Some Body Needs To Explain To "Harvard Law Professor" President Obama How The Law Works.

[CuteOldGuy]

George was a prophet.

[gnadfly]

Obviously the SCOTUS does not understand "nuance."

[nevergaveitathought]

i think the biggest thing i detest about obama is his continual assumption of the position as the defender of what made america great and the claim to be protecting our american ideals.

when he is the exact opposite of that.

democrats re-define and confuse and distort both history and words to lead the little ones astray. its quite galling.

now with the SCOTUS, the most recent obama mis-direction is his claim that if they rule constitutionally it will be legislating from the bench. just another example of pompous re-defining. legislating from the bench is finding novel theories upon which to base a ruling for purposes of furthering a social outcome, not ruling based upon sound doctrine and clear words of the constitution.

then obama goes on to say that theres a human element to this (his social agenda) and implies that the SCOTUS should rule his way because of his social agenda and therefore the outcome he likes, as if that trumps the law. spoken like a true constitutional lawyer

he picks and chooses and is out of control, reeling from this emotion to that. he presents, without a doubt, the least presidential bearing of any president in my lifetime, and is the most polarizing and separating one.

"i think the justices should understand...." what a pompous display of arrogance and self-deceit and attempt at indimidation.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i think the biggest thing i detest about obama is his continual assumption of the position as the defender of what made america great and the claim to be protecting our american ideals.

when he is the exact opposite of that.

democrats re-define and confuse and distort both history and words to lead the little ones astray. its quite galling.

now with the SCOTUS, the most recent obama mis-direction is his claim that if they rule constitutionally it will be legislating from the bench. just another example of pompous re-defining. legislating from the bench is finding novel theories upon which to base a ruling for purposes of furthering a social outcome, not ruling based upon sound doctrine and clear words of the constitution.

then obama goes on to say that theres a human element to this (his social agenda) and implies that the SCOTUS should rule his way because of his social agenda and therefore the outcome he likes, as if that trumps the law. spoken like a true constitutional lawyer

he picks and chooses and is out of control, reeling from this emotion to that. he presents, without a doubt, the least presidential bearing of any president in my lifetime, and is the most polarizing and separating one.

"i think the justices should understand...." what a pompous display of arrogance and self-deceit and attempt at indimidation.

The radical left feeds off of ignorance. The average American doesn't know American history and doesn't understand how our system was designed to work; Obama knows this.


"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -
-- George Orwell

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."


Obama tells us that if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare, that's judicial activism". Of course he knows overturning legislation that the Supreme Court considers to be unconstitutional is judicial review not judicial activism. Judicial review has been done 158 times since the first instance in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison); it's exactly what SCOTUS is supposed to do.

Brown v Board of Education (1954) was judicial review by SCOTUS that ended the legally accepted concept of separate but equal. This was the real beginning of the civil rights revolution in America. The left celebrates judicial review in some cases and demonizes it in others.

Obama is still functioning as a community organizer, using the principals of Saul Alinsky. He is not acting as a legitimate leader. Obama is a rabble rouser. He seeks to energize his base by exploiting their ignorance and manipulating their emotions.

[nevergaveitathought]

dear joe bloe

i concur

i remain, very truly yours,

nevergaveitathought

ps: the very real possibility occurs to me that obama may not obey the court's ruling if it goes against his plans, thus creating a full-blown constitutional crisis. he wants to be unfettered by our system of government to accomplish his aims and will he submit?

[BigLouie]

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Jackie I guess you missed the part when the Republican candidates, Romney and Santorum said they would over turn any Supreme Court decision they didn't like if elected president.

What have you been smoking? Site your sources. Romney and Santorum never said they would overturn a Supreme Court decision.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, if the Executive simply chose to ignore the Court's ruling, what could the Court do?

Obama has ignored the ruling of a federal district court judge in his offshore drilling moratorium. I can't think of a case of a law being ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS and stilll being enforced.

If Obamacare is ruled to be unconstitutional it's dead. Even if the court selectively rules against the mandate and leaves the rest of the law in place, it's probably still dead. The only remedy at that point is to amend the constitution, and that's not going to happen.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As much as I hope Obamacare is repealed, there really isn't anything in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court is the last word on constitutionality. The Court gave themselves that power in Marbury v Madison, which is a horrible case in which Justice Marshall should have recused himself. Much like Justice Kagan should recuse herself from the Obamacare decision.

The Constitution does not specifically give the power of judicial review to SCOTUS; however, Constitutional scholars say that it was widely believed by the signers of the Constitution that SCOTUS would have that power.

From Wikipedia:

A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[12]
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[13]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[14] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing

Even if SCOTUS does not have legitimate power to exercise judicial review (which I do not believe) after doing it for 209 years in 158 cases I think the practice is not going to change. The legal principal involved here is called stare decisis, the concept that the court respects legal precedent set by prior courts.

I think the socialist/Democrats would love to be able to routinely ignore SCOTUS rulings against them. That would facilitate their ability to govern outside of the Constitution which has been their primary goal for the last one hundred years.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Laz

The courts power is simply the publics will. If an executive chose to ignore the court I believe that the public would force congress to act and the presidents support would vanish. Since they all want to be reelected they will not take that chance.

So you're an advocate of mob rule? Why even have a Constitution? We'll just rule by referendum. Give the people whatever they want. What could go wrong?

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

What have you been smoking? Site your sources. Romney and Santorum never said they would overturn a Supreme Court decision.

If you Google Santorum and over turn Supreme Court you will gets pages of his statements.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

So you're an advocate of mob rule? Why even have a Constitution? We'll just rule by referendum. Give the people whatever they want. What could go wrong?

As long as the court does what the public wants it will retain power. You assume the public will reject it if they make an unpopular decision. I believe that as long as they follow the constitution the decision will be accepted even if it is unpopular. Free speech decisions are often unpopular.

As for mob rule, if you consider the citezens of the US a mob, then yes I believe in mob rule.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

If you Google Santorum and over turn Supreme Court you will gets pages of his statements.

Well I Googled it as you suggested. The closest thing to Santorum saying he'll overturn the Supreme Court, that I could find, is his appearance on NBC news with David Gregory. He said he would "seek to try and overturn" SCOTUS by amending the constitution. That's a far cry from saying that he would overturn the court unilaterally based on the power he had as president. Amending the Constitution is the only legal way to overturn SCOTUS and that's what Santorum said he would "seek to try" to do. There's no way that Romney or Santorum volunteered that they are going to exercise power they don't legally have.

From NBC News website:

During Meet The Press on Sunday morning, David Gregory asked Rick Santorum what he would do if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling made by the Ninth Circuit Court to strike down Prop 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. Santorum said he would overturn Roe v. Wade and any Supreme Court ruling that makes same-sex marriage legal.

“I would do the same thing I would with Roe v. Wade, which I would seek to try and overturn it. I think judicial tyranny is a serious issue in this race and this country. And we need judges who respect the people’s voice. Let the people decide with respect to what the constitution says, if in fact they would go through a constitutional amendment process

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Laz

As long as the court does what the public wants it will retain power. You assume the public will reject it if they make an unpopular decision. I believe that as long as they follow the constitution the decision will be accepted even if it is unpopular. Free speech decisions are often unpopular.

As for mob rule, if you consider the citezens of the US a mob, then yes I believe in mob rule.

I have two simple questions for you.

Do you understand that America is a republic and not a democracy?
Do you know the difference between a republic and a democracy?

[Laz]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I have two simple questions for you.

Do you understand that America is a republic and not a democracy?
Do you know the difference between a republic and a democracy?

Yes and yes. The representatives are there based on the desire of the governed. When the governed get fed up with them they get fired and replaced with someone else. Your point is irrelevant. Indirectly it is a democracy. It just takes a long time to make changes which is probably a good thing.