Posted on 04/03/2012 12:43:05 PM PDT by Nachum
President Obama softened his rhetoric Tuesday about the possibility of a Supreme Court decision striking down his healthcare reform law, after Republicans accused him of “threatening” the high court. (Snip) Obama said Tuesday that he would respect the court’s opinion, but still believes the justices should not overturn the healthcare law. “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I think it has to do with the fact that the ONLY thing Zero has done IS the health care law! And even his supporters know it!
I asked a friend who is a supporter of his to answer me one question: Without using the words Republican, Tea Party or health care, explain why you are voting for Obama in November. The response was hilarious!!
And he has until June to flip 'em all. Tough situation when facing total corruption. It would take a healthy dose of honesty and integrity to refuse a several million dollar bribe, or death threats to family and friends. Obama's got the cash for it too. If we suddenly see some SC judges "retiring", or reversing opinions, we'll know it's time.
im sure the justices that vote to overturn this will end up Breitbart’d
I don't think it is funny at all. His recent wording change through a martial law order, gives him exactly that power. Call me a paranoid nutcase, but in him changing the language from emergency to national need gives him the power to enact a single payer system should the SCOTUS strike down his precious unread 0bamacare.
My bad. I didn't mean funny as in "HAHA", but funny as in twisted, strange.
You are correct, though. He will use every tool as his disposal to accomplish his goal of destroying us as a country.
Or he's reacting to the 5th District COA calling him out on his earlier remarks.
Of course mb will say this after being confronted. Looks like bad boi got called on his wolf ticket.
I think they (the Justices) are intimidated by him, Roberts included. Roberts swore him in, while literally choking on it.
They may see their duty, fully within the proper scope of their constitutional role, as further considering the impact of the statute on the balance of power between the tri-partite branches of the federal system.
_______________________________________________________
Yes, and also I wonder if the SCOTUS may consider just how this rotten sausage was made: by locking one party out; by ignoring the very public opposition to it; and by passing it at midnight on Christmas Eve. Never has there been such deception, payoff and corruption in the passing of a bill that I know of. I hope the judges are concerned with that aspect.
Yes, and also I wonder if the SCOTUS may consider just how this rotten sausage was made: by locking one party out; by ignoring the very public opposition to it; and by passing it at midnight on Christmas Eve. Never has there been such deception, payoff and corruption in the passing of a bill that I know of. I hope the judges are concerned with that aspect.
_____________________________________________
Very good point. The lawlessness of the administration and the Democrats in getting the thing done, the wanton disregard for the will of the people certainly undermines their argument and may lend weight to concerns for checks and balances. I wonder why these issues do not appear to have been argued by the Appellants in the Obamacare case. As an attorney for over 20 years, my best guess is that attorneys usually appreciate that judges at all levels are very reluctant to overturn legislative acts based on procedure. To begin with, judicial review of legislation always has a presumption of validity of the statute, ordinance, regulation as a starting point. You might say the bias is built in. It could be argued that a bias towards deference to legislative acts is, itself a judicial expression of regard for the separation of powers.
- He’s going [illegally] implement much of the [unconstitutional] law anyway and congress will do nothing
- He will issue [illegal] executive orders implementing portions of the law. Again, congress will abdicate its Constitutional responsibility and do nothing.
A SCOTUS ruling against this law (the passage of which should have sparked a genuine rebellion) will be a Pyrrhic victory at best. And our legislative branch will be rendered completely impotent and irrelevant.
Well, that’s real white of him!
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.