would direct him or her to provide the judge with a brief outlining all the ways in which it is improper for an appellate judge to order a litigant to address a matter not of record in the case.

Wendy's Chili: Those without insurance push their costs onto those who do

You sound like you could use a tax break.

BeesNuts: 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-too ...

What are you doing posting this reasonable analysis on Fark? Go back to americasdebate.com, you... you rational moderate you.

Weaver95: I kind of expect judges to be more impartial or to at least show more self control while on the bench.

Yeah, its horrible if they stoop to the same level as Obama and call out people they dont agree with.

Frankly I consider what Obama says in his speeches to be mostly "marketing" rather than "policy." If he said "I'm going to ignore the courts and do whatever the frack I want." I don't think it should matter in the court until and unless he actually did that.

King Something: 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.

/thread

Bingo. I wonder if the judge's next demand will be for Obama's birth certificate.

Pro Zack: I am rubber, you are glue.

I guess the classics never go out of style.