Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law (1 Viewer)

[PapaG]

Apparently this idiotic "constitutional lawyer" has never heard of judicial review, and also of checks and balances? The USSC has overturned over 100 federal laws since it was created, so what exactly would be "unprecedented" in overturning an individual mandate by the federal government?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.
In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.
"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.
Pointed comments from Supreme Court justices last week during three days of compelling hearings have convinced many commentators that the court, expected to rule in June, will declare the law, dubbed ObamaCare, unconstitutional.
Such a move would electrify the White House race, puncture Obama's claims to be a reformer in the grand political tradition, and throw the US health care industry into chaos.

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.
"I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden with the leaders of Canada and Mexico in his first comments on last week's hearings.

 

[PapaG]

"Uninelected"? "I'd like to remind conservative commentators"? WTF? What a moron. People hate this law, and it was passed by bribing Democrat senators from Louisiana and Nebraska. By the way, isn't Kathleen Sebelius "uninelected", as well as Stephen Chu?

[video=youtube;yWZ9JVvUG0g]

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Huh. America the Dictatorship?

 

[jlprk]

All through the 70s and 80s, Democrats had to listen to Republicans thundering against "judges making laws" and demanding "strict constructionist" judges. Now that a Democrat says the same thing, it's waah-waah time from Republicans.

 

[PapaG]

All through the 70s and 80s, Democrats had to listen to Republicans thundering against "judges making laws" and demanding "strict constructionist" judges. Now that a Democrat says the same thing, it's waah-waah time from Republicans.

Given your obvious and embarrassing ignorance on the difference between states' rights and the U.S. Constitution re: this law, I wouldn't expect you to know the difference between "judicial review" and "judicial activism". The only things unprecedented in this is the creation of the word "uninelected", and also the President of the USA publicly calling out the USSC. I guess Obama forgot that he calls DOMA "unconstitutional", as decided by the court system?

But, smart people can see what he's doing here.

 

[Denny Crane]

The boatloads of bureaucrats at HHS and the IRS who will be enacting and enforcing regulations under the law are selected, not elected.

If the court were to go through each provision of the law, it would be activism. The case was brought before them, they should do their job and rule on the questions they are petitioned to answer.

ObamaFail.

 

[jlprk]

It's funny to hear your side on the other side of the fence, after all these years of nonsense, saying that any judge who disagreed with you was a judicial activist. As Obama said,

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-to-unelected-supreme-court/?intcmp=trending

 

[Denny Crane]

Sounds like a Sore/Loserman.

What a crybaby.

 

[Denny Crane]

I happen to be pro choice, but Roe v Wade was an activist ruling. Activism is writing law from the bench; it's the job of congress to write and pass laws. The courts can and should strike down laws that don't pass muster - Brown v Board of Education, the court ruled to end segregation with all due haste, but didn't tell congress how to make it happen.

I bet you don't get it, though.

 

[jlprk]

Polls say that most Americans want government to legislate a right of health care. They are reluctant about the Republican-inspired payment method, in which each person writes a check, instead of the normal method, taxation.

If Democrats lose this court decision, it will be a great boon to them in this campaign. The issues which Republicans have carefully framed and prepared will be subsumed to the need for a single-payer payment, nationalized medical system. This will push the final product way to the left. You guys should have quit while you were ahead.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This thread is a non issue. Anytime a President is desperate for a particular Supreme Court ruling they go on the offensive. But it never works, of course, because a president cannot influence their decision.

I think even Obama realizes the case is most likely lost due to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the law. I think this is some PR to try and ensure healthcare gets addressed in the next Congress. And that's going to be tough as they next Congress already has a pretty full agenda. The political capitol he had to have expended for this law makes it a real long shot to think he will get his wish.

Forgetting my personal stance on universal healthcare, Obama had a golden opportunity to fulfill his #1 agenda and he seemingly putzed it away with some of the provisions. He had other and better ways to go about what he wanted, but opted for what is probably the worst way. That's a sign of both inexperience and Pelosi.

 

[PapaG]

This thread is a non issue. Anytime a President is desperate for a particular Supreme Court ruling they go on the offensive. But it never works, of course, because a president cannot influence their decision.

I think even Obama realizes the case is most likely lost due to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the law. I think this is some PR to try and ensure healthcare gets addressed in the next Congress. And that's going to be tough as they next Congress already has a pretty full agenda. The political capitol he had to have expended for this law makes it a real long shot to think he will get his wish.

Forgetting my personal stance on universal healthcare, Obama had a golden opportunity to fulfill his #1 agenda and he seemingly putzed it away with some of the provisions. He had other and better ways to go about what he wanted, but opted for what is probably the worst way. That's a sign of both inexperience and Pelosi.

What Obama did yesterday by trying to usurp the authority of the court hasn't been seen from a President since Andrew Jackson. Using the words "uninelected" (or unelected, as we say in non-idiot land), and "judicial activism" to describe what is really judicial review by the USSC, is just another indication of what a dufus and idiot this guy is when he's not reading things from a TV screen.

Never thought I'd see the day where a sitting President, at a joint meeting with two other world leaders, would publicly lecture the USSC, and also try to diminish their purpose and very reason for existence.

 

[PapaG]

Polls say that most Americans want government to legislate a right of health care. They are reluctant about the Republican-inspired payment method, in which each person writes a check, instead of the normal method, taxation.

If Democrats lose this court decision, it will be a great boon to them in this campaign. The issues which Republicans have carefully framed and prepared will be subsumed to the need for a single-payer payment, nationalized medical system. This will push the final product way to the left. You guys should have quit while you were ahead.

There is no way in hell a single-payer system is going to pass Congress. The Dems couldn't even do it with a super-majority in the Senate, and a large majority in the House. Plus, I'm not sure how you blame the GOP for the mandate, since not a single GOP member voted for it. The Dems had to negotiate within their own party to get the votes. Seriously, do you even read the posts that your write? Many are just so dumb, I have to think you're just trolling for attention.

 

[PapaG]

Obama is so far out of his league. I did notice he somewhat walked back his comments yesterday ... probably because most rational Americans realize the existence of the separation of powers in our government.

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_...-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would 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."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care Reform

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

what a douche'

:MARIS61:

 

[Masbee]

Obama brought this on himself and I hope he enjoys the shitstorm he has created with his astonishingly ignorant remarks.

Why Obama - who needs to be a leader and be Presidential - time after time keeps sticking his nose in the fray, getting his hands dirty with attempts at hard-nosed (Chicago style politics) is a puzzle to me. Especially when compared to his push for the Health Care bill in the first place where he laid out his goals, handed the whole shebang off to (a very dysfunctional and fucked up) Congress to implement, resulting in a bastard bill that everybody hates.

It is crap like this that is going to lose Obama a lot of moderate votes. I know moderates who latched onto Obama because they were so sick of the "embrace of ignorance" from the Bush years. I see your "nukelar" and raise you a Constitutional Law Professor who doesn't know (or more likely) intentionally disregards the Constitution and law and history and tradition and using the most powerful of bully pulpits bashes the head of another branch of government.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

There is no way in hell a single-payer system is going to pass Congress.

The U.S. already has the biggest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It's called Medicare. And if the SCOTUS overturns "Obamacare", then get ready for the biggest expansion of an existing government service ever.

 

[PapaG]

The U.S. already has the biggest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It's called Medicare. And if the SCOTUS overturns "Obamacare", then get ready for the biggest expansion of an existing government service ever.

You'd have to have such a massive tax increase to pay for it, you'll never see it happen in this climate. If single payer was going to happen, it would have in 2009, when the GOP could do nothing to stop it. Even then, the Dems had to compromise within their own party and came up with the "mandate". You honestly think that a GOP House is going to pass a tax increase to pay for single payer? Really?? The Dems could barely do it with a mandate last time around, and had many Dems vote against it.

Also, Medicare has its own issues, and even it isn't self-funded even though people pay into it their entire lives.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama brought this on himself and I hope he enjoys the shitstorm he has created with his astonishingly ignorant remarks.

Why Obama - who needs to be a leader and be Presidential - time after time keeps sticking his nose in the fray, getting his hands dirty with attempts at hard-nosed (Chicago style politics) is a puzzle to me. Especially when compared to his push for the Health Care bill in the first place where he laid out his goals, handed the whole shebang off to (a very dysfunctional and fucked up) Congress to implement, resulting in a bastard bill that everybody hates.

It is crap like this that is going to lose Obama a lot of moderate votes. I know moderates who latched onto Obama because they were so sick of the "embrace of ignorance" from the Bush years. I see your "nukelar" and raise you a Constitutional Law Professor who doesn't know (or more likely) intentionally disregards the Constitution and law and history and tradition and using the most powerful of bully pulpits bashes the head of another branch of government.

Great post.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html

 

[PapaG]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html

Pollster Dates N/Pop Favor Oppose Undecided No Opinion
CNN 3/24-25/12 1014 A 43 50 7 -
CBS/Times 3/21-25/12 986 A 36 47 17 -
Reason/Rupe 3/10-20/12 1200 A 32 50 18 -
Pew 3/7-11/12 1503 A 47 45 8

\

The Pew poll is an outlier, but what is obvious is that not even 50% of those surveyed support the bill. Not exactly what a President would want with a bill that so radically transforms 1/7 of our economy.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The U.S. already has the biggest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It's called Medicare. And if the SCOTUS overturns "Obamacare", then get ready for the biggest expansion of an existing government service ever.

I wonder.

I doubt if the GOP controls either the House or Senate that a gross expansion of Medicare will become a reality.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

All through the 70s and 80s, Democrats had to listen to Republicans thundering against "judges making laws" and demanding "strict constructionist" judges. Now that a Democrat says the same thing, it's waah-waah time from Republicans.

For me, at least, it's not about Republican v. Democrat. I get tired of that bullshit being throw out, and fingers pointed, and the whole over-generalization of it all.

Not calling you out on it, because everyone seems to make it R v. D. I agree with the viewpoints from each side, depending on the issue, and never vote my party just to vote my party (in fact, I would say I vote as much, if not more, for the other side).

That being said, the Constitution, the Government... everything about our country's beginnings was to let the law rule, and the various forms of government were to keep each other in line, and each branch had their balance of power and could keep the others in check. Obama trying to fuck with that is bullshit. No ifs, ands, or buts. No matter whether you're Republican or Democrat - it's wrong and it's fucked up. Step off, Obama.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Great post.

I agree with Denny. Nice post, Masbee.

 

[Ed O]

To state some obvious things:

-- how in ANY way would the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare (in part or in its entirety) "unprecedented"? I mean... this particular law hasn't been struck down before, but other than that... *shrug*

-- "judicial activism"--or at least the kind that conservatives normally complain about--is not when courts do anything except rubber stamp a law. Overturning a law based on the limits of power is different than expanding the scope of existing law.

Ed O.

 

[Eastoff]

Regulating 1/6 of the economy is not part of regulating the economy? lulz

 

[PapaG]

LOL ... better than a sitcom. Just blatantly lying at this point, and even some in the media actually aren't buying it and are challenging the liars. But Obama was a "law professor" (more like a non-tenured lecturer at times, but let's not destroy the myth of him being some academic wizard and brilliant legal mind).

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...n-wh-warns-unprecedented-scotus-ruling/464261

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.

 

[PapaG]

Former Obama student expands on Obama's comments from Monday.

Prof. Thom Lambert of the University of Missouri Law School has responded with alarm to President Barack Obama's attack on the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review by recalling his own days as Obama's student at the University of Chicago.

Lambert, who writes for the "Truth on the Market" blog, not only studied under Obama, but also clerked for the federal judge who issued an order yesterday demanding that the Department of Justice clarify whether the government believed courts had the power to overturn constitutional laws.

Lambert wrote:

Prof. Thom Lambert of the University of Missouri Law School has responded with alarm to President Barack Obama's attack on the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review by recalling his own days as Obama's student at the University of Chicago.

Lambert, who writes for the "Truth on the Market" blog, not only studied under Obama, but also clerked for the federal judge who issued an order yesterday demanding that the Department of Justice clarify whether the government believed courts had the power to overturn constitutional laws.

Lambert wrote:

Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.

 

[MickZagger]

Fuckin Obama!!!

 

[jlprk]

There is no way in hell a single-payer system is going to pass Congress. The Dems couldn't even do it with a super-majority in the Senate, and a large majority in the House. Plus, I'm not sure how you blame the GOP for the mandate, since not a single GOP member voted for it. The Dems had to negotiate within their own party to get the votes. Seriously, do you even read the posts that your write? Many are just so dumb, I have to think you're just trolling for attention.

If your ambition is to be a quality troll, you should drop everything and take reading lessons immediately. I didn't talk about what will pass Congress. I said that if this Republican-negotiated (irrelevant whether any Repubs voted for it, they basically authored the anti-taxation payment method) bill is overturned, this energizing issue will be a boon to Democrats in the upcoming campaign. We need something to get mad about to fight all you overpaid rich guys, and the right of health care is perfect to motivate us to work to win elections.