Boneheaded

Fade

Fade

Member
Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
614
Reaction score
31
Boneheaded

You talk about boneheaded; Obama just proved to the world how dumb he really is!

In a speech yesterday, he referred to the SCOTUS as "judges being an unelected group of people" 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."

Of course today a federal appeals court called the president's bluff by 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.

They've got 48 hours to turn in their homework.

Maybe Cecilia can run down to DC, and give Obama her copy of the constitution.
 
might wanna take copy to the scotus instead.... they've been needing one since at least 2000...
 
The President, a constitutional law professor, doesn't know about the precedent set by Marbury v. Madison!

That's like finding out your physics professor believes the sun rotates around the earth. :rolleyes:



It's uncommon for appeals courts to introduce party statements from outside the courtroom and demand explanations, but that’s only because most litigants usually aren’t dumb enough to make public statements outside the courtroom that impact their cases. The exception to that general rule is the government-as-litigant, which, because it is led by politicians and ever-shifting public policy, is more likely than most litigants to have to explain public statements or policies that impact their court cases.

The President actually heads the Executive branch of government, and Obama's speeches are just not a perpetual list of forgotten talking points in his campaign for reelection.

Words have consequences, particularly for litigants.

 
Fade said:
In a speech yesterday, he referred to the SCOTUS as "judges being an unelected group of people" 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."
Click to expand...
Is Obama complaining about activist judges?
 
That blogger has about as much credibility as you do concerning the Constitution of the United States, and the separation of powers.

The governing power given to the Federal government is derived from those powers given by the states to the Federal government, and only those powers. Those powers are constantly being stepped on by all three branches of the Federal government, but mostly by the Executive and the Legislative.

Constitution 101
Three branches of government.
1. Executive: President's job is to enforce and uphold the constitution.
2. Legislative: To write the laws that go into the constitution.
3. Judicial: To rule on whether those laws are constitutional.

Examples of over reaching your Judicial authority:
Legislating from the bench. Making a law themselves that the Legislative branch has not first passed as law and the President has not first signed off on. Abortion

Examples of over reaching your Legislative authority:
Writing a law that the states have not given you explicit permission to govern. Obamacare

Examples of over reaching your Executive authority:
Interpreting a law to suit your own opinion. Libya. Declaring war without the explicit approval of the Legislative branch.

I might add, that any other world body, like the World Court, UN, NATO or EU has no standing as regards the US Constitution and the US is free to consider their opinions or toss them in the nearest shit can where most of them belong. No branch of the Federal government, whether individually or collectively, is authorized to surrender the rights given under the US Constitution to any other governing body.
 
Fade said:
That blogger has about as much credibility as you do concerning the Constitution of the United States, and the separation of powers.
Click to expand...

Eh? You talking to me? Because it looks like you are pretending to respond to what the blogger said but you are talking about something completely different.
 
Dang McDeath, If you are going to throw out the hogwash, maybe you should at least read it first.

"the panel ordered her to "submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power." (To declare a law constitutional.)
 
Fade said:
Dang McDeath, If you are going to throw out the hogwash, maybe you should at least read it first.

"the panel ordered her to "submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power." (To declare a law constitutional.)
Click to expand...

Nothing resembling what you quote here exists in this thread nor in any any links posted on this thread. What is the name of the game you are playing and is it fun?:D
 
That quote came from Your source McDeath. Go back and read them.:rtfm:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
http://www.americablog.com/2012/04/gop-judge-freaks-out-in-court-over.html
Click to expand...
1) The President was having a little fun turning the Republicans' "activist judges" rhetoric around on Republicans
Click to expand...
the whole article is written by an idiot,
he was probably taught constitution law by "Professor Obama"

Words have consequences, particularly for litigants.

There were two more recent examples of the Obama DOJ being asked to clairfy the difference between public statements and court arguments, just like the Fifth Circuit did. First, when the Obama Administration announced its decision to not defend DOMA even while it continues to enforce DOMA, several judges in DOMA-related cases (and a few in barely-related cases) demanded that DOJ explain. Those demands for explanation came from both Republican- and Democrat-appointed judges. Second, after months of the Administration attempting to push its “prosecutorial discretion” policy with respect to aliens in removal proceedings, the Ninth Circuit demanded in five test cases that DOJ explain the Administration’s announced discretion policy and the actual prosecutorial decisions of DHS,

This is not the first time for the Obama Administration.
 
Fade said:
That quote came from Your source McDeath. Go back and read them.:rtfm:
Click to expand...
So the game is not to talk about the item I linked but to talk about something that is linked to what I linked and pretend that you are talking about what I linked. I see. That IS fun, isn't it.
 
Well McDeath, it's kind of hard to ignore the very first paragraph from your link.

"Kevin Drum has the background. It's next to impossible to excerpt his post without stealing the entire thing. Just take a minute to read it, it's worth it, and short, then come back".

It's kind of foolhardy to start posting to a thread when you didn't even bother to find out the subject matter, and then turn around post links about it that you didn't bother to read before hand.

At least it got your comment count to go up, and that is all that matters.
 
baracksimpson.jpg
 
courts do have that right, but only if its based on law and not partisan rancor.... :confused:.... which is exactly what the president said.... thanx for playing tho...
 
Fade said:
Well McDeath, it's kind of hard to ignore the very first paragraph from your link.

"Kevin Drum has the background. It's next to impossible to excerpt his post without stealing the entire thing. Just take a minute to read it, it's worth it, and short, then come back".
Click to expand...
At least you admit that you twice made misleading comments that you were referring to an article that I linked when it was apparent that you were actually referring to another article. This is unhelpful but could be an understandable mistake even if it is one that you made twice. I accept your apology.

Now, do you actually have an opinion on the blog entry link that I posted instead, the one that was not on constitutional issues but rather mere hypocrisy?
 
Sorry Fluff, If I start a thread, I try to keep it on the subject, and not fall for your off topic deflection when you can't put up a real response to the original subject. It's a common practice of yours and some others here on Whyzzat when the real subject of a thread is so abhorrent to your socialists philosophy.

It is fun though, to see you go through your machinations.
It is also fun to see which of your toadies will be first to pile on in your defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top