Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Apr '12 17:24 / 1 edit
    Mr. Obama said a decision by the nation's top court to throw out the law would be unprecedented and precisely the kind of action that many conservatives for years have criticized as overreaching "judicial activism."

    "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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance.


    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57408181-503544/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/

    I dont have the exact figure in front of me but I am quite sure that SCOTUS has quashed about 165 laws passed by Congress since 1803 for being Unconstitutional.
    Is Obama so ignorant to not know this ?
    Or is he a liar ?
    Its one or the other.
  2. Subscriber WoodPush
    Pusher of wood
    03 Apr '12 18:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I dont have the exact figure in front of me but I am quite sure that SCOTUS has quashed about 165 laws passed by Congress since 1803 for being Unconstitutional.
    That sounds pretty exact to me, actually. Obviously much more exact than I think his comment was.

    How many of those 165 laws were as impactful as overturning the entire bill would be? I'm pretty sure I heard the bill being phrased as an unprecedented assault on capitalism a few times. So wouldn't overturning it also be unprecedented?
  3. 03 Apr '12 18:01
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Mr. Obama said a decision by the nation's top court to throw out the law would be unprecedented and precisely the kind of action that many conservatives for years have criticized as overreaching "judicial activism."

    [quote]"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an [b]unprecedented
    , extraordinary step of ov ...[text shortened]... nal.
    Is Obama so ignorant to not know this ?
    Or is he a liar ?
    Its one or the other.[/b][/b]
    He's a politician.

    Everyone knows when a politician says "judicial activism" they mean "making a ruling that I don't agree with".
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Apr '12 18:07
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Is Obama so ignorant to not know this ?
    Or is he a liar ?
    Its one or the other.
    Seat of his pants, chuntering hyperbole.

    He will be able to finesse it/damage control it by spinning the word "unprecedented".
  5. 03 Apr '12 18:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Seat of his pants, chuntering hyperbole.

    He will be able to finesse it/damage control it by spinning the word "unprecedented".
    LOL
    After that he will have to spin this other false hood in his chuntering hyperbole.
    "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"
  6. 03 Apr '12 18:17
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    LOL
    After that he will have to spin this other false hood in his chuntering hyperbole.
    "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"
    This is essentially the same argument opponents of marriage equality use when marriage laws have been struck down by courts.

    It's a crappy argument from them and it's a crappy argument from Obama.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Apr '12 18:19
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    LOL
    After that he will have to spin this other false hood in his chuntering hyperbole.
    "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"
    Any politician, either side of the aisle can spin a word like "unprecedented". They can get into precisely what the law is and how there hasn't been one quite like it. etc. etc. Hyperbole followed by spin. It's basic retail politics.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Apr '12 20:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Mr. Obama said a decision by the nation's top court to throw out the law would be unprecedented and precisely the kind of action that many conservatives for years have criticized as overreaching "judicial activism."

    [quote]"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an [b]unprecedented
    , extraordinary step of ov nal.
    Is Obama so ignorant to not know this ?
    Or is he a liar ?
    Its one or the other.[/b][/b]
    He's none of the above. As I discussed with sh76, the overturning of this particular law, a wide ranging reform of a business sector that comprises almost 20% of the economy and directly and intimately effects virtually every person in the country, would be an unprecedented example of judicial activism. That it would have to be done on narrow, hypertechnical grounds at odds with decades of court precedent regarding severability would make it even more so (if that is possible).
  9. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    03 Apr '12 20:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    Any politician, either side of the aisle can spin a word like "unprecedented". They can get into precisely what the law is and how there hasn't been one quite like it. etc. etc. Hyperbole followed by spin. It's basic retail politics.
    I think I predicted in some thread Obama would try to make lemonade out of lemons over this. But he's counting his lemons before they've hatched. Perhaps he got a heads up from Kagan or Sotomayor as to the thinking of the Justices, and he's either trying to change someone's (Kennedy's) mind, and/or spin the coming news to his political advantage. If so then his protestations are good news.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Apr '12 20:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    I think I predicted in some thread Obama would try to make lemonade out of lemons over this. But he's counting his lemons before they've hatched. Perhaps he got a heads up from Kagan or Sotomayor as to the thinking of the Justices, and he's either trying to change someone's (Kennedy's) mind, and/or spin the coming news to his political advantage. If so then his protestations are good news.
    That's a typically ignorant and inflammatory accusation from a right winger. Accusing Supreme Court justices of leaking the preliminary vote on a case, which would be a shocking violating of their ethical code, apparently doesn't require a scintilla of evidence in right wing LaLaLand.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    03 Apr '12 21:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That's a typically ignorant and inflammatory accusation from a right winger. Accusing Supreme Court justices of leaking the preliminary vote on a case, which would be a shocking violating of their ethical code, apparently doesn't require a scintilla of evidence in right wing LaLaLand.
    You give them all the benefit of the doubt you want. Neither Obama nor Kagan deserve any IMO.
  12. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    03 Apr '12 21:08
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I dont have the exact figure in front of me...
    Well don't let that stop you.

    Not that it ever has...
  13. 03 Apr '12 21:28
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Well don't let that stop you.

    Not that it ever has...
    I just doubled checked my good friend.
    I was right. It is 165 times.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2010/content-detail.html
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Apr '12 22:14
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Mr. Obama said a decision by the nation's top court to throw out the law would be unprecedented and precisely the kind of action that many conservatives for years have criticized as overreaching "judicial activism."

    [quote]"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an [b]unprecedented
    , extraordinary step of ov ...[text shortened]... nal.
    Is Obama so ignorant to not know this ?
    Or is he a liar ?
    Its one or the other.[/b][/b]
    I don't think that makes President Obama ignorant or a liar (that statement is political posturing), but I'd like to point our as well that if 219–212 is a "strong majority" what, exactly, is a weak majority?
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    03 Apr '12 23:05
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    You give them all the benefit of the doubt you want. Neither Obama nor Kagan deserve any IMO.
    Another example of the poisoning of the political atmosphere that Tea Party types casually and recklessly engage in.