Grave damage? That is sick.
Really? The court may not command any armies, but armies are sworn to defend it. I seem to recall part of an oath I took upon entering the military...
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
Is this the Onion or Scott Ott?
“Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted. “
What!? How can it have been vetted when Pelosi admitted it had not even been read.
JF'n Kerry is THE poster boy for EVERYTHING that is wrong with the federal government.
YOU LIAR!
Kerry has no credibility, so now he’s playing elementary psychology on the supreme court justices. They should have laughed at both of them.
B-A-L-O-N-E-Y!!!
NOT FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF OUR NATION IS WHAT WILL DO DAMAGE TO OUR NATION.
Just reading the headline, I thought for a moment that the Dems had issued a bomb threat to SCOTUS.
“Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted.”
Isn’t this the same guy who assured us earlier this month that North Korea has promised to honor its promises?
The United States needs four or five very simple medical reforms, none of which resemble Obamacare at all. The most major item needed is the elimination of lawsuits against hospitals and doctors and with that, the elimination of CYA medicine. Needed are a general fund to compensate victims for actual malpractice costs as well as a non-inbred tribunal to weed out malpractitioners, but the business of suing doctors and hospitals should end.
He might want to check that. A whole lot of us have pledged to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...
That sounds like the Dems. are making threats to the safety of the members of the court.
Is that a threat? (it probably is)
Good frickin’ grief. as my Father used to say “quit blowing smoke up my rear end!” I really never understood that but it sounds like a good response to this article.
so now precedent is the guideline for legislation, not the constitution? Sure, the multitude of precedent legislation is why this country has a bunch of empty suits in DC.
Rush mentioned this today....That it has to do with this ObamaCare case in front of the Supreme Court.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
|
Contents
[hide] |
Dred Scott
“The court commands no armies”
Hitler made a similar comment when he asked (rhetorically) how many divisions the Pope commands.
So what are the Democrats planning? Maybe simply ignore what the court rules? If they do, I can’t say that I would complain all that much - given the Court thinks they run the country, well ahead of the other branches.