halfof33: htotheova: Or we could read the actual submission to the judge.

oh my gosh they responded?? But I was told quite clearly in this thread that:

"And he had no right to do so, that's all. The President's remarks had nothing to do with the case before the 5th Circuit Court and thus the justice had no business ordering counsel to do anything regarding them."

Well maybe they explained that in the letter. Further, I was also told that the order regarding the supplemental letter was part of the GREATEST risk this country has ever faced.

Holder pissed on the judges leg by not even mentioning the president's comments, like the crybaby judge specifically ordered. Let's see if the Good Ol' Boy takes the bait again.

SlothB77: HotWingConspiracy: SlothB77: is this the thread where we say a bill that was passed with 0 republican votes in either the house or senate and 34 democrats voted against it was passed by a strong majority?

Sure, why not? 1% point wins are enough to declare you've earned a mandate now.

A vote that was rushed through on xmas eve so that it was completed before Scott Brown took over Ted Kennedy's seat. They knew Brown would vote against it, so they had to get the vote completed before he was eligible to vote on it.

I know, it was brilliant.

And now polls show as much as 70% of the american public is against this bill.

LOL

Corvus: HeWhoHasNoName: B) The 5th circuit is hearing a separate challenge to the ACA currently,

ACA? what is that? The judge was talking about the law "Obamacare"?

Why would he use non-legal terminology? Can you guess.

Because "Obamacare", a more fitting term for that piece of crap statist power-grab of a statute, tends to get the frothing socialists riled up and make constructive debate impossible once their brains shut off.

Smith: I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect- and I'm sure you've heard about them - that it's somehow for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed. . .

Late to the thread, but wasn't Obama just reminding people that conservatives have been the ones complaining about judicial activism for a long time?

"I 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."

Corvus: The judge didn't have the right to do so. But it was in his POWER to do so. Those are not the same thing.

He had the power to do so, but not the right. Gotcha!

HotWingConspiracy: Holder pissed on the judges leg by not even mentioning the president's comments, like the crybaby judge specifically ordered. Let's see if the Good Ol' Boy takes the bait again.

Except where he did. Cool reading comprehension, sport.

Flab: HeWhoHasNoName: C) Obama is running his mouth having a hissy fit because Kagan leaked the initial vote results on the ACA back to him and he lost. Not by a 5-4 margin, either. The whole thing is coming down and even Justices he counted on as being "his" told him to take that piece of crap and stuff it back up his ass where it came from.

Link?

Looks like that's the latest wharrgarbl from Freerepublic et al.

On the one hand, Toobin is entirely correct that this is a judicial hissy fit by a partisan hack. On the other hand, I partly blame Toobin for redefining what "judicial activisim" really means. Until 10-15 years ago it was always understood to mean courts interpreting the Constitution to reflect their personal beliefs and values, notwithstanding the absence of language actually found there, and overturning laws accordingly. Toobin is as responsible as anyone for hammering home the idea that it refers to courts overturning the laws enacted by elected legislatures in general, which just happens to be something the conservative wing of SCOTUS has been doing. It's been repeated enough times that it has become a talking point. The whole business about how "unelected judges" should defer to the will of legislatures is and always has been wrong-headed, and the president's comment was indeed ill-advised.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Wow. If you can't see that the DOJ had to respond to the judge's order even though that order was ridiculous, you're missing some chromosomes.

How's the sarcasm meter, porkchop? Broken again?

Ridiculous, huh? Because never before has a court asked the DOJ for supplemental briefing on an issue:

Link (new window)

halfof33: themeaningoflifeisnot: Wow. If you can't see that the DOJ had to respond to the judge's order even though that order was ridiculous, you're missing some chromosomes.

How's the sarcasm meter, porkchop? Broken again?

Ridiculous, huh? Because never before has a court asked the DOJ for supplemental briefing on an issue:

Link (new window)

Huh, can't link to google scholar:us v. dickerson, 166 f. 3d 667 - court of appeals, 4th circuit 1999:

halfof33: HotWingConspiracy: Holder pissed on the judges leg by not even mentioning the president's comments, like the crybaby judge specifically ordered. Let's see if the Good Ol' Boy takes the bait again.

Except where he did. Cool reading comprehension, sport.

"The president's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein," Holder wrote."

That's about it. Holder just stated the obvious. The judge wanted a little thesis paper or something.

Smith took the bait and looks pretty damn petty for it.

Corvus: Yep. Good you learned.

People often have the power to do things. That doesn't mean they should. It's called not being a prick. Maybe one day you'll understand it.

I love how you ignored my example:
Could a cop only pull over black people? Do you think it's ok if a cop does that?

But just keep ignoring that.

Wow, you don't know the difference bewteen "a right" and "being right" a/k/a being correct. That is amazing.... Wow.

Anyway, lets take your little example, shall we: A cop has the right a/k/a power to pull over traffic offenders. It is not right a/k/a correct for the cop to discriminate in doing so.

Uh good luck with sixth grade, buddy.

HotWingConspiracy

karnal: HotWingConspiracy

halfof33: HotWingConspiracy: I'm part of the final solution.

Fixed that for you.

/man, people are out of farking control around here lately

I'd prefer humiliation over killing.


You need to brush up on your skills then.

I'm an excellent killer.

Buzz killer, maybe.

Yes, Jeffery Tubin is an expert....at putting things in his butt.

karnal: HotWingConspiracy

karnal: HotWingConspiracy

halfof33: HotWingConspiracy: I'm part of the final solution.

Fixed that for you.

/man, people are out of farking control around here lately

I'd prefer humiliation over killing.


You need to brush up on your skills then.

I'm an excellent killer.

Buzz killer, maybe.

You were buzzing on this thread before I got here? You sound like a blast.

If the judiciary has a shred of credibility remaining, they should disbar the judge for playing politics from the bench. The appearance of impropriety is devastating. And at the least, now there is a good argument to be made later on that the ruling issued by this court was based not on facts, but on political opinion.

What's really going to make me laugh is the next time we have a Republican president when some Democrat judge does the same damn things. Can't wait to hear the howls of outrage then.

MasterThief: Seriously, he didn't really think an assertion of "it's interstate commerce because we say so" at the SCOTUS was going to pass, did he?

Why not? It worked for Scalia in Gonzalez v. Raich

Super Chronic: On the one hand, Toobin is entirely correct that this is a judicial hissy fit by a partisan hack. On the other hand, I partly blame Toobin for redefining what "judicial activisim" really means. Until 10-15 years ago it was always understood to mean courts interpreting the Constitution to reflect their personal beliefs and values, notwithstanding the absence of language actually found there, and overturning laws accordingly. Toobin is as responsible as anyone for hammering home the idea that it refers to courts overturning the laws enacted by elected legislatures in general, which just happens to be something the conservative wing of SCOTUS has been doing. It's been repeated enough times that it has become a talking point. The whole business about how "unelected judges" should defer to the will of legislatures is and always has been wrong-headed, and the president's comment was indeed ill-advised.

I don't get it. The president reminds conservatives that they've been complaining about "unelected judges" for decades, and conservatives are going crazy because he used the word "unelected" followed by the word "judges" when he described what they've been complaining about.

Corvus: HeWhoHasNoName: Corvus: HeWhoHasNoName: B) The 5th circuit is hearing a separate challenge to the ACA currently,

ACA? what is that? The judge was talking about the law "Obamacare"?

Why would he use non-legal terminology? Can you guess.

Because "Obamacare", a more fitting term for that piece of crap statist power-grab of a statute, tends to get the frothing socialists riled up and make constructive debate impossible once their brains shut off.

Project much?

Oh yeah that doesn't sound biased at all. You seem the one to be doing the name calling and frothing.

So then you are saying the Judge was calling it "Obamacare" to make "socialists riled up"? Then you are admitting it was not done for legal reasons but just to make others angry.

Thanks for admitting it, I was right!

Just keep thinking that, little boy. I've been here long enough to know a fool when one opens his mouth... you're another in a long line of thousands. You're going to get a very big lump of coal just prior to Christmas, if SCOTUS keeps to schedule.

HeWhoHasNoName: Corvus: HeWhoHasNoName: B) The 5th circuit is hearing a separate challenge to the ACA currently,

ACA? what is that? The judge was talking about the law "Obamacare"?

Why would he use non-legal terminology? Can you guess.

Because "Obamacare", a more fitting term for that piece of crap statist power-grab of a statute, tends to get the frothing socialists riled up and make constructive debate impossible once their brains shut off.

Because a term that implies that "ObamaCares" is a great way to destroy him. Well done.

The term "ObamaCare" is only used by people who farking HATE the first part of the word, and it only works on the same farking people.

We don't like the term because it's ignoring someone very important. It's wrong to attribute something to the one person while ignoring the hard work done by someone else...it's practically third-party plagarism. It's like saying "Eight Days a Week" was solely written by Paul McCartney.

You should call it Romney/ObamaCare, since it was based on the presumptive GOP nominee's previous work. Perhaps "RobamaCare" would work - we're open to suggestions.

Obama said something dumb and I'm quite certain he's aware of the court's authority.

The judge did something dumb and is quite aware Obama understands the court's authority.

Did I sum that up well enough?

GED Lawyer: The issue raised by the president is whether the court has authority to overturn an act of congress. The president claimed that there was no precedent for the court to do that.

FTFA:

"I continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," he said during a White House news conference. "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. 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."/i>

Ctrl-F for "precedent" - not found.

Ctrl-F for "authority" - not found.

rufus-t-firefly: GED Lawyer: The issue raised by the president is whether the court has authority to overturn an act of congress. The president claimed that there was no precedent for the court to do that.

FTFA:

"I continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," he said during a White House news conference. "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. 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."/i>

Ctrl-F for "precedent" - not found.

Ctrl-F for "authority" - not found.

Looks like your Ctrl-f is busted

HotWingConspiracy

karnal: HotWingConspiracy

karnal: HotWingConspiracy

halfof33: HotWingConspiracy: I'm part of the final solution.

Fixed that for you.

/man, people are out of farking control around here lately

I'd prefer humiliation over killing.


You need to brush up on your skills then.

I'm an excellent killer.

Buzz killer, maybe.

You were buzzing on this thread before I got here? You sound like a blast.


It's the only way to fark...

halfof33: htotheova: Or we could read the actual submission to the judge.

oh my gosh they responded?? But I was told quite clearly in this thread that:

"And he had no right to do so, that's all. The President's remarks had nothing to do with the case before the 5th Circuit Court and thus the justice had no business ordering counsel to do anything regarding them."

Well maybe they explained that in the letter. Further, I was also told that the order regarding the supplemental letter was part of the GREATEST risk this country has ever faced.

When a cop tries to search your car without probable cause or a warrant, should you resist him? Or is it best to just call your lawyer?

Also, I'm gonna need a citation for that bolded bit.

halfof33: rufus-t-firefly: GED Lawyer: The issue raised by the president is whether the court has authority to overturn an act of congress. The president claimed that there was no precedent for the court to do that.

FTFA:

"I continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," he said during a White House news conference. "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. 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."/i>

Ctrl-F for "precedent" - not found.

Ctrl-F for "authority" - not found.

Looks like your Ctrl-f is busted

Perhaps I put a space before/after "precedent."

"An unprecedented step" isn't quite the same a "without judicial precedent," numbnuts. He isn't questioning the court's power to overturn the law - he's just saying that he's confident they won't do it.

rufus-t-firefly: When a cop tries to search your car without probable cause or a warrant, should you resist him? Or is it best to just call your lawyer?

Also, I'm gonna need a citation for that bolded bit.

face palm.... go back, reread the thread.... fix your control f and your sarcasm meter.

rufus-t-firefly: halfof33: rufus-t-firefly: GED Lawyer: The issue raised by the president is whether the court has authority to overturn an act of congress. The president claimed that there was no precedent for the court to do that.

FTFA:

"I continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," he said during a White House news conference. "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. 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."/i>

Ctrl-F for "precedent" - not found.

Ctrl-F for "authority" - not found.

Looks like your Ctrl-f is busted

Perhaps I put a space before/after "precedent."

"An unprecedented step" isn't quite the same a "without judicial precedent," numbnuts. He isn't questioning the court's power to overturn the law - he's just saying that he's confident they won't do it.

Regardless of how you look at it, his use of the word 'unprecedented' there was literally the single stupidest thing he's said, in addition to being wrong.

HighOnCraic: Super Chronic: On the one hand, Toobin is entirely correct that this is a judicial hissy fit by a partisan hack.

I don't get it. The president reminds conservatives that they've been complaining about "unelected judges" for decades, and conservatives are going crazy because he used the word "unelected" followed by the word "judges" when he described what they've been complaining about.

Of course they have a trademark on the phrase "un-elected judges"

HeWhoHasNoName: His attempts at publicly attacking the credibility and legitimacy of the Supreme Court in this manner are horribly unpresidential. Even Clinton and Bush had more class and decorum than this.

Denouncing "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" is attacking the credibility and legitimacy of the court. Thus, since you believe this is "unpresidential," you should agree that all conservatives are not worthy of the presidency.

Here's George W. Bush attacking the credibility and legitimacy of our courts. (new window)

the_geek: Obama said something dumb and I'm quite certain he's aware of the court's authority.

The judge did something dumb and is quite aware Obama understands the court's authority.

Did I sum that up well enough?

Try this on for size:

The President told the judiciary their (now expected?) exercise of power is antidemocratic and suggested that ruininig his signature achievement would be illegitimate.

The judge called his bluff.

I would note that the discussion of this issue misses a big point: Which would be worse, for the court to hold the ACA unconstitutional because it found the individual mandate to exceed the Constitutionally-granted powers of Congress, or to hold the ACA constitutional because it's the signature achievement of the current administration, passed by a "strong majority" (of 7?) of Congress?

Only one choice.