Here
and
Now

opinions

Did Obama step over line with Supreme Court blast?

19 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Amazing how this guy, who is apparently a lawyer, gets away with selective application of the law. He chooses to ignore certain laws and apply the ones that suit what he wants to accomplish.

But, come to think of it, that's what a lawyer does.

He manipulates the law to his own ends.

0 ( +6 / -7 )

Looking at the Bush vs Gore decision I can't help but agree with Obama about warning the courts to interpret the law rather than trying to make policy. On the other hand it is the Supreme court's job to defend the constitution, and I think that Obama's healthcare reform may well be unconstitutional, so they wouldn't be stepping over the line in squishing it.

0 ( +5 / -4 )

a) no strong majority...4 votes. Which is odd that Obama would then object to a 5-4 Supreme Court vote...since that's a stronger vote by %.

b) He's a professed legal realist. His view is "those in power get to make it." So, his disregard for the Constitution is nothing...bc its a "living document" to him, and the founders didn't have a clue as to what they were doing. This leads him to promote, endorse, and wholeheartedly embrace judicial activism, hence his appointment of Sotomayor and Kagan, two of the biggest activist judges in US history, when it is convenient for him, and oppose it when it isn't. You want an example of judicial activism? Kagan, when serving as solicitor general, she not only wrote the gov't defense brief for Obamacare, but she also sent an email expressing her opinion on it to Larry Tribe, who the NY Times calls a "liberal legal icon" saying "they have the votes Larry. Simply Amazing!!" Federal law (28 U.S.C. 455) clearly stipulates the grounds for judges to disqualify themselves in cases, including if the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if the judge served in federal office as “counsel” or “adviser” or “expressed an opinion” on a matter. Kagan is in violation of US law, and therefore must recuse. But since she's not interested in the rule of law and the president that appointed her isn't, then it doesn't matter to them, bc they are only interested in their activism.

c) Both Al Gore and George W Bush had the Supreme Court rule against them, both said they would respect the SC's ruling and abide by it. Al Gore, as much as I dislike him, said he was willing to abide for the sake of unity. Obama is the most divisive president in the history of the nation and the most Constitutionally violative, outside of maybe FDR.

2 ( +6 / -5 )

Democrats like Obama, and not a few Repubs as well, regard the law as an instrument to legalize plunder, plain and simple.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

"Obama is the most divisive president in the history of the nation..."

And I wonder which political party considers him "the most devisive"?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The system of check and balance is still intact, and the supreme court has the final say no matter how "unprecedented" the case may be. I wonder if the end justifies the mean is the norm for Obama's policy? Plain wrong on this one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Many ,many Americans dislike Mr. Obama's wrong-headed idea's ,plain & simple.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"Many ,many Americans dislike Mr. Obama's wrong-headed idea's ,plain & simple"

Bart: Polls show that a majority of Americans dislike Republican ideas even more.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

David Stells, VERY well said! Obama has twisted laws and thoroughly ignored the Constitution throughout his "career ". Like the other lawyer from Illinois, Lincoln, his record regarding constitutionality is abysmal. The entire house of cards which is "Obamacare" rests precariously on the progressive(Socialist) misrepresentation of the Commerce Clause. Not only should the Affordable Care Act(talk about a misnomer!) be struck down on constitutional grounds, but also those that have been erected on the same false ground of federal overreach. Obama didn't merely step over the line, he did a running broad jump!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The question is: Did Obama step over line with Supreme Court blast? The answer is YES! Because . . . The Supreme Court was designed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as one of three separate and co-equal branches of government, including the executive (presidency) and legislature (Congress). And he is trying to make the executive branch of the government more powerful than the other two branches. He is behaving like a dictator not a president.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

All just for show.The supreme court passes everying he tells them to pass.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Hahaha, Judges shouldn't be activists!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The setting of his comments is important to consider: he was responding to a question asked at a general news conference; he had not intended specifically to address the topic. He thus had three choices: to decline an answer, to equivocate, or to speak his mind. His choice of the latter may or may not have been smart politically, but an expression of opinion even by the president constitutes in no way meddling in the court.

His full comments should also be considered: "“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.” The most controversial aspect of this was his calling the Supremes "unelected" - this was said in the context of defining what conservatives themselves often complain most about regarding the court; it has the virtue of being true; and it is at the core of a main argument for finding Obamacare constitutional: the broccoli principle. At any rate, he restated his comments later in more measured terms: that the Supreme Court should exercise utmost restraint when deciding on legislation passed by elected officials. This is something most everyone would agree with.

Whether the Supremes vote to uphold or strike down Obamacare and how - in part or in total - and the reasoning given will be a major precedent. Interestingly, even defeat could be positive for Obama: it would galvanize the left and lead to renewed push for the single-payer system, which most Democrats preferred all along. Also, if Obamacare were struck down, Romney would be forced to pivot from simple knee-jerk opposition to having to provide details about what he would do to fix health care, and that is something he dearly does not want to do.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Release your grades President Obama.

-1 ( +2 / -4 )

@Green Panda--And throw in some junior high school love notes and basketball scoresheets while he's at it?

What do they call birther offshoots who demand to see report cards--Graders? Carders? GPA-ers?

Next you will be claiming that his school yearbook photos from one of Hawaii's top public schools is a fraud. I'm talking about the American state Hawaii that used to be a territory of Kenya. You'll never be satisfied, right bra?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When this first came up, the headline said something more like Obama threatened the court. I just skipped that article, believing the press was, yet again, making mountains out of molehills.

Now this one backs and actually asks if he stepped over the line, rather than attempt to sell us the idea that he did. So I read it. And I was not surprised by the lack of integrity displayed by heavy use of quotation marks as to what Obama actually said. I could not even figure how in what context those quotation marks were being used.

Then I get to Laguna's post. And it all makes sense. I mean, I was sure it was a storm in a teacup in the first place. But when you read beyond the headline and read the article, you know, it should make sense, shouldn't it?

If anyone is out of control, its not Obama. Its the friggen press. These hacks should be facing legal charges for their irresponsibility. Seriously.

-13 ( +3 / -15 )

All I can say is ... thank God for President Barack Hussein Obama. He's reasonable, thoughtful, hard-working, forward-looking, a team player, reasonable, inspirational, family-oriented. In short, he's presidential.

So glad he's going to be around in the White House and on the job for the American people through January, 2017.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If anyone is out of control, its not Obama. Its the friggen press. These hacks should be facing legal charges for their irresponsibility. Seriously.

for reporting what the president said?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Barack Obama’s health care blast at the Supreme Court is provoking an inquisition into whether a law professor turned president

We need to see the president's university transcripts and proof that he passed the bar exam. If he did actually attend Columbia he never once made the dean's list there. That is all we know. His admission to Harvard was then either affirmative action or he somehow gamed the system an made it in as a foreign student. It is high time for him to disclose how he paid for an education he obtained at the expense of someone more qualified. As one of his former students wrote last week being a lawyer and hearing your former teacher make the kind of blunder Obama did on SCOTUS precedent is like being an astronomer and hearing your old teacher go public with his belief that the sun actually revolves around the earth.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites