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

[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

[wgrr]

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.

The annointed buffon? Who the hell is that. Is it similar to the SCOTUS appointment of President ignoramus in 2000 despite the fact that the ignoramus lost by 500,000 votes
and Gore would have won the state of Florida in a recount if it had not been stopped.

The SCOTUS does need to be reigned in. The FEC v Citizens United ruling is a prime example of the court inventing an issue to rule that corporations are people and declaring money is their free speech.

The Marbury v. Madison case simply created the most powerful branch of government by creating, at the time, nine lifetime appointed Kings of the US.

If I were Obama I would let the court rule, and if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, Obama should just ignore the ruling and roll out the ACA just as it was written and passed into law. You see the SCOTUS only has the power of words. They have no way to enforce rulings that determine laws are unconstitutional.

SCOTUS rulings have been ignored before.

It was about Chief Justice Marshall’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia that President Andrew Jackson roared, “He has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Cherokee
Indians and drove them from their land in Georgia, supposedly to resettle west of the Mississippi.

[piece-itpete]

If it's any consolation, if they declare it unConsititutional Obama can always chew them out next State of the Union

Pete

[merrylander]

The SCOTUS ceased to be relevant when they annointed George W Bush as president

[RamblinE]

It's not judicial activism if a conservative agrees with it.

Judicial activism is only a liberal thing

[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?