Obama scolds U. S. Supreme Court....again

  1. 2 It seems that Mr. Obama has completely forgotten that the Supreme Court's job is to rule on laws passed by Congress......even if only by 7 votes, which BTW is not a "strong majority" by any stretch of the imagination.

    The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government -- the power to check the powers of the President and Congress.
    ARTICLE III
    SECTION 1.
    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
    SECTION 2.
    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
  2. Visit  tntrn profile page

    About tntrn

    tntrn has '34' year(s) of experience and specializes in 'L & D; Postpartum'. From 'Washington'; 66 Years Old; Joined Nov '99; Posts: 8,530; Likes: 11,196.

    40 Comments so far...

  3. Visit  Tweety profile page
    0
    Thanks for the history lesson, but what are you talking about?
  4. Visit  tntrn profile page
    3
    Quote from Tweety
    Thanks for the history lesson, but what are you talking about?
    His speech today where he essentially rebuked the Court ahead of their health care decision because they are "unelected." It was really a new low for him, IMHO>
    Jolie, iteachob, and VivaLasViejas like this.
  5. Visit  herring_RN profile page
    2
    [color=#333333]what the president said in answer to a question:
    [color=#333333]...ultimately, 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. 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. and i'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

    q you say it's not an abstract conversation. do you have contingency plans?

    president obama: i'm sorry. as i said, we are confident that this will be over -- that this will be upheld. i'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. and, again, that's not just my opinion; that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.

    joint press conference by president obama, president calderon of mexico, and prime minister harper of canada | the white house
    what the media reported:
    obama warns 'unelected' supreme court against striking down health law
    president [color=#183a52]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.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law
    /

    mediajunkie650 and MunoRN like this.
  6. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    0
    Well, selective listening is a skill isn't it?
  7. Visit  MunoRN profile page
    3
    The argument that courts shouldn't "legislate from the bench" has long been a core Conservative principle. I'm not sure why reminding Conservatives of that is considered scolding the court.
  8. Visit  tntrn profile page
    3
    Perhaps we should do away with the Supreme Court. Why even have the Supreme Court review laws to determine if they are constitutional or not? This court decision won't be making a law....it will determine if a current law will stand or not.


    I would think that even the Obama-appointed judges would take offense at his inference.
    iteachob, Jolie, and VivaLasViejas like this.
  9. Visit  Tweety profile page
    0
    Quote from tntrn
    His speech today where he essentially rebuked the Court ahead of their health care decision because they are "unelected." It was really a new low for him, IMHO>
    Thanks for clarifying.

    <Rolling eyes and leaving discussion>
  10. Visit  Tweety profile page
    3
    Quote from MunoRN
    The argument that courts shouldn't "legislate from the bench" has long been a core Conservative principle. I'm not sure why reminding Conservatives of that is considered scolding the court.
    Wasn't it conservatives that coined the expression "activist judges"?
  11. Visit  Tweety profile page
    0
    President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "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," he declared.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop
  12. Visit  Tweety profile page
    0
    “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,” Obama said at a news conference. “Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.
    Obama’s statement echoes an emerging line of attack on the left.
    Read more: Health care reform: Obama, the left take on Supreme Court - POLITICO.com
  13. Visit  Tweety profile page
    4
    Quote from tntrn
    His speech today where he essentially rebuked the Court ahead of their health care decision because they are "unelected." It was really a new low for him, IMHO>

    Using the fact that they are "non-elected" as a criticism comes across as a cheap shot, because well duh...that's the point. I suppose it's one thing for people to criticize activist judges with an agenda but taking shots at the Supreme Court like he did yesterday is not something I can support. They are unelected because it's worked that way for a couple of hundred years, and it's they indeed do have the power to strike down congress...I rather like that even if they strike down something I support.

    I will say that justices like Scalia are as activist as you can get. But I loathed when republicans coined the phrase "activist judges" (one's that have been advancing gay rights for example) and I won't support a tit for tat now.
    tewdles, Jolie, tntrn, and 1 other like this.
  14. Visit  herring_RN profile page
    2
    Quote from tweety
    using the fact that they are "non-elected" as a criticism comes across as a cheap shot, because well duh...that's the point. i suppose it's one thing for people to criticize activist judges with an agenda but taking shots at the supreme court like he did yesterday is not something i can support. they are unelected because it's worked that way for a couple of hundred years, and it's they indeed do have the power to strike down congress...i rather like that even if they strike down something i support.

    i will say that justices like scalia are as activist as you can get. but i loathed when republicans coined the phrase "activist judges" (one's that have been advancing gay rights for example) and i won't support a tit for tat now.
    [color=#333333][font=&amp]i interpret it that the president stated that he heard conservative commentators say the problem was judicial activism by an unelected group of people - http://www.ctfamily.org/judicial.activism.pdf

    [color=#333333][font=&amp]... 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.

    [color=#333333][font=&amp]and i'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step. ...

    [color=#333333][font=&amp]joint press conference by president obama, president calderon of mexico, and prime minister harper of canada | the white house
    Tweety and Ted like this.

Need Help Searching For Someone's Comment? Enter your keywords in the box below and we will display any comment that matches your keywords.



Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and Create Job Alerts, Manage Your Resume, and Apply for Jobs.

A Big Thank You To Our Sponsors
Top
close
close