Skip to comments.
Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare (Obama's trying to intimidate the SCOTUS)
reuters ^
| 4/2/2012
| Jeff Mason
Posted on 04/02/2012 2:41:10 PM PDT by tobyhill
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
To: Windflier
I was the incorrect one, not P.O.E.
I had read that. He/She was responding to me.
41
posted on
04/02/2012 3:31:37 PM PDT
by
allmost
To: tobyhill
This guy should have been impeached two years ago.
42
posted on
04/02/2012 3:34:51 PM PDT
by
Hattie
To: allmost
He had a great sinecure at the University of Chicago, “constitutional law lecturer” that he held for 12 years without publishing a single paper or article on any legal matter, let along constitutional law, a real academic prodigy, especially at a top drawer school like U of C.
To: allmost
I was the incorrect one, not P.O.E. I had read that. He/She was responding to me. Thanks for taking responsibility for your error, but P.O.E. also made the same mistake by echoing Mark Simone's echo of the liberal propagandists.
It's important that we counter all such false data wherever we find it. The crap self-perpetuates, even on our side. We simply shouldn't allow that.
44
posted on
04/02/2012 3:36:40 PM PDT
by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: demkicker
No doubt Kagan gave BO the bad news of what the vote was - which is why he's coming out trying to sway their ultimate decision. I'm just praying his insulting tactic will backfire ... You may recall Obama dissing the Supreme Court Justices before Congress and the American public in his annual State of the Union speech a couple of years ago. He doesn't have many admirers among those that sit on the US Supreme Court. This will only add insult to injury ... the Supremes are going to give it back to him in spades.
45
posted on
04/02/2012 3:40:23 PM PDT
by
BluH2o
To: libstripper
Sinecure, good word. Is that not our current POTUS as well?
46
posted on
04/02/2012 3:40:51 PM PDT
by
allmost
To: ExTxMarine
We’ve never actually seen proof that he was a “constitutional scholar”.
To: Windflier
Well said, but personal inflections cannot be determined afterward. Nor should they be. It was all me.
48
posted on
04/02/2012 3:45:01 PM PDT
by
allmost
To: freedumb2003; allmost; Windflier
I guess I should’ve said “supposedly” has any expertise. IMHO, everything he knows he learned in (muslim) kindergarten. And his hatred of traditional America and its values runs rampant across the spectrum.
In any event, he’s mostly a puppet. I’d love to see a thorough expose of who’s been moving him along all these decades. I’d guess it’s way more than just Soros and Ayers.
49
posted on
04/02/2012 3:48:20 PM PDT
by
P.O.E.
(Pray for America)
To: tobyhill
This is the second round. Remember the scotus speech?????
50
posted on
04/02/2012 3:48:43 PM PDT
by
pfflier
To: tobyhill
To: pfflier
Sorry, I got that all messed up. Should have read:
This is the second round. Remember the scotus jab at his state of the union speech?????
52
posted on
04/02/2012 3:51:03 PM PDT
by
pfflier
To: tobyhill
I think he already knows that he won. From Kagen or Sotomayor.
To: demkicker
Heres hoping the majority of Supremes wont take kindly to BOs Chicago Way of threatening aka his boot on their necks approachFour members of the SC would just kiss his butt. These four have no idea what the Constitutions means and are hard core socialists.
To: allmost
This guy was a community organizer which means rabble rouser. He is a first class crook. However he is smart and that makes him very dangerous.
55
posted on
04/02/2012 3:56:10 PM PDT
by
entropy12
(Every tax payer now owes $150,000 towards the national debt. Greek tragedy on the way here.)
To: allmost
personal inflections cannot be determined afterward. Nor should they be. It was all me. Perhaps the other poster neglected to italicize your statements, and they appeared to be their own. I went back and looked at their post, and I only responded to what looked like their comments.
56
posted on
04/02/2012 3:56:42 PM PDT
by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: dandiegirl
That is why I put it in quotes! LOL!
57
posted on
04/02/2012 3:59:30 PM PDT
by
ExTxMarine
(PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...
58
posted on
04/02/2012 4:02:21 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Windflier
Nevermind then ‘Windflier’. Better?
59
posted on
04/02/2012 4:04:54 PM PDT
by
allmost
To: deweyfrank
I think it's the opposite. I think he has gotten word that the Individual Mandate will be ruled unconstitutional but that the rest will stand. Obama will send his surrogates out there to downplay the effects of the Individual Mandate on the overall law but then claim victory on the rest such as penalizing companies $2,000 for not supplying insurance.
60
posted on
04/02/2012 4:06:34 PM PDT
by
tobyhill
(Fight Fire With Fire)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson