Posted on 04/02/2012 12:46:07 PM PDT by Deo volente
President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ummm, white house reporters want to remain white house reporters. We all know this and why Il Douche doesn’t get this question.
FALSE! The ER has only to stabilize a life threatening condition. They are not required to treat beyond that. If there is no such condition in the first place, and no insurance, the patient can be, and often is, turned away.
I wouldn’t say I am encouraged, but I am definitely a bit surprised. You’d think that Barry’s handlers would have warned him about his low ratings with the Supreme Court right now.
After ragging on them during the State of the Union Address to the cheers and jeers of Congress — something that was universally agreed to be bad tactics — issuing them a “warning” is going to stick in their collective throats like a sideways chicken bone.
When the dust settles from this, he might have Sotomayor and Kagan, but he runs a strong risk of losing Ginsberg who is at an age where she probably is somewhat intolerant of under-educated whippersnappers telling her what to do.
If any of the Liberal Justices vote against it, he’s cooked. The best he can hope for at this stage is a five/four ideological split.
What’s frightening is the number of question marks in the responses to this post.
And I’m warning the pipsqueak in the white house that there is such a thing as a separation of powers for a reason and he’d better learn to deal with it
I bet you every one of those “unelected” Supreme Court members is a natural born citizen.
I wonder how many people in this country are having the same thoughts I am?
It already is...that's why it is a "living document." Or, "deeply flawed." --
“African-Americans were not -- first of all they weren’t African-Americans -- the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a ‘nagging problem’ in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
“And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro.
---
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro.
Well, the USSC has no army, so they have no power. This is what we heard over the weekend.
As some may recall, obamma complained earlier that he could so much more if congress would not get in his way.
Now this. What is obamma up to?
It’s called Checks and Balances President Doofus.
He really has no respect for the Constitution at all... UGH!!
"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," Obama said.
This is the Rueter's version:
"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," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.
Initially, I thought that Obama today and Biden on Sunday were expressing confidence that the law would be upheld because they had received some leak from the court on the results of the vote on Friday.
I still believe that the WH received some feedback on the vote, but now I think their remarks are meant to put pressure on the court, not defend a decision they have made. Why? The word "ultimately" gives some clue that Obama is trying to pressure a decision to go his way that otherwise would not. I hope that Rueters is providing the correct language. And I find it odd that Politico, Fox, and others would leave that key word out.
True. It’s always been difficult to combat shamelessness.
Every demoncRat despise the Constitution
Regarding the first point, that the Framers did not consider black people, that is just bad history. They did. They were faced with the problem of getting this piece of paper approved. I am not a great history person, but they did do a pretty good job of paving the way for what they must have seen as a future battle on this issue. They omitted “property,” for one thing, although they certainly believed in property, since at that time slaves were “property.” They did not want to enshrine that institution. Many other facts and clues could be supplied by knowedgeable freepers, I’m sure. I am not making excuses for the Founders.
The second issue was carefully explained to me by freepers, in person, soon after I became active on FR. I can’t remember who these people were who instructed me on negative vs. positive rights, but I am grateful to them and to all the other people who took me in hand as a former “Democrat” (it was for practical reasons) who lived in a very blue area of a blue state. I think I even called the Constitution a living document at one point.
Meaning my ideas on the Constitution were all screwed up, as those of many others still are.
Hard to understand that our very existence as a Republic depends on that old piece of paper, but so it does.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Congress passed EMTALA to combat the practice of “patient dumping,” i.e., refusal to treat people because of inability to pay or insufficient insurance, or transferring or discharging emergency patients on the basis of high anticipated diagnosis and treatment costs. The law applies when an individual with a medical emergency “and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition.” It does not matter whether the condition is visible to others, or is simply stated by the patient with no external evidence.
An emergency medical condition is defined as “a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual’s health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs.” For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.
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,” Obama said.
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):
1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158
1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935
1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222
1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224
Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315
Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224
Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_laws_has_the_US_Supreme_Court_declared_unconstitutional
Strong Majority my ass !!! IIRC, the vote in the House was 219-212, or about 50.3% !!!
I agree with your initial reaction as well. Some Freepers are too paranoid and cynical. If Obdumbo had some secret midnight call from his special buddy on SCOTUS and it was good news for his healthcare bill there’s noway he’d publicly be calling the members of this court “unelected” in a threatening way, as if they have no right to strike down his flopcare bill.
If he knows it was upheld I would think he’d praise the Supremes and sound less angry.
WHY does anyone listen to this loser???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.