Obama vs the Supreme Court

[mezz]

The annointed buffoon has challenged the Supreme Court once again by declaring (shockingly) that the judicial branch will have overreached if they decide that he (and congress) have overreached by enacting into law a mandate that is unconstitutional.

Obama, who was president of the Harvard Law Review is (unless he excelled at that position like he's doing in his current one) well aware of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) wherein the supreme court first declared a law passed by congress to be unconstitutional. He's again playing the public for stupid by making a show of this in the media. The court will surely not be coerced by such behaviour.

[BlueStreak]

Why aren't you pissed that the SCOTUS is trying to "legislate from the bench"?

Dave

[merrylander]

Marbury vs Madison was at the heart of some of the most shocking screwing about by a government it should be an object lesson in bad politics.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Marbury vs Madison was at the heart of some of the most shocking screwing about by a government it should be an object lesson in bad politics.

Oh, now Rob. You're talking about "The Founders" now. Remember, they were incapable of any wrong doing. (Strike up the trumpets and chorus of Angels.)

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Marbury vs Madison was at the heart of some of the most shocking screwing about by a government it should be an object lesson in bad politics.

Gee, and to think all the good the Warren Court did via judicial activism. What was once loved by the the left is now somehow wrong when the court might actually uphold the Consitutional limits. Do you actually believe that there ought be no limit to what the Federal Government can do?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Gee, and to think all the good the Warren Court did via judicial activism. What was once loved by the the left is now somehow wrong when the court might actually uphold the Consitutional limits. Do you actually believe that there ought be no limit to what the Federal Government can do?

During the years of the Warren court I was in Canada so I really paid little attention to the court's activities.

If justices (of any stripe) want to legislate let them run for Congress, simply because who regulates the Court? Although Jackson told them where to stick their decision and since they are really a toothless tiger I guess any president could do the same.

BTW given the state of current politics here I guess Ghenghis Khan is considered a leftie.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Gee, and to think all the good the Warren Court did via judicial activism. What was once loved by the the left is now somehow wrong when the court might actually uphold the Consitutional limits. Do you actually believe that there ought be no limit to what the Federal Government can do?

My view of the Warren court was that it took an expansive reading of individual rights - the right to privacy, the right to marry, the right to travel, the right to be secure in one's homes and person, etc. I thought that you would agree with such an approach.

To the extent that the Warren Court presided over expansion of federal power, most all of it was in the public sphere - public education and commerce, overruling laws that perpetuated discrimination and upholding laws that prohibited discrimination and that governed employment relationships.

The activism of the current Court includes overruling past Supreme Court decisions, expanding the power of capital and limiting the power of the government to operate in the commercial sphere. To me, it is absurd to argue that commercial regulation is an infringement on individual liberty. I see the concentration of wealth as a considerably larger threat to individual liberty. Corporations wield tremendous power over the alternatives available to the average citizen: affecting the ability to work, to obtain access to health care and other services, affecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, the chemical hazards to which we are exposed in everyday life, limiting what we see and hear on the public airways, and spending billions of dollars to manipulate our tastes (without carefully crafted advertising, do you think people would actually prefer a Bud Light to a Guiness?).

Regards,

D-Ray

[RamblinE]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Do you actually believe that there ought be no limit to what the Federal Government can do?

When the government and the tax payer ends up footing the bill for people who don't have health insurance then the government is already involved and has the right to create a mandate like this. They're already paying for the faults of capitalist healthcare. It's expensive and it increases the deficit. Simply helping people to afford insurance would cut back on government spending in the long run, save people's lives and create a more productive work force. What's not to like?

[painter]

Originally Posted by RamblinE

When the government and the tax payer ends up footing the bill for people who don't have health insurance then the government is already involved and has the right to create a mandate like this. They're already paying for the faults of capitalist healthcare. It's expensive and it increases the deficit. Simply helping people to afford insurance would cut back on government spending in the long run, save people's lives and create a more productive work force. What's not to like?

May I digress? I recently spent time in the hospital as an outpatient. I have medicare and private insurance. My diagnostic tests were NOT all covered. A few days later...again as an outpatient and two surgical procedures that I thought would all be covered...were NOT! I almost collapsed when I received the bill. Are you aware...the recovery room charge is by the minute spent? I have yet to get the charges from the second procedures...SOOO excited! And come Monday suture removal day will warrent yet another fee.

Don't believe blindly as I did... that you can be well covered. Whether it be single payer or not. Money will surely come out of your pocket.
In my situation...I chose the coarse of action. My medical records are mine and private...not available to others that would make my course of treatment their decision...in my supposed... best interest.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by mezz

The annointed buffoon has challenged the Supreme Court once again by declaring (shockingly) that the judicial branch will have overreached if they decide that he (and congress) have overreached by enacting into law a mandate that is unconstitutional.

Obama, who was president of the Harvard Law Review is (unless he excelled at that position like he's doing in his current one) well aware of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) wherein the supreme court first declared a law passed by congress to be unconstitutional. He's again playing the public for stupid by making a show of this in the media. The court will surely not be coerced by such behaviour.

Somehow I get the feeling that you are not trying to promote a discussion of the issues.

Regards,

D-Ray