This from yesterday, but I have not seen it posted. Interesting to hear Stretch Kerry and other Dems to respond. Imagine how stupid some like Ben Nelson will feel having this struck down after it ending thier career.
1 posted on
03/29/2012 1:50:12 PM PDT by
Sybeck1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: Sybeck1
Everybody learns in the first year of law school that the law thats challenged is presumed to be constitutional, Blumenthal said. That is a heavy burden for anyone challenging the constitutionality of a law to overcome. When in doubt, uphold the law. There is a lot of room for doubt here, and there is a lot of clear precedent that requires this court to uphold this law. Barf! What rubbish!! The RATS did everything they could to ram this down our throats, illegally using the reconcilation procedure, excluding the Republicans, and then now claim it is the most constitutionally protected bill ever put forth! The Rats are smoking weed!
62 posted on
03/29/2012 2:13:56 PM PDT by
rawhide
To: Sybeck1
To: Sybeck1
70 posted on
03/29/2012 2:18:50 PM PDT by
Lucky9teen
(Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
To: Sybeck1
The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.
READ: If the court doesn't rule the way we want, we don't have to obey the court.
71 posted on
03/29/2012 2:21:16 PM PDT by
rottndog
(Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
To: Sybeck1
After that shameful thing Obozo did during the last “State of the Union” speech where he made negative comments about the Court. I believe I’d be very careful about any challenges or implied threats to or about the Court. Be they Big Time judges, they are still human and can respond, in their own way, to what might be said or done!
72 posted on
03/29/2012 2:21:56 PM PDT by
cpa4you
(CPA4YOU)
To: Sybeck1
A handful of Senate Democrats sought to assure doubtful liberals that the Supreme Court justices arent ready to strike down their crowning achievement, standing before cameras and mics Wednesday in front of the court. One warned that doing so would ruin the courts credibility.Are these fools threatening the SCOTUS!!???
75 posted on
03/29/2012 2:24:26 PM PDT by
DustyMoment
(Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
To: Sybeck1
Wednesday, I posted the following. I noticed that Rush L. voiced similar concerns today. [Did he read my post?]
Dont bet the farm on it just so you can play MegaMillions.
As Rush said yesterday, be wary of the justices words and their possible actions.
They will be striking down the most major accomplishment of Obamas presidency, if they do.
I would be leary of thinking they would subject the first black president to such a humiliation. They will find some way to salvage a major part of the bill.
79 posted on
03/29/2012 2:25:52 PM PDT by
TomGuy
To: Sybeck1
I’ll bet ol’ obama is wishing that he hadn’t pissed the scrotums off in his state of the union address. Payback is a bitch and now it’s getting paid back...
.
83 posted on
03/29/2012 2:27:56 PM PDT by
flatfish
To: Sybeck1
"The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility." Sounds like Blumenthal is paraphrasing Stalin when he asked; "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
84 posted on
03/29/2012 2:29:25 PM PDT by
SunTzuWu
To: Sybeck1
Dems Warn Of Grave Damage To SCOTUS If Obamacare Is Struck Down Are they going to 'Breitbart' them? Maybe have Black Panthers put out 'Wanted - Dead or Alive" posters - with big rewards?
Or threaten their parents and families?
Or stick the 'oh so biased New York Times and Washington Post on them?
Spooooo many ways to be thuggy - so little time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFOmUXR080
86 posted on
03/29/2012 2:30:59 PM PDT by
GOPJ
(Democrat-Media Complex - buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
To: Sybeck1
The biggest detriment to the bill is in the one justice who asked why they should be the ones to go through the 2700 page bill and pick-and-choose what to keep and what to throw out.
That would seem to indicate that the justices don’t want that task.
[I hope they declare it, in its entirety, unconstitutional. Send it back to Congress. Let Nancy read it and find out what is in it.]
89 posted on
03/29/2012 2:33:21 PM PDT by
TomGuy
To: Sybeck1
I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress.Dude! The Senate dropped their own legislation and picked up the House version lock, stock and barrel without debate and passed it using a technicality. What rigor was involved here?
92 posted on
03/29/2012 2:34:19 PM PDT by
Tanniker Smith
(I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
To: Sybeck1
The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility."Wow. That's quite a statement. As a senior member of the Finance Committee, he said, I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress. We worked with some of the brightest, most thoughtful and experienced constitutional lawyers in order to make sure that the law was constitutional.
Yeah, that's what was being reported during the whole process. Nothing but "transparency" the whole way.
95 posted on
03/29/2012 2:36:01 PM PDT by
Future Snake Eater
(If we had a President, he'd look like Newt.)
To: Sybeck1
Well then from their view the Court already trashed it’s credibility two years ago with Citizens United.
So who cares?
To: Sybeck1
The SCOTUS was absolutely sacrosanct in the eyes of leftists during all those years it returned liberal decision after liberal decision. Now that they’re facing a possible significant loss, the Left is threatening it with quotes from Joseph Stalin: “How many divisions has the SCOTUS? Not enough to prevent us kicking their butts if they rule against us.”
To: Sybeck1
The 4 liberal judges don’t need marching orders from the Libs in Congress ,, they never had any intentions of killing 0bamaScare .
100 posted on
03/29/2012 2:39:09 PM PDT by
Lionheartusa1
(-: Socialism is the equal distribution of misery :-)
To: Sybeck1
The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.
Is this not an out and out threat?
101 posted on
03/29/2012 2:40:16 PM PDT by
bluecat6
( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
To: Sybeck1
What are the odds obama will go “Andrew Jackson” on the Court?
If he did, would MSM and both Houses Of Congress react at all?
I have wondered if that was a real possibility. Could Obama and the left force a Constitutional crisis as a way to sow more turmoil?
To: Sybeck1
are they threatening the supreme court?!
107 posted on
03/29/2012 2:47:16 PM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Sybeck1
For the first time I’ve really just considered that a civil war, or succession may actually be in the near future.
108 posted on
03/29/2012 2:49:03 PM PDT by
VanDeKoik
(If case you are wondering, I'm supporting Newt.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson