Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Again! WH warns of 'unprecedented' SCOTUS ruling
Washington Examiner ^ | 4/4/2012 | Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

Posted on 04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by tellw

President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.

"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.

But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."

The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.

Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.

Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obama; obamugabe; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: tomkat

Resistance is futile......you will be assimilated.............


41 posted on 04/04/2012 1:45:09 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tellw

Obama should appoint a Czar to investigate those “unelected judges”!


42 posted on 04/04/2012 1:45:49 PM PDT by stickandrudder (Another Bitter-Clinger! God-Family-Tribe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
So, let’s say the SCOTUS declares the entire Obamugabe Care Law unconstitutional and throws it out. Obamugabe says, “Fine, we will institute it anyway, SCOTUS be damned.” THEN what do you do?

He better be prepared to finance its implementation. The House would never allocate a dime to implement a program deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Especially if it's a 6-3 or 7-2 vote.

43 posted on 04/04/2012 1:47:22 PM PDT by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Rush is correct. Zer0 is playing to the ignorant voter base who believes freedom is the free stuff you get from the government.


MSNBC viewers?


44 posted on 04/04/2012 1:48:43 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

Carney is the nerd who always got ‘pantsed’ in high school.


45 posted on 04/04/2012 1:48:52 PM PDT by tgusa (gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger .......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tellw
FWIW:

How many laws has the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional?

46 posted on 04/04/2012 1:49:05 PM PDT by Maceman (Liberals' only problem with American slavery is that the slaves were privately owned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

..as they cheerily realize on the way to the poor house: A tyranny by a majority of legislators or a despot — its all the same.


47 posted on 04/04/2012 1:49:13 PM PDT by KC Burke (Newton's New First Law, Repeal and Restore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tellw
FWIW:

How many laws has the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional?

48 posted on 04/04/2012 1:49:24 PM PDT by Maceman (Liberals' only problem with American slavery is that the slaves were privately owned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

You RECTIFY the situation...............

49 posted on 04/04/2012 1:49:36 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

not enough


50 posted on 04/04/2012 1:51:05 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

That’s really it, isn’t it?
The difference between the left and right is the definition of freedom.

Conservatives define freedom as the liberty to do as we will without harming others.

Liberals define freedom as the liberty to do what they want without consequences, ie, going hungry for not working.


51 posted on 04/04/2012 1:51:33 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
They're more likely to rectify it in this manner:

52 posted on 04/04/2012 1:52:54 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3
'“...and he was a law professor” just like Sen. Kerry was a Vietnam War Hero!'

And just like Captain Kangaroo was a captain.

53 posted on 04/04/2012 1:54:21 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tellw

It might be wise to send O a copy of U. S. vs Nixon (1974?). Even the Won is not above the law. Of course, the USSC doesn’t have as large an Army as does the Pope (obscure reference). ;-)


54 posted on 04/04/2012 1:55:40 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

He’s rallying the troops, is what he’s doing.

May be getting close to the time Roberts gives the Hawaii Dept of Vital Statistics a call...


55 posted on 04/04/2012 1:56:13 PM PDT by djf (Obama - the "OJ verdict" of presidents!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
LOL

50,000,000 x 1 tiny cut/day = stuffed rectum rectifier

56 posted on 04/04/2012 1:56:28 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Only those who are willingly blind cannot see it for what it is. Obama's entire life has been leading up to this point. Literally - his entire life.

As I was driving earlier, I was thinking this very thought and logically, my next thought was, 'this man is going to become very dangerous as his entire world collapses'. Imagine being so deeply indoctrinated in something that every fiber of your being just knows it's right. What does one do when it all collapses, and in a very public way, right before your eyes? I'm more convinced than ever he'll resort to violence if he has to.

57 posted on 04/04/2012 2:03:50 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

U. S. vs Nixon (1974) Maybe the most famous words from that case: “We are a nation of laws, not men.”
Why aren’t they (Roberts) insisting Kagan recuse herself? She’s obviously in violation of federal law. And she’s a man.

And yet Obama keeps trying to pet the nice badger ... Best to let him keep talking. His outstanding personal characteristic is his overwhelming hubris/arrogance. Nixon’s mistake was not speaking up; 0’s is not knowing when to shut up.


58 posted on 04/04/2012 2:04:34 PM PDT by tumblindice (our new, happy lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: 70th Division
1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

I don't doubt you, but would you please provide the source for that.

59 posted on 04/04/2012 2:08:48 PM PDT by r-q-tek86 ("It doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't stop and think" - Dr. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tellw

If the law is an unprecedented power grab then it certainly is unprecedented to knock it out.


60 posted on 04/04/2012 2:09:00 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson