Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare

The outcome remains to be seen. If a majority of the Supreme Court Justices believe the law, or at the least the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, then do they not have an obligation to overturn it? I doubt those same Justices will see their actions overturning it in the way that President Obama characterizes them as activism or lack or restraint. It would seem “activism” to allow it to stand if deemed unconstitutional.

President Obama seems to be arguing that any law passed by Congress must stand, simply because an elected body created it, and that the Supreme Court should simply go along. I disagree in this case and in general terms- seems like I remember hearing something about “checks and balances” in our system of government.

Those pesky checks and balances are exactly why he believes the Constitution to be obsolete — his words, not mine

Is it really unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law it finds unconstitutional? Isn’t that what the whole “3 branches” thing is all about…. Hopeful thinking might not lead to the outcome he wants. It’ll be interesting to watch the reactions no matter what happens in a few months.

If you say it enough times, you’ll actually believe it.

The underlying political issue here is that a law of this magnitude should not have been adopted without at least meaningful bi-partisan support – this was not – it does not have majority support and could not pass today or by any foreseeable future Congress. Legislation with this kind of overarching impact should have had bi-partisan support – like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Social Security, Medicare etc. Nothing this size should be done without some consensus.

Let’s forget that none of the public want this plan, and it was passed without their authorization.

He’s unbelievable. He honestly thinks he can bully the Supreme Court into upholding an unconstitutional law.

Does he even realize preliminary votes were taken by the Court last Friday?

Is he serious? What signature issues? You need a records to run on!

Wow, I guess that would follow unprecedented presidential activism… Isn’t this the president that continues to use the justice dept. to sue states that enact laws voted in by “the people”?

Obama is One Hundred Percent Correct.

SayHey – “Legislation with this kind of overarching impact should have had bi-partisan support”
LOL! Don’t pretend that significant “bipartisan support” was ever on the table. The Republicans wanted an issue to run on. Remember that the approach Obama took CAME FROM REPUBLICANS. They only opposed it because Obama was for it.

“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,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

A “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” can make illegal laws. Thanks to checks and balances, we the people are protected from illegal laws. Hopefully many of the democratically elected in Congress will not be re-elected, since they’re acting on their own and passing illegal laws.

The law has been ruled unconstitutional, that is the only reason he would ever do this,He Knows

Take note: It’s only “judicial activism” if the conservatives do it. Otherwise, it’s perfectly acceptable.

If the Court votes 5-4 against the health care law, there is no way to view this decision as other than political activism. It’s time to shake up this Court…it is no longer making impartial, non-partisan decisions.

Perhaps if this had not been rammed through Congress and someone, anyone had read it….we wouldn’t be here!! I think it’s poor judgement to try to intimidate the justices. It happened before with President Obama and I do not recall any other president doing it before. What a shame!!

The Supreme Court has supported every far reaching law that strengthens the elites power and weakens the avg citizens voice. From corporations are people to 2012′s national Defense Authorization Act that calls protesting low level terrorism and subjects the person to indefinite detention, rights striped. The Supreme Court is a tool that hammers our rights and works to weaken the Bill of Rights. They have no credibility with me. If the multi national puppet masters want Pres Obama to have a second term, the court will support the health care act. If Mr Romney is going to be the next president; they will reject the health care act.

Judicial activism is finding rights not defined in the Constitution.

The President says that overturning this law would be unprecedented.

The President’s comments would be ludicrous if it weren’t for the fact that he knows that such an action by the Supreme Court is neither unprecedented nor rare.

Nearly every law that the Court declares unconstitutional has been voted on by a democratically elected body.

Laws against separate but equal treatment of black Americans in both education and public accommodation, laws against inter-racial marriage, laws outlawing homosexual behavior in private were all laws that had been passed by various state legislatures with very large majorities and were struck down by the Supreme Court.

Is the President truly ignorant of these? Of course not – he is just trying to drive one more stake through the heart of American democracy. He is just trying to incite hatred and turn American against American in his effort to be re-elected by any means – damn the price this country pays. He is trying to dismantle everything that has made the United States the model of democracy throughout the world.

@Eugene31 – It’s most certainly not “judicial activism” to uphold the Constitution and the ACA is subject to that type of scrutiny just like every other piece of legislation that makes its way to the Supreme Court. It’s obvious which way you lean on this issue; however, there are portions of the Constitution that may guard against the sort of action taken by the President in the ACA. Just because you think it’s good legislation doesn’t make it so.

Nor does Obama’s insinuation that this bill is Constitutional simply because it was put in place through a “democratic” process make it right. That’s why there is a system of checks and balances in place.

A Harvard Law School Grad should know that US Constitution, to avoid the risk of dictatorship or tyranny, divided the US government into 3 seperate but equal branches; the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Since the president is the Executive branch he should only be an activist for his own branch (not others as well). Obide by the rules please.

Well if the Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional for the government to force insurance on us Citizens then I think it is unconstitutional that we are forced to pay taxes. It is then unconstitutional for the government to tell a woman what she can do with her body… wow this just opens up a huge can of worms…..

It seems like any law that the Supreme Court finds unconstitutional was passed through a democratic process. Is the President saying that the Supreme Court should defer to majority rule? I don’t think so.

When conservatives critique judicial activism, they are criticizing judges that “invent” new constitutional rights that trump democratic laws. That is not the same as challenging unprecedented new legislation on constitutional grounds.

It sounds like the President is expecting a vote against Obamacare

“…I am confident that the Supreme Court will not …overturn a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

And by “strong majority”, I mean through back-room politics(see Cornhusker Kickback, etc.) to secure the necessary number of Democrat votes, not a “strong majority” of Americans…

Obama is full of carp on that one. Their job is to enforce the Constituton. If they find that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, they will have done their job. Likewise, if they uphold it, they will also have done their job.

Obama doesn’t understand the term. Liberal judicial activism is creating new laws that didn’t exist. He is complaining that Conservatives MAY find that he and the Democrats railroaded through a bill that was UNCONSTITUTIONAL – that is not “activism”, that is doing their job.

Since when is strict adherence to the constitution considered “judicial activisim?”

@justsayin2011,
Actually, those were mostly your words. Not to mention a very small snippet, used completely out of context, of Obama’s actual statement.

But, this is the age of the new truth. Slice it, dice it, use bits with other bits, misrepresent until its an absolute lie. And there ya have it. The New Truth!

Just sayin ;)

I have never seen a more arrogant president. For him to comment on a matter before the supreme court shows the kind of man he is. And if he and the democrats passed a law that is unconstitutional, what does he expect everyone to do, just sit by and watch. But then again he has trampled on the constitution more than any of his predecessors. He constantly spoke about Bush doing that, but Bush can,t hold a candle to what this man has done. Remember how he said he wanted to change the country? Well how’s that working for all of you who voted for him. Remember what he said about high gas prices when he was running for office? Higher than they have ever been and he likes it. He thinks that will get us off oil. Again his arrogance is beyond belief. I honestly cannot understand why even a democrat would vote for him.

Our Congress, even though made up of many, lawyers, has created a number of laws that were patently unconstitutional. The founding fathers, anticipating Congress’ failings, created the Supreme Court for that very reason.

I guess our President failed to remember there was no representation from one party. Overwelming support? You mean the overwhelming support that cost Democrats the House? You mean the support that got so many Democrats fired from their jobs by people angry about the backroom deals and the comments of not reading the law before voting on it?

This President is incompetent at best, or just lives in a fantasy world that revolves around him. Why would this fool think it is Constitutional force the public to to buy something from the vendor of their choice just for being alive? How exactly does Obama define a free man? You are not free if you a jailed unless you pay someone for something you don’t want.

“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,” Obama said…”

EVERY law that’s passed was with a majority, otherwise it wouldn’t have passed and became a law. Unprecedented? That’s just a plain old lie. This law SHOULD be shot down in flames, 9-0. The fact that ANY of the justices would deem it constitutional is a reflection of activism.

All of you in the Obama-can-do-no-wrong crowd who are blindly supporting your leader better wake up. The next time around it will be a conservative majority passing unconstitutional laws. Politicians love precedent, let ONE of them get away with something and they ALL will do it from now on, at will and with impunity. This is not a left/right issue.

The primary role of the US Supreme Court is interpreting the Constitution.

Unfortunately for President Obama, The Constitution is the law of the land. Congress is sworn to uphold it. The President and Congress wouldn’t exist without it.

For a president who has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” might want to READ the Constitution.

He choose to have MasterMinds Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi frame this bill, neither one of those two have any understanding of the Constitution.

Funny, if it were constitutional they wouldn’t have anything to fear. If it were constitutional they would have put that little clause that says this law stands even if an unconstitutional part is removed – they rammed it in with a whole bunch of non-health add ins and said – take it or lump it… now their all upset the supreme court is actually doing their job – removing from any law which the constitution says can not be done.
But the democrats want to cry foul… I am not democrat or Republican – I am for freedom, for doing the right thing, for being fair, honest and reminding people that congress should consider the people and live with in the law.

Obama loves to threaten the Supreme Court. Perhaps they should look into his legal status as qualified to hold office.

Chicago style mafia wants to take over the whole 50 states (or to quote obama: all 57 states)?

If mandated health insurance is unconstitutional then why is mandated automobile insurance not, in the States?

If there was any thought otherwise, You can now be very sure the supes are going to tell this clown where he can shove it. Thanks for the help Barry!

What a poser…they’re just borrowing a page out of a tried and true liberal playbook; what goes around comes around

I find it amusing when an elected official (Obama) , who will be forcibly retired in ’12 or ’16, feels he can threaten the co-equal branch of government that is appointed for life. This indicates a less-than-serious approach to honest governance.

The U.S. Constitution will be here long after this idiot passes on. Maybe there will be several congressional herrings where the idiot is under review and his whole presidency gets wiped from the history pages due to him not even being eligible.

“But it’s also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president’s central legislative accomplishments.”

God forbid they DO THEIR JOB!

What part of the constitution doesn’t the president, who was a constitutional professor, understand.

Wow. What an idiot he is. The SCOTUS exists in part to PROTECT US from government over-reach and to stand between us and dictatorship. They are doing their jobs as a co-equal branch of the government. I would dare say that if it weren’t for the SCOTUS, Odumbo would have already tried to crown himself king. He already thinks he’s our saviour. This dude is downright galling!!!!

Obama goes beyond simple arrogance. If there is evil in a secular world, he epitomizes it. What a wonderful wannabe dictator.

Is it executive-branch activism when he signs the NDAA into law allowing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge? The government cannot force people to buy health insurance…. sorry. The commerce clause is not meant to be used to force citizens to purchase whatever you want at any particular time, especially services which may never be used by the citizen (health care insurance). Should citizens be required to pay $5000 per year every year of their life to pay for “insurance” that they may never use, only to basically subsidize the health care costs of another individual? This law was written by the insurance industry. It’s a bad law, all 2700 pages of it.

Obama as president, has become one of the most arrogant presidents this country has ever had. We saw in his State of the Union speech where he blasted the Supreme Court, and now his warning to them to shape up on their decisions. He has no appreciation or acceptance of the three branches of government. He is the president, the king, and no Court is going to usurp him in what he wants.

Obama as president, has become one of the most arrogant presidents this country has ever had. We saw in his State of the Union speech where he blasted the Supreme Court, and now his warning to them to shape up on their decisions. He has no appreciation or acceptance of the three branches of government. He is the president, the king, and no Court is going to usurp him in what he wants.

Veiled threat?

petradyne1, the Roberts Court did look into Obama’s legal status and refused to take the case challenging his citizenship/qualification to be president.

It’s strange how the Republican’s use “judicial activism” as one of their mantras, but Obama uses the same term in the same vain, and is demonized for doing so.

Obama never has figured out this ’3 branches to the federal government’ thing. It’s obviously an inconvenience to his ‘agenda’

If the supreme court makes it unconstitutional to impose health care charges then we should not have to be subject to the auto insurance requirements law.

“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,” Obama said…”

I would not call a 220-215 vote in the House and a 60-39 total party line vote in the Senate a “strong majority”. More pure drivel from President zero.

So I guess the “executive branch” is the only branch that counts? This freak’s gotta go!

Accuracy isn’t Mr. Obama’s strong suit. It isn’t activism when the Supreme Court does what it is supposed to do.

Mr. Obama claimed a “strong majority” passed the Act. Not exactly true. It passed 60-39 on a party-line vote in the Senate. In the House it passed 219-212, with all Republicans and 34 Democrats voting against. 7 votes out of over 430 is not a “strong majority”, it is anything but.

Additionally the process of passing the Act was contorted to avoid having to require a super-majority in the House and the Senate by among other things claiming it wouldn’t fundamentally affect taxes and deficits, all claims which have been demonstrably proven false.

If Mr. Obama was to resort to democracy with regard to this Act, he would find that something like 60% of the people are opposed. So the reality is that this is Mr. Obama’s claim to history, to remaking The Republic into what he wants, not what the American people want.

Nevermind that whole three branches of goverment thing.

Obama’s guilty conscience is showing.
ACA passed only with back-room deals.
$$$Billions for insurance companies in return for
$$$Millions in political contributions.

Pesky thing ..l that constitution

Pesky thing .. that constitution

I predict a 6-3 vote to knock it down, Breyer or maybe even Sotomayor will go with the majority, then will it still be activist?

If the decision comes down to a 5-4 vote then it definatley is a political one. How else would you explain the four Liberal justices ruling against the Constitition? Why does the media continually ignore when the four Liberal justices rule in-line with the Democratic agenda?

Perplexing.

AlfredReaud,

Because in order to drive, you have to buy car insurance. Driving is not something you have to do, but a choice. Living, and having to buy health insurance because you are simply alive is not a choice. The difference is: You choose to drive, you do not choose to live.

There are a couple of incorrect assertions in arguing the healthcare law is constitutional. First of all I nor anyone else has to enter into the healthcare market. I don’t have to go to a doctor when I am sick nor do I have to use medicare or medicaid. I can take care of it myself and just die if I can’t. Secondly having insurance does not make healthcare affordable. If I were to have health insurance it could have a $5,000 deductible per calendar year that I could never use year after year. so don’t think you have the consitutional right to force me into a market I chose not to particpate in.

This just affirms what we already know. He hates the Constitution and sees himself as being above it. He is mocking the idea that we have rules and must play by them. He should be impeached. He wants to be a dictator and has tried governing like one.

“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 [sic] elected Congress,” Really?!! As I remember it was passed using a rule side stepping an actual vote by anyone. This abhorent law was and still is opposed by the majority of Americans and should be shoved exactly where it came from. Oh but NOW he doesn’t like activist judges. The concervative judges are the ONLY ones who aren’t activist. They just interpret the Constitution.

“If mandated health insurance is unconstitutional then why is mandated automobile insurance not, in the States?”

Good grief, do we REALLY need to go over the differences AGAIN? You were smart enough to find this site so you should be smart enough to do some research on the differences.

My guess is he’s been told by one of the justices. He’s heard the individual mandate will be struck down, but probably not the bill as a whole and is positioning himself. If he was getting his way, his tone wouldn’t be strident.

Obama never has figured out this ’3 branches thing.’ It’s a tremendous inconvenience to his ‘agenda’ it seems. People have been complaining about a government that’s broken. I think it’s working just fine, and saving us from this dictator wannabe’s destructive ways.

The president is SHOCKED that SCOTUS might find a law passed by Congress and signed by the President “unconstitutional” and throw it out! …what is SCOTUS for, if not to throw out unconstitutional laws? …and what laws that they could declare unconstitutional were NOT passed by a majority in Congress?
…what law school did the President graduate from???

Truly stupid remarks …. I guess he didn’t mean what we heard him say, again. I’ve GOT to check my hearing!

No Repubs voted for it, and he calls this a law passed by a “strong majority”? Even after HIS Speaker of the House said they would “have to pass it to know what is in it” ????

Rewriting history seems to be this President’s primary objective…

Does he not know you’re suppose to wait until AFTER you retire before you start rewriting history!!!

As per the leftist playbook, Obama is redefining an established term to suit his agenda. “Judicial Activism” refers to the court overstepping their Constitutional powers and legislating from the bench. The voiding of unConstitutional legislation is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, and was the very intent of the founders. For the Supreme to NOT throw out Obamacare in its entirety would be judicial activism. Nice try Barack.

Exactly when did the Court threaten to override? The source of the quote in the last paragraph of this article is mistaken, I believe the court has made no such threat.

Today; The Supreme Court aproved a law allowing strip searches in every arrest even if it is for unpaid parking tickets or the homeless sleeping in a park. I love my country but have little faith in the govn’t. Can anyone change my mind? I would love to be wrong and know what laws they have passed to protect avg citizens and not the interests of the elite?

I can’t imagine where Obama might get the impression that the bill is in trouble. No justice could possibly be a spy. No justice could possibly have a personal relationship and personal interest in this case. We better hope they’re all as independent and trustworthy as Elena Kagan.

If he did get a leak you only need to look at the three females on the Court. Where exactly does he get the gall to say the word “activism”. I abhor most of what this man says…he does not only flip flops, he does l80′s on just about everything to please whatever audience he is in front of. Can we please vote him out?

What a partisan, radical, hack we have as POTUS. Could not author any law review articles. Wrote only a single poem before supposedly “writing” his first “memoir.” Couldn’t even introduce his memoir as factual. His entire career is as phony as denial of Bill Ayers’ friendship and ghostwriting of “Dreams From My Father.” Any legal/political advice from Obama might as well come from radical Ayers.

If the law is upheld, Obama will lose by much greater numbers than if it is overturned. The right will be operating on the adrenaline of fear and anger right into November. Their base will be so animated it will not even be fair.

I for one will man the phones 30 hours a week and do whatever else is asked of me.

Have we ever had a president whine as much as this one if something didn’t go his way or if he thought something wasn’t going to go his way? Unbelievable. He’s in way over his head. Has been from the beginning.

Well the bad news is that he is going to try to undermine the Judicial System. I wonder if he has contacted the FBI to see what they have on the judges yet? The good news is that for now we know the Supreme Court is going to find it “Unconstitutional” like they should, and I am sure that the FBI and a Sheriff may have more on him than he does on the Justices. Looks like his whole time of being President is going to be erased from history.

striking down this law would not be judicial activism but, instead, a correct interpretation of the Constitution.

The law was not passed in good conscience. Most of the Congressmen and Congresswomen had not even read the bill before passing it. There were at least 11 or 12 bribes and who knows how many threats. No transparency, two 1AM votes forced by Harry Reld. The justices should absolutely throw this 2,700 page monstrosity in the garbage. The four voting for Obamacare are probably more activist, ignoring the Constitution.

Why is PBO allowed to lie like that and no one in the media calls him on it? This joke of a law was not passed by a “strong majority”, as I recall PBO had to make deals and pay off people just to get enough votes for it to pass, and this law has not been “duly constituted”, that is what the Supreme court will decide. WAKE UP AMERICA!

Barry should check the polls which show that citizens oppose Obamacare.
The only reason it passed was due to the unethical tactics employed
by Pelosi and her operatives. It seems the constitutional professor (he wasn’t) doesn’t know the constitution.

Since when has Obama ever respected the Constitution. Look at his background, his mentors, his whole life. He is all about hating America, and everything she stands for. The Obamacare monstrosity is not about providing affordable healthcare, it is about the destruction of 20% of our economy. This along with the destruction of banking, the oil industry, small businesses, the power grid, the military, the dollar, and well you get the picture. His agenda is the end of the United States of America. That is all!

Obama boasts that this law was passed by a democratically elected Congress! That hardly makes it constitutional, idiot, especially since even Pelosi said they needed to pass it to learn what was in it.

Obama has all the credibility and deserves all the respect of his friend and ghostwriter Bill Ayers, the unrepentant Weatherman.

If I was one of the conservative 5, I would lock myself in my room and have bodyguards. We don’t want another Vince Foster case.

Since when is 219 to 212 an “overwhelming marjotity”?

riverlady wrote:
If the Court votes 5-4 against the health care law, there is no way to view this decision as other than political activism. It’s time to shake up this Court…it is no longer making impartial, non-partisan decisions

You mean if the Court votes 5-4 against the law, 4 justices have no understanding of the Constitution or chose to ignore it!

ejr1953, So it’s ‘judicial activism’ when the courts four Conservative justices rule one way but not when the four Liberal justices do so? Perhaps it’s the Liberal justices who are ruling by ‘activism’ because they’re neglecting what the Constitution says. In fact, they’re probably ruling based on International law…which we know Ginsberg is for.

Funny how that works.

Overturning laws is not judicial activism in my book, they can overturn laws all day as far as I am concerned, that’s what they are there for to defend the constitution against the elected who often think that their election is an excuse not to obey the constitution which they swear to defend and uphold.

Judicial activism is finding rights where they don’t exist and mandating policies where the court is not give the right to mandate anything.

“Passed by a strong majority” Excuse me? Weren’t we all waiting on pins and needles for months because it was so close? Remember the Scott Brown election? Besides, where is that congress now? A significant number of the ones who could have been voted out were.

And does he know what “judicial activism” is? Or what the job of the justices is? Their job is to uphold the Constitution, and the activists are the four who refuse to uphold their responsibilities.

This is simply a political shot “across the bow” from POTUS. He knows by this time that he his likely to lose the individual mandate and quite possibly the entire law on the severability question. He likely has word from Kagen that this thing is going down hard. POTUS will now use this as a campaign issue, painting the conservative court as “activist”. He will play on the fears of women over the contraceptive issue as well. It all plays into his wheelhouse. I still say he strikes out in November.

Hey Riverlandy you wrote: “If the Court votes 5-4 against the health care law, there is no way to view this decision as other than political activism. It’s time to shake up this Court…it is no longer making impartial, non-partisan decisions.”

So if the Court votes 5-4 to keep the law it’s not activism on the left’s side?

I’ll never understand the logic of the left.

The decision is to be based on the law’s Constitutional merits… nothing more… nothing less.

That, Riverlady, is why we Conservatives believe it will be struck down.

Mr. President, with all due respect, the Supreme Court doesn’t normally review laws that were not passed by an elected majority…

Obama is the closest thing to a dictator that America has ever had, he is a very creepy character. His belief is that he and he alone knows what is best for America. If you disagree you are an obvious racist, because it can’t be his utopian policies and communist tactics that you abhor. The media in America have a responsibility to vet this man and make it clear exactly what he stands for so that the electorate doesn’t remain hoodwinked.

1st was Nixon.
The 1st time the Democrats admit going national with stealing elections.
No wonder he was paranoid.
Now we have Acorn, where your own money is funding the theft of your vote.

yup If all else fails stomp your feet, point, call names, and insult. How about, “Well maybe I was wrong to challenge the US Constitution on personal freedoms”. I find this especially ironic(if not moronic)since between 1860 and 1865 so many people died to set people of HIS color free. No he wants to enslave the whole country with an out of control government. Did he not learn anything from our history? Oh yeah, sorry I forgot, he is not FROM here. My bad.

Ruling on the constitutionality of a law is not judicial activism, but making law from the bench is. This is clearly a case of the former, not the latter. And this president once taught constittional law??? Ha! Ha! Ha!

Does Elaina or Ruth have a cell phone ?

“extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

Yes, the very large majority of whom did not read the bill.

I’ve heard the argument that the individual mandate is a republican idea. Maybe the reason they never tried to implement it is that they knew it would be found unconstitutional.

I think the law will be overturned; obama’s pre-emptive rhetoric is purely for political purposes. If he was really concerned about the poor people without insurance, he would have some contingency bills that could be quickly passed to keep the parts of the bill that people are in favor of law.

People criticizing the President and Congress should also considering the way our Supreme Court is run. Atleast the President and Congress, if we don’t like them and their decisions, we can throw them out of power in 2,4,6 years. However with the Supreme Court, they are allowed to serve for life. These members are not KINGS or QUEENS! We definitely should visit the idea of having term limits for these justices. No justice selected into the Supreme Court during the Raegan administration should be making this decision. That is simply a joke. Conservatives love to talk about performance reviews and being able to throw out government officials for poor performance, but what about any repercussions for Supreme Court judges and their performances. Who is judging them? (And it doesn’t matter if they lean left or right, they can be totally incompetent and we would not have any measure to throw them out of office). We NEED TERM LIMITS FOR SUPREME COURT JUDGES NOW!!

The things this guy says with a straight face continue to amaze me.

“A strong majority…” He must not have seen the same vote in Congress that I saw. But then he’s counting on people to have forgotten how it squeaked by at the last second when he hoodwinked the pro-life democrats.

And isn’t it the job of the Supreme Court to judge the Constitutionality of the laws whether they are passed by the two other branches – or over-ridden by Congress if the President vetoed the bill?

Finally, if Mr. Obama wants to go by majority rules he should have no problem adhering to the wishes of the vast majority of the voting and non-voting citizens of the U.S. who strongly dislike the legislation and want it repealed.

The servile leftist Kagan, speaking out of court, is paying off the benefactor that owns her.

POTUS will just label all the non-compliant supremes as terrorist and excercise his NDAA priveledges.

If a majority of Republicans passed a huge law – WITHOUT EVEN READING IT – he would be screaming how unconstitutional and corrupt the process was.

For the record, we trust the Supreme Court more than we trust President Obama.

“…passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress…” – odd, I recall last-minute, dark-of-the-night, backroom-dealing and arm-twisting with pork bonuses in exchange for support from a few Democrats in the House and Senate, and it still couldn’t be passed with a straightforward vote. It was passed using all the tricks and sleight-of-hand that Reid and Pelosy could manage, and arguably was never actually passed – what was passed was essentially a bill to not oppose the legislation, as I understood it.

Blatant dishonesty, then and now.

Worst U.S. President EVER. It’s bad enough that President Obama is a left-wing radical, but he demonstrates a questionable maturity level as well. His presidency is about nothing but crying, whining, mud-slinging, and vicious name-calling. However you feel about George W. Bush…Obama makes Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.

We traditional Americans have to stop being such wimps and start standing up to the radical left-wingers. It should be obvious by now that they don’t stand for “compassion” and “love” and “tolerance” and “open-mindedness” and “understanding”. They stand for Socialism, and socialism is a train-wreck of an ideology no matter what country’s government practices it. Let’s start our comeback by taking back the presidency in November.

Obama’s two moles have reported in that it doesn’t look good for Obamacare.

“The SCOTUS exists in part to PROTECT US from government over-reach and to stand between us and dictatorship.”

You rightwingers are so mentally broken your definition of judicial activism is based on whether the issue at hand is favored by the Republicans or the Democrats. If a judge’s ruling supports a position that most Democrats would favor, the the judge is a judicial activist. If it supports a position favored by most Republicans, it’s just a judge upholding the Constitution. That’s your yardstick. It’s the phoney, rightwing anti-intellectualism at work. You don’t base your positions on principle; you base them on politics. No wonder you guys are nominating Mitt Romney, a guy with zero principles. He’ll obviously say or do anything to get elected.

Consider the Citizens United ruling. That will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s worst decisions. Our Congress makes an attempt to protect our democracy by legislating some modest campaign finance reforms and this corporate activist Supreme Court rules against Congress and the American people and opens the flood gates to corruption by allowing any rich b_stard to shape our elections with their wealth, knowing that it takes away all political balance in our society. It allows the rich to rule the other 99.9%, all in the name of “free speech”. And it was decided by 5 conservative activist judges. The remaining 4 judges all ruled against Citizens United, in favor of the citizen’s elected Congress, and they were absolutely right. The conservative Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling did more to hurt free speech than possibly any other ruling in the Court’s history.

This is a Supreme Court with an activist political agenda. Obama was trying to improve something that absolutely needs fixing–our dysfunctional, inefficient healthcare system. Republicans were against any tampering with the status quo of our healthcare system because they receive big donations from the insurance and healthcare industries, industries that are using their money to protect a status quo which is sucking the Middle Class dry while making the few very rich and very powerful. Americans are dying and going bankrupt because of this corrupt arrangement, yet the Republicans, with the help of the politically motivated John Roberts Supreme Court, are protecting the status quo for their own personal benefit.

If you really care about the Constitution and our democracy, then you’d be less worried about Obama trying to help average Americans with their healthcare and start worrying about the fact that you and I no longer have a voice in our government. Wake up! Don’t be a dolt. How can you possibly direct your invective toward a President who was only trying to improve healthcare for Americans? You’ve been tricked into hating him.

For being a self described ‘constitutional attorney’, Mr. Obama certainly seems to know very little about the Constitution…Maybe he knows enough about it to know that he doesn’t like it. Typical Leftist.

Harvard education value is dropping like a rock every time this guy opens his mouth.

If this what they’re producing, I’ll be paying for Yale or Princeton.

What a fool; did he forget all the regulations he caused that are killing business? We simply have to get rid of this bum.

hmmm…I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to rule impartially on the consititutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President and/or Executive Orders penned by the President. Popularity, the vote counts in Congress and the potential ramifications are not supposed to be considerations…can you imagine an umpire opining the potential ramifications of a “strike” called in the bottom of the nineth inning against the home team when they would then lose-no, you call them as you see them, right? My understanding is that the court has a VERY narrow mandate to rule only on constitutionality; anything else is “judicial activism”. And this bill is a HUGE Federal power grab and (in my personal opinion)unconstitutional. Shouldn’t he have better things to do than threaten the Court? The economy? The Middle East? Russia? Terrorism? Anything??

“But it’s also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president’s central legislative accomplishments.”

Unless it is found to contradict the basic tenets of the Constitution.

May ObamaCare receive as many votes from the Supremes as his budget got from House Democrats.

I reject a Law that our Lawmakers had no ability to read or understand in order to objectively vote on.

@AlfredReaud – Automobile insurance is a States issue and not the Federal Governments and is Constitutional due to the fact that, 1) it was voted on by the people of each State, 2) if you choose not to have an automobile or do not drive then you are not required by that Mandate to carry automobile insurance. This Mandate is completely voluntary by the choice you as an individual make and you are not penalized by the State Government unless you drive without insurance and are caught.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to make the determination of whether any laws that are brought before them are Constitutional or not. Since the majority of the Judges on the Supreme Court are Conservative, any decision they make that does not follow the Liberal agenda, will be seen as “Judicial Activism”. The same can be said if the majority of Judges were Liberal and they overturned a Law that followed a Conservative agenda.

The Federal Government has very limited powers that are spelled out in the Constitution. All other powers belong to the States. If the States want a Health Care Mandate and the people of that State approve then it would Constitutional, due to this being a power that belongs to the States and the people of that State voted for it.

Liberals want this Mandate to be Federal due to the difficulty that they would have getting this Mandate passed in each of the 50 States. If it is a Mandate from the Federal Government then any of us as Citizens have no option but to participate. If this were a States Mandate then we as Citizens could vote with our feet and move to another State that does not have the Mandate. This goes completely against the Liberal agenda.

Pesky checks and balances? For Obama, the ENTIRE Constitution and US way of life are pesky, and he is ACTIVELY working to destroy BOTH. During his state of the union speech last yet, Obama actually LAMENTED and complained that we have debate and due process here in the USA instead of just having the government roll over people like the Chicoms did with the new dam. Funny huh?
When is the last time you heard Obama say “i am a servant of the people” ? Or when did you lately hear a congressman or senator say that? You HAVE NOT heard that for MANY years, because they have moved into the stage of being elitist-minded megalomaniacs who detest anything that stands in their way. Things like the Constitution, the will of the People, stuff like that.
The Supreme Court has ONE(1) legitimate mandate: to make sure the legislative branch passes laws that are CONSTITUTIONAL, per the letter of the Constitution. If they DO their job, they WILL strike down Obamacare. If they do not strike down Obamacare, then THAT is judicial activism, if one see activism as replacing the contitution with existential ideologies or politics. Period.

We also abhorred passing a bill at midnight on a Saturday that no one read (we had to pass it to see what was in it)that significantly expanded the reach of federal government in to people’s lives by FORCING them to purchase a product, but it didn’t seem to stop YOU from doing those things

Wasn’t it Mr. Obama who lamented that thing run much more smoothly in China.
There, the RULING class does not have to worry about check and balances.

Whaaa, whaaa.

flashrooster: “Eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom.” –author Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Obama’s statement is very encouraging as it probably reflects the reality that he will lose in a significant way when the court rules. It must be tough for the conservatives on the court to maintain even a semblance of impartiality given the verbal abuse Obama dumped on them when they were sitting right in front of him at the State of the Union a year ago.

I get more frightened of this president every time he opens his mouth.

Why pick a fight before the law has been decided? That in itself is “unprecedented” as was the President’s attack on the justices during a state-of- the-union address. If a president could influence a decision Blythe court by his public comments, it seems he ones he chose were counterproductive and inflammatory. Maybe his plant onto court, Elena Kagan, has tipped him off to where it’s headed?

In his Orwellian doublespeak, the Commandant in Chief calls the upholding of Constitutional law by the SCOTUS “activism?” Congress used activism in ramming this law down the collective throat using every bribe, coercion and every legislative trick in the book to pass it in Congress.

Mr Obama, YOU are the activist and it remains for the Supreme Court to stop you in your Marxist tracks and imposing tyranny over our United States

This was not “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” It was scammed through. It should have never been passed and should be struck down. Then they should go back to the drawing board and come up with a bi-partisan solution everyone can live with.

hes not a president hes an embarrassment

Judicial activism is when the court MANDATES laws, or rules on a law using guidelines other than the constitution. Ruling for or against a law as constitutional is not activism. That is their job.

So, he’s perfectly fine when it’s someone else’s ox being gored but, when it’s his he screams like a little girl. I would love to be a lot more insulting but, staying to the point; The president does not understand that this nation is NOT a democracy. It’s a representative REPUBLIC. As for party, which one brought you slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, and abortion that effects more black families and children than any other group? Democrats. Which party fought a war to win the rights of freedom for African Americans, which one stopped the Jim Crow laws, integrated the military and schools, tried to create a “level playing field” and has generally been against the organized murder of African American babies? Republicans. Vote for freedom, Vote Republican.

“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,”

Is he kidding? Republicans weren’t even allowed in the room while the details were being worked out. …and nobody even READ THE THING before it was voted into law. Somebody needs to let this ego maniac know that the US isn’t a banana republic and he’s not the king.

Can’t we let states group their plans and let people decide if they need to live in one?

In case the scrub the last comment for being to bluntly truthful, the fact is that this president has NO business commenting on and threatening the Supreme Court. I hope his impeachment before these jurists he’s just insulted is soon.

“a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”, lied Oblamer.

OblamerCare passed the house 50.8% to 49.2%.

“would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that [passed by the slimmest majority of a] democratically elected Congress”, lied Oblamer.

SCOTUS has declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional between 1789 and 2002.

Apparently kagan, has given him a count and its not good for his unconstitutional power grab! Wake up people there is nothing in the constitution, bill of rights or the founders federalist papers to support
1/6 of our economy given over to bureaucrats and medical death councils(and don’t believe if your over a certain age, you won’t be denied access to health services). When it something the democrats want the judges are doing the right thing, when its judges protecting us from federal overreach it becomes activism? No one has the right to make any of us buy anything comrade obama!

Strong majority passed barrycare? He had to bribe the Blue Dogs (since voted out of Congress by the way) to get the votes.

He actually said “unintellected”. If W had said that Jay and Dave would be howling, and the major networks would have it on a loop.

The law may have been passed by a democratically elected legislature, but that same legislature was repudiated overwhelmingly in the next election.

Somebody should point out to this ex ‘constitutional professor’ that there is a profound difference between judicial activism and striking down a law that is not constitutional….

Obama is the great pretender, an affirmative action student and must br removed.

Let’s review President Obama’s accomplishments for the last week:

1. He incites and inflames racial tensions nationwide by saying that Trayvon Martin could have been his son. Brilliant!

2. He tells the Russian president, when he thinks no one is listening, that after “his” election in November, he will have the “flexibility” to cut Russia a better deal on nuclear disarmament. There’s a word for people who sell out their country.

3. The Supreme Court Justices, including his own appointments, virtually laugh his team of legal eagles out of the High Court when they can’t defend Obamacare against the commerce clause of the Constitution. This former University of Chicago law professor apparently isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.

4. The US House, in a BIPARTISIAN, UNANIMOUS 414-0 vote, rejects Obama’s proposed spending budget. Even Nancy Pelosi can’t stomach Obama’s reckless spending anynmore.

5. Today, Obama suggests that the SCOTUS throw out the Constitution and leave Obamacare alone simply because Congress made it law. I do believe Obama has gone over the edge when he declares that the Separation Of Powers no longer exists and that any law passed by Congress, for that reason alone, passes the test of Constitutionality.

I seriously think the president is having some sort of breakdown or he’s the most dangerous president this country has ever elected.

“Judicial activism” is creating law out of thin air. Everyone knew the individual mandate faced an enormous constitutional hurdle and, surprise surprise, it’s probably not going to be able to clear that hurdle. There is nothing remotely close to judicial activism occurring, unless you consider applying the easy to read words of the Constitution’s commerce clause to be “judicial activism.”

Nothing would give me more pleasure than watching Obama have to campaign not just against a Republican, but also against the whole Supreme Court. He has already antagonized the Court more than once – publicly chastising them and now calling them ‘unelected’. From someone ineligible to BE elected, that is a hollow complaint.

Trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to do what he wants? Therefore anyone of the nine who votes his way will be looked upon as one subject to his influence or intimidation. He should have kept quiet. The only other possible reason they would vote so is because they don’t hold to the founding fathers and the Constitution.

The whole bill needs to be thrown out because it constitutes abuse of the legislative system. There is no way to properly understand all that was hidden inside it – including Obaam’s private domestic standing army – and enacting into law things which may be hidden in the bill that harm our freedoms and rights is unacceptable. Our rights to know what our laws are about supersedes Obama’s right to sign a lot of shady hanky panky into law just because enough Dem sheep legislators followed their shepherd O-baaaaa-ma.

flashrooster said “blah blah blah blah”.

Congress passed this massive federal takeover of healthcare without even reading the bill. SCOTUS doesn’t want to read it. They couldn’t pass it without giving exemptions and special benefits to certain groups in order to gain their vote–all this equals a boondoggle. The Supreme Court would be remiss if they DON’T write the whole thing off as unconstitutional. More regulation and more bureaucracy always means less freedom and higher costs.

The question was asked, DID OBAMA HAVE A LEAK FROM THE COURT?
Or words to that effect.
two words
Kagan
Sotomayer

There are no limits to the depths that this man is willing sink to in his pathetic attempts to attack anyone who doesn’t march in lock step with his agenda. He has demonstrated over and over again that he has absolutely no respect for any governmental institution, much less the general public that he supposedly serves. His serial lies, distortions, and incessant excuse-making and absolute refusal to accept any form or responsibility significantly debases the office he holds.

Obama doesn’t even understand what conservatives mean by judicial activism. Overturning a law by Congress & signed by the President is potentially subject to be reviewed by Federal the Federal courts when a case is brought forth reguarding that law. They the Supreme court justices are obligated to review that law’s constitutionality and decide the case using the US Constitution as a blue print. This what the justices are SUPPOSED to do. Judicial activism is when they try to MAKE law while using other things other than the Constitution such as FOREIGN laws, new social mores, ideology etc., etc. The Roe Vs Wade decision I believe was an example of judicial activism. If activism fits Obama’s definition then any piece of legislation passed into law would be immune to the review of the Supreme court with the absence of judicial activism.

Dear Editors, you have no standards except to further the leftist socialist agenda. “Free” or “Fair” press and reporting? Not here.

What the hell is wrong with you people! Don’t you realize the SUPREME VACATION TAKER has plans to run the country into the ground?!! Obviously, you children have not had your Unicorn Milk under the Rainbows yet!

You live by the sword, you… For decades liberals have relied on the judiciary to push things the public does not want, like gay marriage in California and racial quotas. This guy is a piece of work but will probably get re-elected because all the cubical dwellers think he’s a nice guy with a nice smile and nice kids and wears nice ties…

Some of us are feeling we are less better off than we were 6 trillion dollars ago, particularly at the gas pump for starters. President Obama better polish up his spin machine because it looks like Obamacare is another big administration disappointment and he will have to face this failure. Hope and change have changed to disillusionment and bankruptcy Mr. President.

“a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”
since when is 219-212 a strong majority?
and it was passed by handing out the bribes and kickbacks!

“Obama, a Democrat…”

Thank you, Reuters, for letting everyone know Obama is a Democrat.

Reuters should stick to reporting the news from Belgium, or wherever the hell they are.

Hello. Just testing. Try responding to my email Mr. Editor. Let’s have a real discussion about “freedom of the press”.

It is interesting how obama strikes out at the conservative Justices are playing politics if they vote his Health care down yet he says nothing about the 4 justices he has in his back pocket. What a hypocrit this guy is.

Obama seems to miss that 26 states filled a lawsuit against the bill. That alone says something about it

Good taste, good manners, precedent and history mean nothing to the guy who calls himself Barack Obama.

Really: all this crap coming from a guy who is forcing much of American citizens to purchase, (as in BUY), health care coverage rather than offer it to all citizens freely like most of the civilized world?
Force me to buy it, I barely make ends meet thanks to his foolish and reckless economic policies, his retarded social-service spending, (oh, so I pay for everyone on welfare to get FREE health coverage but I have to PAY for mine?) and his inability to be anything other than the Democritic senate’s puppet??? What a tool. Second worst president ever; after reagan.

“overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

He thinks ramming this through by buying votes from his OWN party and getting NO votes from the opposition is a “strong majority”?!

I hope the Supreme Court goes further and starts to limit some of the ridiculous abuses Congress perpetrates on us by way of the Commerce Clause!

This is why it is more important than every to get a new president. Obama’s Supreme Court appointees could very well change the way we live in this country.

I believe SCOTUS will uphold parts of Obamacare based on political reasons.I heard from someone who works for Big Pharma and read the law that it is to far entrenched to be repealed.

The Hot Theory on How the Supreme Court Gets to a 6-3 Vote to Uphold Obamacare
March 30, 2012
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/30/the_hot_theory_on_how_the_supreme_court_gets_to_a_6_3_vote_to_uphold_obamacare

There will come a point in time in which the GOP again will control all three branches of government in this Country..If by setting up a presidence for government to control what the American must buy etc…well that door will swing both ways…I just as soon have it dead bolted now..

Great, threatening the Supreme Court because he couldn’t make enough appointments during his term to further his marxist agenda. Let’s pray the conservative justices know what the US Constitution says. We know Ginsberg and Kagen are not to be counted on to do what is constitutionally correct.

You can say one thing about Obama, he does know how to play the game. He has proven that he can spin just about anything his way, regardless of how off it is.

It’s sad and scary the level of disrespect the POTUS is showing toward the Supreme Court. Obama tends to forget about the 3 branches thing. It’s a tremendous inconvenience to someone with his dictatorial agenda. Thank god we have a system of checks and balances in place.

I assume then, that Obama feels the same way about Roe v. Wade.

Waitttttt, so if enough Americans vote for making marriage a legal union between a man and a woman then the Supreme Court can’t overturn that?
Oh and if affirmative action with colleges is found to be racially biased by the states then the Supreme Court can’t overturn that?
The way I see this: the Supreme Court only counts when it agrees with him or Congress?
WHAT A TOOL!

In 2008 Obama, then running against Hillary, claimed her idea of a mandate was unconstitutional. Then he proceeds to make a law using the mandate. Knowing (if you believe he is such a brilliant constitutional scholar) this, he signs the bill, a dereliction of his duties to ‘protect and defend’. Now he calls those that might actually follow the constitution activists. Please!

“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,” Obama said….

And this guy was a law professor?

It’s judicial activism when the Court creates or allows laws/powers that are not spelled out in the US Constitution. It’s actually fulfilling it’s duty of Judicial Review when the court declares a Law/Act created by Government to be Constitutional or Unconstitutional.
The Individual Mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Congress cannot order private citizens to purchase anything from another private individual. And no, it’s not like auto insurance. You do not have to by auto insurance because you do not have to drive. The only way to opt out of the penalties from the individual mandate is to 1) leave the country or 2) die.

Oh and just for the record JOHNGALT4, the ruling on strip searches. When you are arrested, if you are booked into jail, the jail has an interest to keep weapons & contraband away from the other inmates. The court has always understood this, this challenge was a waste of time from it’s inception.

I still think it is not appropriate for Kagen to not recuse herself on this issue since she has had involvement in it before being placed on the court. This is not an ordinary case brought before the court, but one of the current president with 2 people of whom he has had placed on that court. Both Sotomayer and Kagen should be excused from this particular process because of favoritism toward the man who got them the job. This is supposed to be a Constitutional issue, not a Democrat/Republican match. But since it will not be a Constitutional issue but a liberal judge vs conservative judge we’ll just have to wait and see. But I’ve come to not expect much when it comes to politics.

This is one of the biggest idiots to ever hold public office, which is saying a lot.

NONSENSE! The court’s role is to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. ObamaCare is clearly unconstitutional, because the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court will strike it down, as they should.

Remember also that this law is a 2700 page monstrosity that members of Congress did not even read before signing. And, it was so problematic that over 1000 organizations (unions & companies) sought and were granted waivers.

Frightening!

Hope and pray they overturn the ENTIRE 2,700-page law. Doing so with better than a 5-4 split would be great too. It’ll be interesting to see how he spins it if that happens. So the solicitor general looks back trying to argue in favor of a terrible piece of legislative rubbish, and they’re supposed to overlook that and rule in favor anyway!?

mr. Obama, at the SCOTUS-level, it is called “Judicial Review.”

Now that Obama, a member of the bar snd an officer of the court has insulted and challenges the integrity of the SCOTUS Chief Justice and Associate Justices, he should be immediately have his law license suspended and face disciplany procedings, up to and including disbarrment.

flashrooster has no clue how the Constitution works. You don’t just arbitrarily change sections of the Constitution on whim and scotus justices took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Two words”
Kagan
Sotomayer

What strong majority? You passed it with seven votes in a Democrat-controlled House and ultimately needed a controversial “reconciliation” procedure to get it through the Senate.

Does this man ever speak the truth?

Odd that FDR once tried to pack the Court and even Jefferson fired a chief justice or tried to…..Now we have the worse rotten little tyrant ever to be in the WH warning SCOTUS. BTW, the Dems passed Obamacare without one Pub vote so …while SCOTUS is unelected, Bama appointed jurists there and hoped they would approve his bill. If they do not, the public will finally, I pray, realize what an un-American character this guy is . BTW, if a leak occured, it will the first time the ‘Fri. mt. would ever, EVER have been disclosed. The person or persons who might have done this of course should be canned…if it happened. Or impeached if it were a jurist .

Judicial activism is judges who make laws. Judges who determine that laws written by the lawmakers do not comply with the Constitution are not committing “activism,” they are simply doing the job they were selected to do. Executive Branch activism is when a president threatens the court to do his bidding.

Wow you have some nerve Mr. President. It would be nice if you could site some precedent that should allow this law to stand.

In order to repeal this monstrosity, a President will have to acquire a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. I sincerely hope that occurs this November, but it is not likely. Our best hope is that the Supremes will declare the whole thing unconstitutional and be done with it. That’s how Liberals have gotten their way for half a century, and now the shoe could be on the other foot. The President is absolutely right when he says Conservatives have been yelling for years about activist courts. So now, maybe, it’s his turn to cry.

Judicial Activism What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This guy is scary and a nut case.
Liberals are the Judicial Activist. Take the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. They have been over ruled more than any other Federal Appeals Court and even repremanded because of thier Judicial Activism.
Get this idiot out of this Office, he’s dangerous and he thinks he know the Consitution. The only Constitution he has any expert knowledge of is the one he takes every morning called a dump.

For a constitutional law professor he sure doesn’t know the difference between activism and adhering to the constitution.

What the conservatives dislike is ‘legislating from the bench’, where the judicial branch essentially creates the law of the land, where legislation has been silent (Roe v. Wade, for example). Can anybody name a time that the Republicans were upset by the courts ruling that a new law is unconstitutional? I can’t.

Is President Obama REALLY trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court? If so, I have a suggestion for him: propose an Amendment to the Constitution that either gets rid of the Supreme Court entirely, or forbids anyone with a strict constructionist or conservative point of view from serving as a Supreme Court Justice. And maybe another Amendment giving him plenary powers with no need for Congress. After all, of what need does a dictator have for legislative and judicial oversight. Clearly the Founding Fathers were evil racists because they have made Obama’s job so difficult.

It’s not that common for the SCOTUS to overturn a President’s signature legislation because it’s not that common for a President to discard the oath they swore and press for blatantly unconstitutional legislation.

Obama is definetly a product of Affirmative Action.

It is unconscionable that Kagan did not recuse herself. An outrageous abuse of power. How on earth did she get away with this?

Wow. For a President who like to tout that he was a Constitutional Law professor, the failure to understand or acknowleddge the most basic case in our history, the case that created judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, is remarkably ignorant. He doesn’t seem to know what unprecedented means or even remember that he used the State of the Union address to lambast the Citizen’s United case that overturned parts of McCain-Feingold. And “passed by a strong majority” of Congress? It passed by 7 of the 435 votes in the House. That is hardly a strong majority. Obama is setting up someone else to blame when he campaigns this Summer. All he seems to know how to do is to blame someone else. That is, IMHO, irresponsible.

By his own statement Obama is proving once again his efforts to attack the Constitution and Bill of Rights he swore an oath to protect and obey.

We’ve had great presidents, we’ve had terrible presidents. There have been honest, dishonest, greedy and corrupt presidents. I don’t believe we have ever had a president who didn’t care about the Constitution and American institutions until now. president Obama is the most disloyal president we have ever had and, I hope, ever will have. he is a total disgrace to the office.

This comment was only made to show how idiotic the constant rallying against “judicial activism” is.

I hope that if the Supreme Court has already come to a decision on this (assuming it goes down), I hope the justices reconvene and decide to represent the vote as 9-0 to send a message to this arrogant excuse of a president we currently have!

I wonder who is giving him this advice? Is it really wise to gratuitously antagonize justices before a major decision is reached? Mr. Obama does not even have majority public support for his Affordable Health Care Act, so the populist tone really falls flat even there. The Affordable Care Act was not vote getter in 2010, so why would it be now? If Mr. Obama’s health care reform is killed by the Supreme Court before the November elections, he will resemble a loud drunk more than a national leader. He really needs to avoid setting himself for such a collapse.

Striking down Obamacare would NOT be Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism is when the Court via interpretation and extrapolation adds additional regulation to a law’s application that was never intended by Congress. Striking down laws as unconstitutional is EXACTLY why the Supreme Court was established in our Constitution as a check and balance to the power of Congress and the President.

If we the People can not trust our Supreme Court to be Actively participating in the Judicial system then who can we trust? The Job of the Supreme Court is to decide if a bill is constitutional or not, because lets face it, the President and Congress don’t always pass constitutional Bills. Checks and Balances help stave off a Tyranny…but that is why Obama is so upset, he wants to be a Ruler, not a President.

This piece actually claims that Democrats like Obama look to Republicans like Romney for Inspiration.

The President does not seem to understand the Constitution. There are THREE branches of government and the Supreme Court, under the Constitution can decide that ANY law is unconstitutional and declare it “null and void.”

extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress
AHAHAHAHAAH Is he for real ?
He pushed , twisted and BRIBED people to pass this bill AGAINST THE WISHES of the VAST majority of American people . On top of it it’s unconstitutional .
If the Supreme Court doesn’t knock it down THEN there is a big problem with the court.
Is this jerk for real ?

Amazing!!!It’s “Checks and Balances”, live with it.
I live in California. In Ca, If you make less than 15,000 or disable, you get MSI (govn’t insurance). Since i’m making more than 15,000 i having to pay the bills. (I’m making a bit > 20,000/year). I can’t afford health insurance. I went to the hospital. They garnished my salary when i’m going back to work. (I try chapter 7 but that didn’t work either.)

If my car hit another car and i don’t insurance or i don’t have money, The other party (person) has no way to collect money from me. What i’m doing with my car can effect other people. Therefore, by law, they can regulate it.

Obama and his anti-constitutional cohorts in the democrat party could have passed the individual mandate as a TAX, and it would have been perfectly constitutional. But noooooooo, they had to avoid the responsibility (and possible backlash) of calling for higher taxes – so they decided to be sneaky about it and take the lid off of the commerce and hide their tax within it.

THEY (Obama and the democrats) screwed up. The Supreme Court will do its assigned job and protect the constitution and the rights of the people. The government does not have the right to use the commerce clause to tell citizens what they must buy.

It is Obama who wants to change our constitution and remake America into something it was never meant to be. We are a constitutional republic with limited federal government – not a top down socialist (autocratic) utopia.

We must fight as if our lives depend upon it in this coming election – because they do.

My health “insurance” went up 87% in the last 18 months, and I am perfectly healthy. Don’t tell ME that it’s not ObamaCare raising my rates!
How can any Member of Congress — in good conscience — vote for a 2,700-page bill that he or she hasn’t read?
If Congress wants to insure against pre-existing conditions, all it has to do is impose a health-care TAX (which it can do). The health benefits should be available ONLY to people who have actually PAID the tax … not to all the freeloaders who want ME to pay for their health care. I didn’t breed your kids, and I’m not paying for them. It’s YOUR problem.

At last, obama is being transparent. This is a transparent attempt to influence the Supremes’ votes — especially that of Chief Justice Roberts. Forget the cover story that it’s to energize obama’s base. That’s a distraction.

Go ahead and try to intimidate the court. Your Chicago thug political tactics may not play there as well as you think they will. Imagine a happy Christmas of 2012… Obamacare struck down in its entirety and Obama and his gang of criminals summarily tossed out of Washington.

“I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” Obama said.

How dumb can a President be? Let me explain this to you Mr. President. You get Congress to pass a bill that uses the tax system to fund what you want. We do that all the time (see e.g., Medicare or Medicaid or SS). So sorry that you knew the people would not go for the necessary taxes to fund your “signature legislation” but that’s your problem. No need to sit on national T.V. and argue with the interviewer that the “penalty” is not a tax and then later try to convince the SC that it is a tax. Be forthright and honest and you might get what you want.

riverlady You are so full of it . If you do it , it’s perfectly fine. The left has been ruling but overturned court rulings for 25 years . This niece of junk legislation is DOA as it should be . By the way do you or any other big mouth liberals have an clue what’s in those thousands of pages ? NO you don’t you big mouth and neither do any other of you liberal morons.

This impostor in the oval office is too stupid for the position. A constitutional scholar? What a laugh. He hasn’t read it. Guaranteed. If he had, he would realize that the Supreme Court does not overreach. They interpret. They are not like local, state and federal judges that can make a wide range of rulings based on the law and can write a determination of findings in which they can direct the legislation how to proceed, etc. The SCOTUS determines IF a law is Constitutional and THEN bases their decision on there knowledge of the Constitution, the US laws and previous court precedents. And for this fraud to come out and say a WORD before they have written their positions is a criminal abuse of power.

It’s time. This clown has to go. Next he’ll be ginning up his goons to threaten the conservative justices.

It’s just baffling how anyone could have voted for him once..let alone do it again.

Oh, BTW, did you all see where his campaign has turned off the credit card verification function…again?

Really? His own counsel, tag-teaming over three days, can’t successfully argue his case before the Supremes, so now he’s resorting to bullying another branch of government which 1) has in it a member who should have recused herself as she helped pen the legistlation being considered, and 2) was openly blasted and ridiculed during a State of the Union address? Really? And why exactly does he think that anything he’s said or will say will change their minds now? Exactly how many “unelected” personnel has he put in power?…outside the two on the Court, that is.

Regardless of the outcome, clearly, the federal judiciary is a political body that is un-elected and un-accountable. Marbury v Madison was a power grab. The federal judiciary should be dismantled. State courts should rule on Constitutionality. I have no problem at all with different outcomes in different states. These differences can be negotiated.

I think the more appropriate point to the President’s comments is, if he’s elected another four years, can he deal with the same court? The five justices he opposes aren’t likely going anywhere anytime soon. Additionally, he’s calling partisanship when he has TWO of 9 votes placed in his favor. If the court disagrees with him its because the law is unconstitutional, but if it’s not that, perhaps calling them out in your first State of the Union wasn’t such a great idea. President Obama demonstrated his lack of knowledge, and his utter disdain for people who can think for themselves. “This bill was passed by a majority elected Congress.” Quick name one law that wasn’t. I rest my case.

If as you say it was passed with a majority on congress then whats the issue, oh…wait it wasn’t thats just another lie.

If as the constitutional scholar you claim to be its constitutional then whats the issue…oh wait, your not and its’ not.

Threatening SCOTUS? Obama, take it out on someone else’s granny and grandpa!

Judicial activism is when the court creates a new law or a new right by their decision. Declaring the constitutionality of an existing law is exactly what they are supposed to do. In fact, it’s the only thing they are supposed to do. Our education system has failed us mightily.

“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,”

It has hard to imagine a high-level official in our government with a poorer concept of separation of powers and roles of our branches of government. That one branch of our government does something contrary to the Constitution does not mean that the rest should blindly follow. In fact, just the contrary. That’s the point.

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, harcore-Left Democrat activists before joining the SCOTUS, most likely, are leaking to Obama all what the SCOTUS is doing regarding Obamacare.

On his account, Obama is crossing the line in terms of the division of power the Constitution calls for. But Obama doesn’t care; to him, the Constitution is just “…a charter of negative liberties…” as he said it publicly.

His pathologically grand ego is showing yet again. He’s scared so he does what all bullies do…he threatens. If this “law” which is really a Marxist trap doesn’t get overturned he’ll have a hard time explaining all of the lying he and his administration have done regarding the contents of this bill like: death panels, taxpayer funded abortion, 1500+ exemptions for his contributors, the disaster it will bring to the economy, etc….The lying media will have some scrambling to do as well.

I’m sympathetic to both sides. I see the value is the conservative argument of over-reach. If the government can compel me to buy private insurance what else can they compel me to buy? But lets look at the other side, the government is already providing medical insurance de-facto to people who didn’t buy it and got hurt or sick … they are really just trying to roll those people into the broader system so they don’t have to go into so much debt because someone failed to be responsible.

The real problem is that the single-payer option was removed. Hear me out. If the government provided only catastrophic coverage, over 100k, it would be brilliant. Insurance companies could provide all insurance coverage under 100k … they stuff they want to cover and are good at covering. They will take 99% of the load. Over 100k, 1% of cases; insurance doesn’t want but would be covered by a small tax (which are constitutional) increase. Taxes go up by 1%, healthcare costs go down by 20% and we all have more money in the bank for it!

There’s a comment above about Obamacare being constitutional, just as states that require automobile insurance to drive a car. There is, hoewver, a large and distinctive difference. I don’t have to drive. I could walk, ride public transportation, take a taxi, etc. I don’t, however, have any option to Obamacare’s mandated purchase of insurance. This is definately a tax on breathing. Those that don’t understand the difference have simply embibed too much of the liberal Kool Aid. The law is unwanted by a LARGE majority of the people, and to make them buy something, anything, is simply way beyond what the founders thought would ever happen.

Would not suprise me a bit.

It is not judicial activism for the court to up hold the constitution if the law passed by a majority of congress is unconstitutional. I think this only reveals Obama’s true unconstitutional bias and he does not like it that the court might strike down his mandate that is unlawful in that is a gross over reach of power.

That damn pesky Constitution and those moronic Supreme Court Judges he didn’t put into place. Just 4 more years and he’ll correct all these glitches.

Sounds like pure despiration! He damn well knows that this WILL become a heated issue during the election…. “while many of you lost your jobs as a result of this bafoons handling of the economy, he WASTED a year and half on a piece of legislation that no one read, was deliberated behind closed doors, required special appeasement of members of his own party to vote for and a majority of American’s don’t want. Do you really want to give this guy 4 more years???”

Does anyone see the authority below for Congress to pass legislation about health care? Or any other of hundreds of unlawful statutes? Nope. That’s because they do not have the authority.

Section 8:

1 – The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2 – To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3 – To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

4 – To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5 – To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

6 – To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

7 – To establish post offices and post roads;

8 – To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

9 – To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

10 – To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

11 – To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

12 – To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

13 – To provide and maintain a navy;

14 – To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

15 – To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

16 – To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17 – To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

18 – To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers

DeannaTX at Apr 02, 2012 5:03pm EDT: obama has made statements in the past that indicate he thinks the Constitution is obsolete. If you don’t have a good memory, dear, take notes.

I am so ashamed that I voted for Obama ….. the man is nothing more than a political hack, that hates the Constitution and will use anything to get re-elected. November 2012 cannot come soon enough…

If Obamacare is overturned expect Obama, if reelected, to blackmail the states into passing it with the threat of withdrawn federal monies.

He will demand that each state pass his obamacare or not receive federal dollars for schools, state government employees retirements, and many other state policies.

Obama won’t give up and either will his democrats. They are salivating over the fact they took over one sixth of our economy and they won’t give that money and power up.

Of course they are now busy taking over our energy with all the EPA, and Energy dept. new rules and regulations. Since they couldn’t pass cap & trade legislatively Obama is now doing it through the EPA and the Energy dept (Stephen Chu). That is why you see coal plants being shut down, gas prices going up, up, up.
Obama says he can’t do anything about it but as a Senator he demanded Bush do something about it.

My how Obama changes when he is wearing those presidential shoes.

Obama will be King (dictator) over our dead bodies if necessary.

Obama, Obamacare and the Democrats age going down in flames this year.

God “is” Saving America. Thank God.

Oh, gee, I get it now. Obama is concerned about the “protection” or “preservation” of supposed Conservative concerns about judicial activism, and he wants to make sure the court doesn’t do anything that Conservatives would be upset with … Right …

This guy Obama is delusional to the point of being dangerous. It really is time to start sincerely questioning his true motives on all aspects of his administration.

Just think if this president had concentrated on the economy, jobs and engergy independance. Instead this multinational fraud is attempting to overthrow a third equal branch of government, the Supreme Court! He divides, he does not unite. The only people in his corner now are union thugs, welfare cheats and the Marxist left wing of the Democratic party

Obama, Obamacare and the Democrats age going down in flames this year.

God “is” Saving America. Thank God.

It was so exciting to see the Supreme Court come to life during this 3-day debate. I swear, the Supreme Court has been in a coma since the Clinton administration. I wouldn’t call it “Judicial activism” Mr. President- I would call it “doing their job.” If part of the bill are unconstitutional- the entire bill is unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia said, trying to go through the 3,000 page bill to decide which parts to keep, which parts to throw out is akin to the 8th Amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” If an Obama spy leaked it to the president that they are going to throw it out- it must be true. I say, Kudos! Way to go Supreme Court. Not only upholding the constitution, doing your job but listening to the consent of the American people, the majority of who do not want Obama Care in any form.

only Obama would consider upholding the Constitution as “judicial activism”. Face it people, the 44th President fully intends to be the 1st Dictator.

He swore an oath to the Constitution—-uphold, protect, and defend.

To again denigrate the Supreme Court is demeaning.

This President is appalling. His ego has no bounds, and his intelligence has real limits.

Jake

He is lying and he knows hes lying, the majority of congress did not vote for this sham of a bill, it was only the demoncrats, that’s far from a majority. and the way they passed the bill was illegal to begin with, and these human dung bags, know it. this guy is delusional.

It was so exciting to see the Supreme Court come to life during this 3-day debate. I swear, the Supreme Court has been in a coma since the Clinton administration. I wouldn’t call it “Judicial activism” Mr. President- I would call it “doing their job.” If part of the bill are unconstitutional- the entire bill is unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia said, trying to go through the 3,000 page bill to decide which parts to keep, which parts to throw out is akin to the 8th Amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment.” If an Obama spy leaked it to the president that they are going to throw it out- it must be true. I say, Kudos! Way to go Supreme Court. Not only upholding the constitution, doing your job but listening to the consent of the American people, the majority of who do not want Obama Care in any form.

So this “supposed” law professor doesn’t seem to understand that one of the supreme courts basic functions is to rule on the constitutionality of a law when it is in question. He doesn’t seem to understand that “judicial activism” is when courts ignore the constitution and find “rights” or “rules” in the constitution that aren’t actually there, but invent one that fits with that judges political agenda. He doesn’t seem to understand that to do so is actually a liberal tendency when they cannot enact their agenda through prescribed procedures and is actually an impeachable offense since that judge took an oath to uphold the constitution and not a political agenda. He doesn’t seem to understand that anyone who has actually read the constitution is aware that his health care power grab is in fact unconstitutional and should be found to be so. He doesn’t seem to understand that a true leader does not engage in constant class warfare to attempt to achieve his agenda. In short there is much this fraud does not understand.

Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the [healthcare] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

This statement is the definition of insanity. Any democrat who respects or supports Ms. Pelosi after such an inane statement is either blinded by ideology, or a fool, or both.

I like how Obama is complaining about unelected bureaucrats when we the private sector have to put up with ALL the Department of (insert Government Agency here) who are all unelected bureaucratic CZARS. EPA, OSHA, IMSHA, Dept of Education, Department of Health… All unelected CZARS running our lives and Obama loves them all.

Are you kidding me? That Obama holds the Constitution of the United States (along with it’s prescribed system of checks and balances) with such disdain is no surprise…but that he is so blatant about it never ceases to amaze me. This man views himself as being above the Constitution, and quite franklin the prospect of his winning a second term in which he answers to no one terrifies me.

riverlady wrote:
If the Court votes 5-4 against the health care law, there is no way to view this decision as other than political activism. It’s time to shake up this Court…it is no longer making impartial, non-partisan decisions.
Your right it’s time to throw this jack ass out and it is comming. Ruth BUZZY Ginsberg, Kagan and that other idot he put on the court need to go now. They have no judicial experience to be sitting on the court other than they are libtard pigs and need to go now. So go back to your OWS tent and maybe some smelly, dirty, flea infested pig will share some kool aid with you and poosibly some STD’s also!

To the people who say this law being overturned is the end of democracy and it judicial act. do not know what judicial act. is. It would be judicial act. if the court overturns the law and writes a new law which they feel would work better. Calling this judicial a is a joke the same way saying when CA overturned the law against gay marriage way.

Obama lies with such facility: “…passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”. What a total crock. Surely the American people remember the Democrats pulling every trick in the book to barely get this bill through Congress. It was only two years ago & Obama is already rewriting history.

Maybe the Court will be peeved by his insults and blatant political interference in their business and decide to take up the Constitutional Question: “What is the meaning of Natural-Born Citizen?

Roberts’ right wing partisan activist Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the government can strip search you for any reason, except to provide you with health care.

I can’t stand people who pout when they don’t get their way, which is all this guy can do; pout and blame others. The Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare because it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which Obama would admit if he actually cared about the Constitution.

While calling it a ‘strong majority’ is a too much for even me, considering it was unanimously and strongly opposed by the other party, and still is more unpopular than popular with the general public. However, to think that a Constitutional Law teacher could make his signature achievement an unconstitutional law is too obscene to believe. He would have to be a blithering idiot to make such a mistake.

Roberts’ right wing partisan activist Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the government can strip search you for any reason, except to provide you with health care.

riverlady:

If the court does does not vote 9-0 against Obamacare, it will be political activism since there is ZERO authority for Obamacare in the US constitution therefore 100% of it is unconstitutional.

How can Obama with a straight face make pronouncements like this?

It’s one thing to say something like, “We feel confident that this Law will pass constitutional muster. Should the SC rule it unconstitutional, we would strongly disagree, but look for ways to make the Law meet the SC’s requirements”

But to basically say that if the SC finds it unconstitutional, it’s all because of Judicial Activism? How about it’s all because this was a poorly crafted bill?

Obama now takes first prize for being the most egotistical President ever. How dare the SC question his baby?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The 10th Amendment.

Also, you don’t have to have car insurance. You have to have car insurance to own a car and drive. States can make their own health care laws, like Massachusetts did. Our country differs from state to state in attitudes and cultures. Our founders were pretty smart people. If you want “universal” coverage in your state then push for it in your state and deal the benefits or harms this does to your state.

“unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law” — isn’t that the job of the supreme court ? Have they not overturned hundreds of laws ?

We use the word arrogant a lot here in Alabama, I’ve noticed it used often when referring to the President. Might I suggest uppity for some variety?

219-212, a substantial majority? Unprecedented? Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison? McCain-Feingold laws passed Congress by wider margins than ObamaCare, and it was struck down. If the court were to follow Obama’s advice and uphold ObamaCare in order to preserve its “legitimacy,” that would be an act “driven by politics.”

were kagen and sotomeyer elected?

“Unprecedented”? It’s the damned law that’s unprecedented, not to mention the way it was passed. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

While calling it a ‘strong majority’ is a too much for even me, considering it was unanimously and strongly opposed by the other party, and still is more unpopular than popular with the general public. However, to think that a Constitutional Law teacher could make his signature achievement an unconstitutional law is too obscene to believe. He would have to be a blithering idiot to make such a mistake.

Wait till this unelected court has to vote on a foreign born non naturalized alien lying to become president and then using his power to hide it.

It’s 1930 all over again except it’s us now.

Here is the oath of office for Liberals like Obama: “I hereby swear or affirm to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, as long as I can apply my own interpretation of the plain language of the document, and I can grow the size of government at least ten thousand times over and above the express intent of the Founding Fathers.”

Stop voting for Democrats

Those checks and balances haven’t for quite some time. How else has the government swallowed half of the GDP.

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

Ruling on the Constitutionality is not judicial activism. What is judicial activism?
Kelo vs New London eminent domain case the court basically changed “”public use”. to ” public good” thereby applying a different meaning .

President Zero is such a hypocrite. When liberal federal judges legislate from the bench liberals talk about the constitution being a living, breathing document. When conservatives make a ruling they don’t like, they cry foul. Give me a break.

President Zero is such a hypocrite. When liberal federal judges legislate from the bench liberals talk about the constitution being a living, breathing document. When conservatives make a ruling they don’t like, they cry foul. Give me a break.

I wonder how many backdoor phone calls from the White House are going to the Supreme Court??

we hate you for what you have done democrats and obama..

Striking down one law based on the constitution is not activism. That is simply suporting the existing law (and highest) law of the land.

Creating new law where none was written, or supporting laws from other countries as though they were our law would be judicial activism.

Mr. President, do you believe any time the Supreme Court strikes down a law they are being activist?

If so, you have a strange definition of ‘judicial activism.’

It’s funny how the 4 liberal justices (who everyone believes had already made up their minds before the case was heard) are viewed as non-partisan by the MSM and liberals. It’s only the five “conservative” justices who can be partisan. If the vote is 7-2 to overturn (just like the 7-2 vote that Gore’s request violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), the NY Times will lead with – “Five Conservative Justices vote along Political Lines”

Why can car insurance be mandated but not health insurance?
Three reasons:
1) you are not required to own a car, the insurance is conditional;
2) it is imposed by state law, not federal law, and you have the option of buying a security bond as opposed to buying insurance;
3) the real reason for the mandate is to finance the spending in the healthcare program, as such, it legally should have been called a tax;
stupidly, because the Democrats were afraid of being honest, they kept insisting that it was NOT a tax, but a penalty, thereby insisting that it did not come under the federal government’s right to tax but magically appears out of thin air.
The problems with the “Affordable Care Act” (beyond the fact that it is not affordable and offers less care) could have been avoided if the Democrats were not terrified of negotiating with the Republicans. These problems can and WILL be fixed in the replacement legislation along these lines:
a) restrict the government provided coverage to catestrophic coverage (and pre-existing conditions) only and fund it through a tax such as the existing medicare tax;
b) tort reform to cap the liability insurance the doctors and other medical professionals/institutions have to buy (at least on cases paid for by the government, above);
c) require insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines (eliminating the monopolies developed under state laws.)

With a) the government can afford to fund the critical part; with b) doctors/institutions can afford to reduce prices; and c) competition can finally come to the market and keep everyone honest in pricing and quality.

Why wasn’t it done this way in the first place? …lobbiests, greed and paranoid politicians. Lawyers don’t want to see an end to multimillion dollar malpractice judgements; state politicians don’t want to give up their control of state insurance markets; and every politician wanted to find a bit of “sugar” to offer their constituents to ensure their reelection. …and if a Democrat negotiates with a Republican (or the other way around) they admit the other party has reasonable human beings as candidates and that risks party power!

Simply amazing! He’s obviously playing to the massive group of government school graduates and attendees who are totally ignorant or misinformed about the contents of the US Constitution and the three equal branches of power.

we hate you obama.. you want to destroy america.. you are against hard working people..

What many people don’t realize is this is not an
issue about Health Care, this is about following
The US Constitution and US Law. The Gov cannot
force you to buy a goods or a service if you don’t
want to buy it. If the Court passed this flawed Bill,
it would set a precedent for the future of America.
Then the Gov would be able to pass Laws telling
us all to buy an Electric Car by the year 2016
(example). Or they could tell us to all buy solar
panels that don’t work and they would use the
“Case Law” ObamaCare as the precedent to
force everyone to buy Solar Panels that will not
work in all 50 States. Passing the mandate in
Obamacare would take all rights away from
Americans and it would allow the Gov to make
us do anything they want us to do.

If I were a Judge on the Highest Court in the Land,
I would vote to rule this Bill as Unconstitutional and
I would send it back to Congress.

They should keep Insurance private,
Allow us to buy insurance in all 50 States.

This would be a great start.

The Gov. cannot even control good schools
and teachers in America, could you imagine
what Health Care would be like under the Gov?

One of the most positive aspects of our democratic republic is that a republic is based on the principles such as the protection of unalienable rights, unlike the wide held concept of a “democracy” which is actually mob rule, something which Obama I’m sure wishes he had.

It’s time to start mailing pictures of tee-urds, at the very least, to the white house, in care of mr Obama.

This guy needs to get a clear picture of how much we don’t appreciate him.

Obama gets nasty when anything gets in his way. He just cannot accept that we have a constitution. He is determined to commandeer SCOTUS. He is directly threatening our judicial branch of government. Our founder knew that would be a threat for a President to grab power. Thank God, we have three branches of government. If Obama continues to threaten the Supremes, someone, John Boehner and a contingent or even Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, (don’t hold your breath) MUST rein in this American dictator.

So, on the flip side, looks like liberals suddenly hate judicial activism – lol.

Frankly, I do hope the supremes don’t quash the law. This needs to be taken down by an all Republican president, house and senate.

Beneath all this rhetoric about the president’s statement, lies the grossly obvious fact that Obama is a sick narcissist whose judgement is impaired to the point where he is flirting with impeachment. A straight jacket is in order.

I sure wish the maintainer on this site would notify us when a comment is accepted and not yet displayed, then we wouldn’t feel the need to repeat the comment over and over again waiting for one of them to show up!!!

Why can car insurance be mandated but not health insurance?
Three reasons:
1) you are not required to own a car, the insurance is conditional;
2) it is imposed by state law, not federal law, and you have the option of buying a security bond as opposed to buying insurance;
3) the real reason for the mandate is to finance the spending in the healthcare program, as such, it legally should have been called a tax;
stupidly, because the Democrats were afraid of being honest, they kept insisting that it was NOT a tax, but a penalty, thereby insisting that it did not come under the federal government’s right to tax but magically appears out of thin air.
The problems with the “Affordable Care Act” (beyond the fact that it is not affordable and offers less care) could have been avoided if the Democrats were not terrified of negotiating with the Republicans. These problems can and WILL be fixed in the replacement legislation along these lines:
a) restrict the government provided coverage to catestrophic coverage (and pre-existing conditions) only and fund it through a tax such as the existing medicare tax;
b) tort reform to cap the liability insurance the doctors and other medical professionals/institutions have to buy (at least on cases paid for by the government, above);
c) require insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines (eliminating the monopolies developed under state laws.)

With a) the government can afford to fund the critical part; with b) doctors/institutions can afford to reduce prices; and c) competition can finally come to the market and keep everyone honest in pricing and quality.

Why wasn’t it done this way in the first place? …lobbiests, greed and paranoid politicians. Lawyers don’t want to see an end to multimillion dollar malpractice judgements; state politicians don’t want to give up their control of state insurance markets; and every politician wanted to find a bit of “sugar” to offer their constituents to ensure their reelection. …and if a Democrat negotiates with a Republican (or the other way around) they admit the other party has reasonable human beings as candidates and that risks party power!

To what extent is censorship of opinion being engorced on this thread?

I seem to remember that Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution. But he seems to have forgotten that…

“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,” I may be wrong, but if memory serves me, did not this ridiculous thing pass by 2 votes? Is that what is considered a strong majority?

Obama has demonstrated that he doesn’t know what judicial activism is.
Striking down unconstitutional laws is the primary function of the USSC.

Why is there such lag when posting comments on this article? I posted one almost thirty minutes ago, and it still has not shown up.

Are many people even aware that muslims will not be required to participate in paying for obamacare but will be entitled to all the benefits it may provide since it’s against their beliefs to pay into the system? So it is unconstitutional simply on the basis of equal protection!

Oh my God. Our Republic is in serious jeopardy. Generations of liberals have infiltrated every agency and created new agencies like termite colonies. For them everything from your three year old’s pre-school to the United Nations is a platform for dangerous counter-cultural propaganda.

Dost thou perspacacity fend now for NOUGHT? Canst thou puewmess the insidities of Gregotorial fenesstress and bound all folly forsworn?

If a law is unconstitutional and deprives us of our rights as does Obamacare, then to NOT overturn it is judicial activism.

There will be NO WAY the insurance companies will be able to sustain taking on additional risk in their portfolios. The bond portfolios that they invest DO NOT provide the yields necessary to leverage the ability to pay out additional monies at an additional high risk level.

What happens if an insurer goes into receivership under ‘Obamacare’? Simple. They stop paying benefits.

I gadda say…if it were da Bearce, dat fine Chacago foot ball team, Obamma wount have a ice-bergsce chance in hell over by dere…..

“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,”

For a constitutional lawyer, Obama sure is dense. It’s either that or he is intentionally misleading the public. It wasn’t a strong majority. It barely passed but that is completely irrelevant because it doesn’t matter how many voted for this bill or how popular it was. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional even if 100% of the members of Congress had voted for it and even if the public is in 100% support of it.

Funny how the argument regarding health insurance is due to ‘the market’. How about death and retirement? Will individuals need to purchase life insurance and annuities so as to reduce that risk as well? I can see now how annuities will be forced upon all citizens in order to save social security.

i dont get it it was activism thru the warren court of the 50′s and 50′s. that brought brown into law ,affirmative action, civil ritghts which alot of democrats apposed needing republicans to vote, it allowed busing it also changed this commerce clause which was a bill to only regulate banks across statelines to allow alot of things that have put us in the position america faces today. how that law could have been warped into a law that has caused major disruptions is amazing. we finally have a panel that decides on the constitutional merits and that is called activism? only a community organizer could utter it. incredible what we not me elected

This president is unbelievable! A law that no one has read…that was muscled through Congress by intimidation…now he’s using threats against a judicial branch that was put in by the founding fathers to provide checks and balances! Obama says change….but not all change is good.

“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,” Obama said

Really? Really? 219 for 212 against in the House is a strong majority? Obama is either a liar or an idiot.

Obama is engaging in sophistry. Judicial activism occurs when decisions are based on extra-constitutional considerations.

This is a pandering bluff from desperate fool.

For a supposed Constitutional scholar, this is the first he’s heard that the judiciary is part of the checks and balances of our governmental system?

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,”

He thinks you are too stupid to know and understand that SCOTUS overturns laws all the time because it’s their JOB!

He Enjoys threatening people.

Isn’t this man supposed to be a “constitutional scholar”? Doesn’t he know the difference between judicial activism and judicial review? The Supreme Court has overturned hundreds of laws based on their unconstitutionality since Marbury vs. Madison. If you don’t want your legislative legacy to be nullified as unconstitutional, respect the constitution when you draft the legislation.

Obama has become accustomed to doing whatever he wants to do without any reprisal from Congress or the Judiciary. He should have been impeached long ago for multiple brazen violations of the constitution. He is soon going to discover that the Executive Branch is only one equal third of our governmental structure. One third, the Supreme Court, is about to pounce on his abuse; and the other third (Congress) is now afraid to be identified with him. There is an election coming up; and the President’s coattails are poison.

Until we stop electing people like Bush, Obama, Reid, McCain, Graham and Pelosi – this nation and our liberties will be continually assaulted and eventually destroyed.

It’s up to us, and nobody else. The unconstitutional “ObamaCare” mandate is merely just a continuation of more of the same. Obama himself said that the mandate would be ruled unconstitutional A FEW years ago. But in this new “work together to get things done” world – there are no limits to what either branch of government can do.

We the people are making it possible for the government to become tyrannical in times of crises. We’ve given the Federal Government the power to declare a WORLD-WAR on terror, then declare that rights are essentially suspended during that war. There’s one problem with this – A war on terror is without borders and has no end-date. It’s a recipe for perpetual war so we’ve essentially lost our liberties forever.

We the people need to stop giving in to emotional tantrums of the moment, and consider the long-term implications of every law we vote on and policies of the people we send to congress. We the people need to send people to Washington who can barely put a coherent sentence together, but that we KNOW will follow their oath of office – defending our liberties.

The more we ignore our role in this, the worse everything will get. The only thing our government should be doing is protecting the freedoms afforded us in the Constitution. Now, we’ve allowed that to be perverted and chaos will be the result.

Good job, people! You’ve destroyed your own country and the “terrorists” baited us into it. The truth hurts, but so does a TSA crotch grab.

Mr. President,
I have posted this link since it appears you need to brush up on all that Constitutional Law you took while attending Harvard Law. It is written by scholastic.com for elementary school students. Hopefully it won’t be too difficult for you to read.
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/role-supreme-court

Wasn’t it an unelected Supreme Court that decided to make Roe v. Wade law? Hmmmm Mr. President?”

And, why wouldn’t Sonia Sotomayor not inform Obama as to how the current Supreme Court vote stands in regards to Obamacare?

This president is just plain old stupid. The main job of the Supreme Court is to determine if laws passed by congress and signed into law by the president are constitutional.

remind me not to send my kids to georgetown law. professor seidman is an idiot. and he is teaching law. hilarious.

So Obama knows better than the Supreme Court. Sound like this guy doesn’t want to stand up for the US Constitution. Maybe its time to vote this disgruntled employee out and find ourselves someone who really wants and can do the job.

So, let me get this straight. Is the president asserting that the Supreme Court cannot strike down something Congress has passed because it is not a duly elected body? If so, he needs to read a little U.S. history about the role of the Supreme Court and the tremendous number of congressional acts it has deemed unconstitutional throughout the years. For someone who is supposed to be brilliant, this guy is either a dunce or so ideologically myopic that he cannot consider the possibility that he does not know what he is talking about.

Anyone that thinks that Kagan didn’t give Obama a heads up on the vote hasn’t been paying attention

His typical whinning comments when he doesn’t get his way, are very unbecoming of the POTUS. How he thought he could erase all of his past with a million bucks and then get elected is still stunning. Now we know how far the leftist media will bow to him (i.e., eliminating parts of a video to 911 call in a shooting case). Not that NBC hasn’t pulled similar cra9 before. I would really ask hispanics to rethink voting for this man, especially when they have turned on their own (a hispanic Democrat).

Something tells me that Justice Kagan leaked the results of the first vote to Obama and he’s not happy.

Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar LOL LOL LOL

People! Everyone has the right to start an Amendment movement if you are NOT happy with the constitution! Have you never heard of “Amendments” to the constitution?

THAT is how the constitution is SUPPOSE to evolve. Those mean old crusty “original meaning” advocates have NO PROBLEM with following the original constitution and allowing you (via the perscribed process) to negotiate new meanings! It is a complete fabrication when some people (usually/always Democrats/liberals) pretend that the “original meaning” refers to ONLY what was meant in 1776!

FURTHER …the federal government BY DESIGN is limited to certain “enumerated powers” to protect us from dictators. All other powers are available to the various states. Any one unhappy with the constitution should look at the fact it ENCOURAGES you to turn your STATE government into the republic YOU and your FELLOW state citizens choose.
Not all taxes (only about half) are collected by the Federal government… states have roughly half the spending power and MORE legal powers in general than the Federal Government does! USE STATES to explore solutions to problems and demonstrate your ideas!

A history lesson: prohibition! An ammendment was passed that prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages (would you believe!?) It was a disaster, and eventually “repealed” in a subsequent ammendment. Today alcoholic beverages are regulated by the various states without any Federal mandate or oversight.

If an ammendment calling for the end to alcoholic beverage could have been passed (and then repealed) CERTAINLY, if you have a good idea for an ammendment, YOU should be able to start a movement and have it passed! …you don’t need doublespeak (like denying something is a tax when voting on it but then calling it a tax when defending it in court), obfuscation (like not detailing what is meant but allowing “the Secretary will decide” wink-wink) or party-line votes for mandates that mangle the constitutional limits on abusive power.

The “Constitutional Scholar” seems to be unaware that, since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of acts passed by Congress. I’m truly tired of these people telling the most outrageous lies to a camera, counting on the fact that people are stupid enough to believe them.

How many on this blog will admit that they were hoodwinked by this fraud?

The law was passed by a strong majority of a democratically congress, what Obama doesn’t say is a democratically elected “democrat” congress who didn’t even bother to read what they were passing.

Just exactly was Barry studying there at Harvard Law School anyway? Perhaps he skipped over this chapter….

Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional. The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Initially the case involved Secretary of State James Madison, who refused to seat four judicial appointees although they had been confirmed by the Senate.

Where were the republicans demanding that Kagan recuse herself from this vote,seeing that she was Obama’s solicitor general?

Laughable moment. Even the softball player seemed to not buy into Obamacare. Those old dead white guys who invented this country really knew what they were doing.

Why is there not grocery insurance, mortgage insurance, car payment insurance, school supply insurance. I want someone else to pay for it all too, not me.

This guy is CLUELESS about what “judicial activism” even means. I do not see how the Court would make new law out of whole cloth by rejecting ObamaCare.

I guess the President missed his American Civics classes in Indonesia; it is the *role* of SCOTUS to review laws for their Constitutionality!

An alleged Constitutional scholar, who doesnt know that it is routine for the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress??!?!?!

Obama: … passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

House: 219-212 No Republicans for, 34 Democrats against.
Senate: 60-39. No Republicans for.

The man is a liar.

Well, the community organizer did what he does best, demagogue and agitate. If this guy was really a constitutional scholar, he would have waited for the result, but he knows the Democrats completely screwed this up and he’s hoping he can coerce the court into a favorable decision. Perhaps he might have been able to do that, if he wasn’t such a moron during the State of the Union address. I doubt it would have worked, even then, but it would have looked better.

There’s little doubt we have the most unqualified president ever. His problem isn’t that he’s unqualified, it’s that he failed to bring good advisors with him when he got to the White House. Many presidents get there who don’t have the depth of knowledge necessary to fulfill the requirements of the office. Most of them get knowledgeable advisors too get them through it. Not President Obama, he think’s he’s smarter than the average bear. The problem with that!!! He’s wrong!!!.

I find the question is who leaked the results. The voted on Friday and will wait til June to announce it.When they find who leaked it that Justice needs to be removed from the bench. That person has no right to be on the bench and not up hold the Constitution.

You ain’t in Kansas anymore Dorthy….

You are the exact reason we have The U.S. Constitution Obama. There is no other like it in the world. Would you like to know why? Because “We the People” love and believe in it. It doesn’t matter what you want, it is about what we want. In November you will be made to understand that.

No surprise there. Typical Harvard elitist arrogant attitude!

For Liberals like Obama, Pelosi, and the alphabet media, etc, lying is business as usual. Just a means that justifies their ends.

Another example: NBC, ABC doctoring the recent Zimmerman audio & video tapes! then reporting it as “news”. Pathetic! Lying comes naturally to Liberals!

No surprise there. Typical Harvard elitist arrogant attitude!

For Liberals like Obama, Pelosi, and the alphabet media, etc, lying is business as usual. Just a means that justifies their ends.

Another example: NBC, ABC doctoring the recent Zimmerman audio & video tapes! then reporting it as “news”. Pathetic! Lying comes naturally to Liberals!

I only remember one member of the current supreme court boasting about legislating from the bench. It is on video where she states that “the court of appeals is where policy is made”. She should have been removed from consideration over that remark but since she is Hispanic and a woman, our congress didn’t have the stones for fear of being called racist…which is exactly why we should get rid of most of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGssHxQ8FcU

Obama has already stomped on the constitution, why not burn it as well by ignoring the separation of powers

Obama just sealed the deal. It will be a big win for America and this will be overturned in it’s entirety. Obama would never have opened his mouth if Kagan hadn’t tipped him off that the vote was to throw the whole thing out.

The Supreme Court has overturned a law “enacted by congress, and signed by the President” about once a year, for the past 200 years. Mr. Obama is either not very smart, or dishonest. Personally, I think he is both.

He talks about an “unelected” Supreme Court. Why not mention the “DIS-elected” Democratic Congress, who was booted out of office after voting in this stupid bill.

By the way — it’s not even “Obamacare.”‘ He didn’t write it, and doesn’t really even believe in it that much. The bill was sitting in the Democratic congressional files for 15 years, just waiting for a moment to shove it through. As soon as they controlled both the Presidency and Congress, the shoved it off on us without debate. You should, more accurately, call it “Pelosicare.”

For someone who “allegedly” taught Constitutional Law this sorry excuse of a president (Howdy-Obama-Doody) is doing everything he can to destroy America, its institutions, traditions, future aspirations and the very capitalism that made America the world renown leader of free markets and the free world. No other country or philosophy comes anywhere near to what America is. And now he’s intent on breaking a nation for his own personal agrandizement. If ever there was one individual in modern times who’s every act appear treason-bent this is the individual responsible. For those of you who disagree you need to look at yourself in a mirror so you can see the lemming that you are. So sad that you have no individual incentive or personal creativity that you swallow this man’s garbage whole.
Go ahead and read Marxist Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals, the few simple “rules” Obama is following in lock-step.

If Kagan leaked this, is that grounds for impeachment?

If it takes judicial activism to follow the constitution so be it. The court is there to restrain a tyrannical majority from ruining the foundation of our country.

“Let me get this straight . . .

We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!! And now we are told it will cost double what Obama said it will cost and we now know we don’t have the money to pay for it.

What the hell could possibly go wrong?”

“a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”. Since when is a 220-215 vote a “strong majority”? HE LIES!!!

“passed by a strong majority”

Weird..I have this memory of it being a nail biter. Something about Stupak, abortion potential “deeming” etc. Not to mention an apparently “premature” cost estimate that helped persuade some. (that goes without saying in DC). And let’s not forget Conyers joking about reading it and Pelosi’s “pass it to see what’s in it.”
Even if there was a strong majority (hardly), voting for something you haven’t read is irresponsible.

“I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” Obama said.

“So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.”

Simply put, that’s not what the SCOTUS is supposed to grapple with. They should not be viewing this as whether the end justify the means.

I must admit to being impressed by how the Loyal Left has picked up on two themes recently:

1. The individual mandate should be retained because it was originally a Republican idea. Corollary: The only reason it’s being objected to is because obama got behind it.

2. “Judicial activism” has come not to mean making up new laws, but rejecting anything passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. If the Supreme Court is never to going to overturn an unconstitutional law, do we really need it?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was shot down for trying to increase the size of the Supreme Court and pack it. Will obama try the opposite approach? Reduce its size and fire conservative Justices — that is, Justices who actually try to live up to the oath they took to uphold the Constitution?

How do I get on the Dim’s Talking Points List? Sign up at the DNC website? If I don’t have to “donate” any money, maybe I’ll do it.

Sure makes life easier, doesn’t it, to have a whatever-it-takes-the-end-justifies-the-means philosophy. Is it oxymoronic or paradoxical to have your only principle be no principles? Ah, the sweet life of a . . . I dunno, liberal, I suppose.

Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.

A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.

Strong majority? Really? Did he just say that? Because the votes I remember were bought off with special deals, pork, and sweeteners for the reps and senators that weren’t going to go along and vote yea.

The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. For similar reasons, the concept of separation of church and state has been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society.[

Let me get this correct . . . When Republicans engage in judicial activism,it’s a bad thing but when Democrats do the same thing ,it’s progress !

Obama’s “Manson is Guilty” moment. I’m sure that the MSM will treat this presidential meddling with the judiciary system exactly in the same way that they did with Nixon…

“The president, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said the “individual mandate” that requires most people to buy insurance was critical to the success of the healthcare overhaul.”
———-
Sooo… it was necessary to use an unconstitutional tactic to get the healthcare overhaul to work.
Now, one might think that a constitutional law professor would have realized that that would not work. But Obama figured his presence might override the facts of the case, much as his presence overrode his lack of qualifications to be president in the 2008 election.
Well, Mr. President, the Supreme Court judges are not swooning at your speeches (except, of course, for Ginsburg and Kagan). You are not winning another popularity contest.
The new law needs to conform to the Constitution.
You can’t talk your way out of this one.

BHO is very much scary. If we dump the Constitution likes he wants as exemplified yet again by whining about those “pesky checks and balances” [justsayin2011], then what Rule of Law does this country follow?

Where does this clown come off telling the Supreme Court what to do. Last time I checked it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to do exactly what they are doing now: Decide whether a law is constitutionally legal under the constitution! Clown in chief Obama has really gotten too big a head for our own good. And it seems another set of Democrats are facing charges for falsifying documents. More dead voting for the liberals. The list goes on and on yet Obama is very confident he will be re-elected, but then there are more dead than alive in the USA and we all know they vote Democratic. LOL.

Flashrooster: The USA has three branches of Government, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no branch has more power than the other branches.

AlfredReaud wrote:

“If mandated health insurance is unconstitutional then why is mandated automobile insurance not, in the States?”

Alfred, listen up. No one forces you to buy an automobile. Only because you are a living person, ObamaCare mandates you have health insurance. So, you have no choice. Well, you actually do have a choice – suicide. Please feel free to test my theory.

ejr1953 wrote: ‘It’s strange how the Republican’s use “judicial activism” as one of their mantras, but Obama uses the same term in the same vain, and is demonized for doing so.’

How can it be ‘judicial activism’ to stick to the EXISTING meaning of the constitution? …you are implying that NOT changing the meaning of the words, is ‘activism’! …wow!

Now really surprising I guess since the mandate was never a tax while it was debated but definitely was a tax when defended in front of the supreme court… if you are willing to say a “tax” is only a “tax” when it is convenient, then you would be willing to call something ‘judicial activism’ only when convenient.

Apparently Obama graduated at the top of his class in “doublespeak”. (Look it up on wikipedia and elsewhere on the web.)

Obama does not know what ‘judicial activism’ is. He also does not know what “checks and balances” are, or what the Constitution represents, or what makes someone eligible to be President. I hope his jury-rigged crammed-through trojan horse healthcare bill gets put directly into the garbage where it BELONGS along with his phony birth certificate and draft registration.

This man is sick! He cares nothing about our country. It’s all about his “legacy”.

enforcing the COnstitution is not Judicial Activism. Obama knows this but is threatening the SCOTUS.

Do the lies never end? The liberals complaining about “judicial activism”? “A law passed by large majorities of Congress”? What a joke.

@Flashrooster…your words made me gag….good thing I got good affordable health care that I am not FORCED to buy…..some of usAmericans ARE quite capable of making correct and informed and educated decisions about our own lives…of course there is a whole multitude of those that aren’t…somehow we have to bear their responsibility as well…that’s pretty much the bottom line of what’s being shoved down the throats of those that do take the time to get educated, find a good job, and make an adult choice about things like health insurance….you could just as easily say that those who aren’t getting affordable health care have pretty much opted out of society anyway…do you really think they’ll give a damn either way? NO they’ll still be expecting that free ride and handout at the end of the game…nothing changes at all whether this bill lives or dies. NOTHING. IT is indeed PURE POLITICS. The only thing that sucks is it’s pure politics with the added unpleasant aroma of playing with peoples lives and health. That’s pretty disgusting don’t you think? What makes you think anything is going to change about health care in America as long as pharmaceutical companies and hospitals and doctors will continue to OVERCHARGE for their products and services? Where’s the part of the bill that regulates all that? I mean seriously, prescription medicine prices have SKYROCKETED in the last five years. What’s going to fix that? Just because everybody HAS to pay, guess what..the rich will just get richer and the sick and dying will still get sick and die! This legislation changes NONE of that.

A true conservative will be against Obamacare, and rightly so. A true conservative will also seek to deny healthcare services to the uninsured and the poor unable to pay. After all, a true conservative will say, “we cannot have what we cannot pay for.” This is fundamental to true, honest conservatism. Hospitals MUST be forced to deny care to those who can’t pay. It’s just good, basic conservatism. Yes, poor children and elderly people will die but that’s OK. True conservative principles must reign over all. Mustn’t they? Yes, I understand that conservatives claim to be true Christians but Christ never said we should pay actual money to help others, did He?

As a Representative Republic we have 9 Justices who stand on the forefront of drawing a line in the sand for blatant abuse of powers in both the executive branch and the legislative branch when this so called obama/hillary care was drafted and passed. Only two so called Republicans voted in favor of the bill. So it was not a true bi-partisan bill as the top WH guy had stated. That is why those women are leaving the Senate or will shortly lose there seats to conservative Republicans come November. A 5-4 vote or even a 6-3 vote of overturning the Individual Mandate is too me is Justice. It is not Judicial activism. I am tired of Republican this or Democrat that. The US Constitution is the law of the land not the Soviet one. Congress would need a Constitutional Amendment to enforce such a drastic measure such as forcing someone who isn’t enslaved or indentured to buy healthcare insurance. Something that violates the 10th Amendment as Congress was never given the power to make such laws it has tried to make for so many years. The USCON is not a guideline – its the Law period! It would take 33 states to vote in favor of an amendment. It would never happen. In my opinion and I may be wrong but feel I am right. The law will be found unconstitutional by a 6-2-1 vote, with justice Kagan abstaining in the vote. Vote for the Constitutional Scholar come your state primary/caucus and general election. Vote Ron Paul 2012!!!

Wellness is the cornerstone of healthcare! In other words you are responsible for providing the food I eat. Get your darn wallet out and buy my food for me NOW!!! Or better yet – break your kid’s piggy banks – my health is at stake you selfish pigs!

Clearly, one or more of the democrat court justices spilled the beans to Obama. Likely either Kagan or Sotomayor. While this is unprecedented for the court its not so surprising considering the increasingly more ideology driven members who came onto the court the last 3 years.

Don’t forget that Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He said proposed legislation like Obamacare would be available to see and read for several days before it came up for a vote in Congress.

He either lied or just forgot his promise. The Democrats rushed through Obamacare, and Nancy Pelosi famously said we’d have to pass it in order to see what was in it.

It’s unbelievable – and not only to some Supreme Court Justices – that it’s 2,700 pages long.

In any case, it’s unacceptable if a conservative majority might reject it – IF that happens? But, it’s perfectly okay for liberals on the Court to support it — even though Obama lied when he said it would not add to the national debt

Flashrooster all that rhetoric and all you managed to say was how ignorant you are of the situation. You need to remember that our Govt is set up to be; of,by and for the people. Not by a few who THINK they know best. Have you read the Constitution? If you have then it is very obvious you did not understand it. Go back and read it again and this time mouth the words maybe that will help you understand what is actually written there and yes I HAVE read the Constitution!

Unplugged dykes always leak. Ask the people near the Zuder Zee.

For anyone who doesn’t know, there is a reason the Supreme Court Justices are not elected. The simple reason is they are appointed so as not to be influenced by outside distractions such as worrying about getting re-elected. Simple right. Now someone please educate the President on how this whole constitution and balance of power thing works.

Another page out of FDR’s book. Too bad this half-breed isn’t a bit more creative. Sad to say, but FDR did not bring the country out of The Great Depression. World War II was the process it took to do that. FDR furthered the idea of the UN to keep a world war from ever happening again. That idea came from Woodrow Wilson and The League of Nations following World War I, also known as the “war to end all wars.” Will it take WW III to get us out of this recession? Iran is being set up as the bad guy and is doing nothing to cast off the role. As a side note; I have been reading a tedious biography of Henry VIII of England. This takes us back to the 1500′s. Guess who was trying to bring an end to war in Europe via a universal peace treaty? A great idea, the time for which has never come. Dream on.

Obama is a dangerous President and nothing will stop him from continuing as President, even if he loses and needs to rally his constituents to ‘take to the streets’.

He blathers on about the Supreme Court being UNELECTED, but is totally ignorant of the fact that when Congress passes a bill that defers all ‘true legislative details’ to the Department of Health and Human Services, that they also are UNELECTED.

What else would an American expect from Obama the dictator? He should keep his nose out of the American High Court and let the checks and balances work as the Constitution intended. Let’s all deflate his enlarged head by defeating him soundly in November.

It’s Obamacare that is government activism.

Here’s the bottom line: NO government should mandate that everyone MUST purchase into a specific industry. That’s BS and every liberal knows it but won’t admit it. The difference between a constitutional democratic republic and a mere democracy (which was never installed in this country contrary to popular belief) is the issue of the protection of unalienable rights vs. mob rule. Obama wants mob rule wherein he promises something for nothing to the non-producers while stealing it from those that do.
A lady in my town just died at age 102, and never in her life had seen the inside of a hospital or been on medication. This was confirmed by those that knew her as her family and neighbors at her funeral. So don’t give me that rubbish that EVERYONE will eventually use it healthcare. Even if she were the ONLY one that never needed modernized governmental mandated healthcare, the principle stands.

Moreover, when a government mandates healthcare of its own making, and it’s the SAME government that is behind the shams of big pharma, the FDA, Dept of Ag, all while pushing purchased legislation in favor of Monsanto whose GMO’s have been proven to cause sterility and disease in people and animals, doesn’t that showcase a direct conflict of interest? Obamacare is the worst type of unconstitutional tripe to come forth since the Patriot Act.

When last the Republicans made a big stink about judicial activism, it was when liberal judges were striking down laws probiting gay marriage. Regardless of your beliefs on that issue, there is a key difference between those laws and this healthcare law. Those laws were written to maintain a status quo (right or wrong). Those judges opted to change the status quo through the judiciary (hence the phrase judicial activism). This healthcare law seeks to drastically change the status quo, and these judges would be seeking to use the judiciary to maintain the status quo. Thats not activism. Obama might be a smooth talker, but he must not have a tremendous grasp on vocabulary.

Let’s all hope, as Americans, that the Supreme Court will see Obamacare as the piece of garbage infringement on our rights as most American citizens do. Congress should be ashamed to have passed it into law in the first place. Voters will remember Obama, the dead in the water Congress and Obama’s thug administration as a low point in American history.

Maybe IF Obama and the rest of the DUMBOCRATS knew anything about the CONSTITUTION they would have KNOWN this law would not be legal when they passed it.. SO why all of a sudden is he feeling the NEED to THREATEN the S.C.

I have had it with that fascist moron. This is war! We will defeat Obozo one way or the other.

Please ask the great Power of intelligence and goodness to uphold the US Constitution. It is based on sound spiritual principles and should last longer than any president or force of popular demand. The SCOTUS is not elected so that it isn’t a popularity contest. I hope our minds can open and we can find ways to handle our problems with our own intelligence and not by grasping for a fix.

Mr. President, the Supreme Court is a very important part of our government and even though they weren’t elected they are sitting on the Court to ensure the Constitution is upheld. I know that you must have forgotten that they are the third branch of our government and you, sir, should not be threatening them. Let them do their jobs.
And that means, even finding Obamacare unConstitutional if that is what they see. And they should not hesitate just because it is YOUR bill and it is the CENTERPIECE of your miserable term or that it would cause an uproar.

Just because a law does more good than harm doesn’t mean it should stand, not if it’s unconstitutional. Does Obamacare do more good than harm? Who knows for sure? Is there anyone alive who has read and understood the entire bill Congress passed and the President signed into law? My guess: no.

Besides, it’s not just what was in the bill, it’s what wasn’t in it — because it lets bureaucrats such as Kathleen Sebelius make so many calls through policies, procedures, and regulations that barely see the light of day before they’re sprung on an unsuspecting electorate.

Note my use of the key word electorate.

Well, I guess I have lived too long. I never thought I would hear a President actually assert that the Supreme Court of the United States is not a coequal branch of the government because they perform their Constitutional duties. Further, he calls them unelected as if there were some fault in that. This all from a man who has sworn an oath of office that requires him to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. What upsets me the most though, is that so many of my fellow citizens seem to be OK with this. I once heard someone say that you get the government you deserve. If that is true, we are a bunch of worthless idiots.

so i guess kagen leaked the vote to him. little troll.

Obama himself said the individual mandate was unconstitutional when Hillary advocated it in her run for the Presidency. Now that he needs it…he says it is now constitutional. Talk about flip flopping….he has become quite good at it. The SCOTUS will rule this as unconstitutional….Obama had it right in the beginning and he knows it. He must have heard that the vote went 5/4 or 6/3 against the mandate in early voting. This is why he has gotten ugly about it and spewed venom.

Once this idiot is out of office the truth about him will emerge,can’t wait for the tell all books by his staff.
Even the formerhead of british intelligence has said that not only is Obama’s birth certificate a forgery,it is a bad one to boot,

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,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.
——-
Unprecedented?

1803
Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional. The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Initially the case involved Secretary of State James Madison, who refused to seat four judicial appointees although they had been confirmed by the Senate.

Who that idiot was? President of the Harvard Law Review? What a joke! Yeah, keep threatening to SCOTUS, that will sure make thing to your liking. What next? Begging Al Sharpton to take it to the streets?

The judges should send a memo to Obama that says go pound sand!

Republicans do like to indulge is revisionist history; even if it’s only 3 years in the past. Romney is full of it when he says that the Affordable Care Act was past despite the overwhelming objection of the public. As we all well remember, it was passed with overwhelming approval of the public. The only thing overwhelming about the objection to it was how overwhelmingly hysterical and irrational the tiny minority that opposed it was.

Any decision from the Supreme Court that strikes down any part of the Affordable Care Act with be a slap in the face to the people, and an activist action against the will of America itself. If the SCOTUS chooses to take that step, they label themselves irrefutably as nothing but a tool of the conservative status quo in Washington, and not a body interested in justice or the Constitution.

“US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court…”

That’s the whole point! We do not want our laws to be judged by people with a political axe to grind!

This guy is dangerous. He HATES the Constitution and wants to be a dictator.

Obama doesn’t have the hand to win anything. Call him every time.

I wonder if Obama has ever heard the saying: “go pound sand.” because that’s what the judges ought to send him in a memo.

How many divisions does the Supreme Court have? Obama should just ignore their decisions if they are wrong.

“…passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

Flat out lie.

The law was NOT passed by a strong majority. It was passed by a partisan SIMPLE majority via an obscure process called reconciliation. The reason they had to reconcile the bill was due to the fact if they made any changes to the bill, they would have to re-vote in both the house and the Senate, and since Scott Brown was elected in place of the late Ted Kennedy, it would have never passed the Senate.

The law remains incredibly unpopular by the people no matter which major poll you read. It’s for this reason that the House radically switched in favor of the Republicans. Not because people like republicans, but for the mere fact the People hated the way the bill was drafted, voted upon, passed and rammed down the People’s throats.

If the president is soooo worried about per-existing conditions and people being dropped by their insurance companies, then write a 3-page bill that addresses this and drop Obamacare.

Real simple Mr President. You’d probably also be re-elected in a landslide.

“…passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

Flat out lie.

The law was NOT passed by a strong majority. It was passed by a partisan SIMPLE majority via an obscure process called reconciliation. The reason they had to reconcile the bill was due to the fact if they made any changes to the bill, they would have to re-vote in both the house and the Senate, and since Scott Brown was elected in place of the late Ted Kennedy, it would have never passed the Senate.

The law remains incredibly unpopular by the people no matter which major poll you read. It’s for this reason that the House radically switched in favor of the Republicans. Not because people like republicans, but for the mere fact the People hated the way the bill was drafted, voted upon, passed and rammed down the People’s throats.

If the president is soooo worried about per-existing conditions and people being dropped by their insurance companies, then write a 3-page bill that addresses this and drop Obamacare.

Real simple Mr President. You’d probably also be re-elected in a landslide.

“…was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress….”

He’s kidding, right? The law barely passed and in 2010 voters democratically unelected many of the legislators who voted for it.

“…passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

Flat out lie.

The law was NOT passed by a strong majority. It was passed by a partisan SIMPLE majority via an obscure process called reconciliation. The reason they had to reconcile the bill was due to the fact if they made any changes to the bill, they would have to re-vote in both the house and the Senate, and since Scott Brown was elected in place of the late Ted Kennedy, it would have never passed the Senate.

The law remains incredibly unpopular by the people no matter which major poll you read. It’s for this reason that the House radically switched in favor of the Republicans. Not because people like republicans, but for the mere fact the People hated the way the bill was drafted, voted upon, passed and rammed down the People’s throats.

If the president is soooo worried about per-existing conditions and people being dropped by their insurance companies, then write a 3-page bill that addresses this and drop Obamacare.

Real simple Mr President. You’d probably also be re-elected in a landslide.

“…passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

Flat out lie.

The law was NOT passed by a strong majority. It was passed by a partisan SIMPLE majority via an obscure process called reconciliation. The reason they had to reconcile the bill was due to the fact if they made any changes to the bill, they would have to re-vote in both the house and the Senate, and since Scott Brown was elected in place of the late Ted Kennedy, it would have never passed the Senate.

The law remains incredibly unpopular by the people no matter which major poll you read. It’s for this reason that the House radically switched in favor of the Republicans. Not because people like republicans, but for the mere fact the People hated the way the bill was drafted, voted upon, passed and rammed down the People’s throats.

If the president is soooo worried about per-existing conditions and people being dropped by their insurance companies, then write a 3-page bill that addresses this and drop Obamacare.

Real simple Mr President. You’d probably also be re-elected in a landslide.

This is some crazy stuff here. Interestingly, they are claiming that only activist justices would overturn Obamacare in violation of the commerce clause, yet the commerce clause only has it’s current “meaning” because of activist justices. To regulate commerce meant to “keep commerce regular” but ensuring that states didn’t get into trade wars with others over tariffs. It was not intended to be applied to every single thing sold across state lines. Mr. Obama is either disingenuous or stupid…perhaps both.

Thanks always a good way to get judges on your side….insult and threaten them. Obama’s knack for working well with opposing viewpoints continues ;)

Obama has no respect for the constitution,
only for those who interpret it his way.
That is why his injustice department only
prosecutes those who are not his allies.

What is worse then it being upheld by the court? Having it struck down by the court and Obama issuing an EO forcing it upon us, regardless of what the American people want.

Sadly, he has the right to do this through the Elastic Clause. Just because the Supreme Court rules it one way, doesn’t mean that the President has to follow their decision.

I wonder what he thinks about UN-ELECTED judges over ruling the voters who voted for banning gay marriage?

..Poor baby. Looks like he’s gonna cry.

What a jerk Obama is. Does he even remember the number of czars he has given unlimited power to??

The Supreme Court overturns laws all the time, how is this UNPRECEDENTED?? Where did this guy go to school??

Why hasnt justice Kegan recuesed herself from this extreamly important vote. She surely has been influenced by her previous involvement with selling the Bill. Does anyone believe she will approach making this decision in an unbiased manner????

Regardless of any “human element”, the function of the Supreme Court is to determine the Constitutionality of the case. If he is undermining the authority of the legislative branch, is he not being seditious?

“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,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.”

What a joke! Many of them got bounced in the mid term election because of it!

flashrooster — that’s a heck of a lot of words and paragraphs spent iterating what amounts to an Obama-apologist mini-tantrum.

It’s clearly an unconstitutional law. The American People saw from the get-go that it was a Trojan Horse power-grab, a deeply disturbing mandate passing as a “benevolent panacea.”

The People were not fooled, but the politicking ruling-class demagogues to the left of the aisle played deaf and passed a vastly unpopular, bloated, blatantly unconstitutional law anyway.

It is the Supreme Court’s job to nip it in the bud. If there’s any “extremism” it is manifest in any judge who has the selective-perception to give this mess of a law a “thumbs up.”

A strictly constitutional analysis from any judge with a shred of integrity will quickly see that the law is unconstitutional on its face.

That’s why we have a constitution — to check against such things. And that’s what the court’s purpose is — to defend the integrity of the US Constitution.

Mr. President, for clarification … Judicial activism describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint … you know, where the Supreme court DOESN’T read something into the constitution.

I do not think “judicial activism” means what President Obama wants us to think it means.

This is why we have a judicial system

I always liked Kagan on “King of Queens”.

Audacious. Disrespectful. Misinformed. Unprecedented and Un-Presidential.

Mostly, embarrassing.

If this law is overturned by the court on constitutional grounds this does not mean it can never be law. All it means is that those in congress who support the law must call for a constitutional convention to amend the constitution in order to make the law constitutional. The process of writing the constitutional amendment and the ensuing debates would go a long way to help Americans understand exactly how the supporters of the amendment want to change the law of the land. In the event that the current law would be overturned wouldn’t it be the RESPONSIBILITY of the supporters to do just that and go for a constitutional convention?

If this law is overturned by the court on constitutional grounds this does not mean it can never be law. All it means is that those in congress who support the law must call for a constitutional convention to amend the constitution in order to make the law constitutional. The process of writing the constitutional amendment and the ensuing debates would go a long way to help Americans understand exactly how the supporters of the amendment want to change the law of the land. In the event that the current law would be overturned wouldn’t it be the RESPONSIBILITY of the supporters to do just that and go for a constitutional convention?

“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 . . ”

If they plan to fulfill their oaths, they sure as h*ll will.

First, they’re human. Second, the 4 lib justices are just that, LIBERALS!!! Therefore, following the Pythagorean theorem, one of those radicals HAS in fact communicated the vote to their master, obama. Is it clear for ya now?!

It’s possible a leak has been relyed to the White House…yet if this is the case, I take the presidents comments as an affirmative ruling towards the law. Which is to say, the court will not rule aganst it, and the president anxious to bask in his success, laying seed to the field of political minds for the next election.

“Obama, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court’s deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week” Yeesh… A whole week… Pretending his patience does not make it so Reuters… He is more Chavez then Roosevelt.

Dogs bark the loudest when they are the most fearful. Obama’s aggression is a psychological defense. He is terrified of being rejected… as he was by his parents.

Obama is a spokeshole for those who view The Constitution as a quaint and outdated relic. They must be defeated in toto.

I have zero tolerance for those would would force on us that which my uncles and grandfather went off to fight and die to defeat.

President Obama is obviously more qualified than most of us to offer his insight on College Basketball and other vital social issues. I just wish he would spend more time playing to his strengths and leave the big boy issues alone. Hope for a change in November!

In the Article we read the following text “”But it’s also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president’s central legislative accomplishments.”

Pardon me but could one reason it is highly uncommon to find the court doing this is because no President and Congress before Obama and the Democratic Congress he had in the first two years had ever usurped power like they had and attempted to pass such obviously Unconstitutional policy. These people obviously took and oath to protect and abide by the Constitution but that oath apparently means nothing to them. I’d be for prosecuting them for crimes against the Constitution if such was available. Surely impeachment should be an option.

Realize also that the usual checks and balances broke down due to the fact that you had the President (Executive Branch) and Congress (House and Senate, Legislative Branches) with one single party’s control and the other party could do nothing at all due to the overwhelming majorities the Democrats had. The very reason the Bill was pushed through “deemed passed” was because the democrats knew Scott Brown would provide the Republicans enough numbers that they could have intervened with the Democrats doing just what they wanted to do. This bill was not bi-partisan for no Republicans voted for it or claimed anything to do with it. This baby rest solely in the Democrats lap and they all should know it’s not constitutional.

In the Article we read the following text “”But it’s also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president’s central legislative accomplishments.”

Pardon me but could one reason it is highly uncommon to find the court doing this is because no President and Congress before Obama and the Democratic Congress he had in the first two years had ever usurped power like they had and attempted to pass such obviously Unconstitutional policy. These people obviously took and oath to protect and abide by the Constitution but that oath apparently means nothing to them. I’d be for prosecuting them for crimes against the Constitution if such was available. Surely impeachment should be an option.

Realize also that the usual checks and balances broke down due to the fact that you had the President (Executive Branch) and Congress (House and Senate, Legislative Branches) with one single party’s control and the other party could do nothing at all due to the overwhelming majorities the Democrats had. The very reason the Bill was pushed through “deemed passed” was because the democrats knew Scott Brown would provide the Republicans enough numbers that they could have intervened with the Democrats doing just what they wanted to do. This bill was not bi-partisan for no Republicans voted for it or claimed anything to do with it. This baby rest solely in the Democrats lap and they all should know it’s not constitutional.

Judicial Activism is when a judge creates rights or powers not actually defined in the constitution.

Judicial Activism is not when a judge rules that a law or an individual attempts to go beyond the powers granted in the constitution. That is a huge part of EXACTLY what we ask judges to do.

Do the words “Community Agitator” mean anything? They describe this lying clown-in-chief. I’m sure Kagan or Sotomayor leaked the initial vote from last Friday.

Under our constitution the states have every right to enact something like this. The federal government does not. I don’t see the big problem for Romney with this. The constitution is very big on limiting what the national government can do…not what it cannot do. It is called enumerated powers. The left’s only real defense as to constitutionality is that some people not buying health insurance raises the cost for those who do buy it and since everyone will want it at some point, everyone should have to buy it so that the costs are as low as possible. Under this reasoning, some people are unable to afford to care for their children, thus having them shifts the costs on to all other Americans and since every child has a requirement for care, we have no choice but to provide it. Therefore, the government should be able to mandate that people unable to afford children must have abortions lest everyone else be saddled with these costs. The government has no more right to demand abortions in order to keep the public’s cost of raising poor children to a minimum than it does mandating the purchase of insurance for the same purpose.

What you said is Too Cool 4 School. Nice Reply.

It seems the majority here think Obama is not upholding the Constitution when that is his duty he was sworn in to office to perform.

This man is truly irony proof. My god what a tool we elected in 08.

Just more creepy stuff from the creepy president. I hardly know where to start and doubt I could stay on subject there is so much “negative” information.
Do you or can you even entertain the idea that he really cares about those sick people that his health care bill will help? After he marches fake people forward to champion his obamacare. The panels that decide your life (death panels) do you find ethical? This is when they lied about these panels and said it wasn’t true. This health care bill is about deceit, lies and written by a communist while in jail or fresh out of prison, I forget but one or the other. It was pushed by payoffs to La., Ne., and Ar.
This has been a bill to control what you eat, drink and how you live. It is about control and I hope the entire bill is thrown out along with Obama 2013. ABO

Were does he get off???? There is a system of checks and balances for a reason…the Supreme Court of this nation has presided of some of the most meaningful decisions in our nations history. He has no right and no place to comment or try to influence the decision they may come out with. Once again we see an example of an inexperienced, personal aid dependent, president. Let the Constitution work and Mr. President…Value and respect the decision the highest court in our land decides! You do not run this country on your own..

Pretty bold comment from the man with a hundred+ czars who are not elected and don’t have congressional approval.

Pot calling the kettle black!!

A President who intimidates, threatens or belittles one of the branches presumes his branch is more valuable, powerful, better than the others. We shall see.

Internet based secure direct voting on bills introduced by people should replace this corrupt unrepresentative government. We can make our own laws – ones that limit corporate power, protect employees and citizens and protect small businesses from corporate predatory practices. We can do this just by creating a site where we all can vote. Majority rule! Make it happen.

McBob08:

ACA has never seen less than 60% disapproval. Your premise is simply wrong.

Slinging accusations at SCOTUS based on (the potential outcome of) a pending decision says it all. You respect neither the institution nor its processes; all you want is a decision that suits your world view.

McBob08:

ACA has never seen less than 60% disapproval. Your premise is simply wrong.

Slinging accusations at SCOTUS based on (the potential outcome of) a pending decision says it all. You respect neither the institution nor its processes; all you want is a decision that suits your world view.

Bully pulpit

This law was passed by flouting the rules of the Senate and without a single GOP vote. Nancy Pelosi dismissed Republican concerns as irrelevant and informed us all that we would have to pass the bill to see what was in it…. She actually said that with a straight face. And now the former University of Chicago constitutional law professor (who, by the way, has NEVER authored a legal writing of any significance) is trying to lecture the SCOTUS on what their proper role is within the government (apparently it is to rubber stamp anything Obama thinks should be Constitutional). Americans would have supported a reasonable bill that addressed the 10-15% of Americans w/o health insurance while allowing insured Americans to keep their current plan. Instead, the Left couldn’t resist the allure of taking over 1/7th of the US economy, constitutionality be damned. Americans never supported the President’s law; they flipped Congress in response to its passage and few will mourn its demise at the hands of the Roberts Court. Good riddance to this rubbish! Now if only Americans can summon the wisdom to send Obama into early retirement this November…

If the vast majority of Americans supported passing a law banning all firearms from public ownership and the congress passed it and then the Supreme Court overturned it on constitutional grounds this would not mean the law was forever dead. All it would mean is that Congress would have to go back and do it right by holding a constitutional convention to repeal the offending 2nd Amendment. Similarly if the ACA is overturned wouldn’t it be the RESPONSIBILITY of the supporters in congress to press for a constitutional amendment?

They blinked! the Liberals blinked!!!! They actually admit the judicial activism occurs on from the left! OMG!!!!
But even though they claim the SCOTUS is behaving as activists, they are not. Mandatory insurance on a federal level is not constitutional. You know those forms you fill out a the hospital or the nurse asks you, “Is there a gun in your home?” – i know this is not a mandatory question that they asked, but I never would have guessed that an individual mandate would have passed in my lifetime either. If this were able to become permanent law, you could possibly be fined or jailed for owning a gun, feeding your family fast food, etc…
This law is nuts and is unconstitutional. If the SCOTUS successfully overturns this law as it should, then

“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.”

Anyone have a problem with that? Could it be that this is an absolutely and massively false statement. Pulled from where? And why?

The spin has started, Obama knows what he is up against. Pray for the safety of all the justices now, we do not want any of them to be Breitbarted.

BO is all for judicial activism. Why is he knocking it now. The judicial activists are the 4 who vote for the law. They are disregarding the constitution. The conservatives are doing what they are supposed to do. Apply the constitution. There are limits on the government in the constitution. Liberals do whatever they want and ignore the constitution. BO is wrong as usual.

The activism we conservatives object to is the *manufacturing* of laws from the bench. Yes, we whine when the Supreme Court rules against us. Just like liberals whine. But a conservative judge will not create laws and rights out of thin air. An activist liberal judge will.

President Obama has it wrong. Shooting down unconstitutional laws is the proper role of the Supreme Court.

flashrooster — that’s a heck of a lot of words and paragraphs spent iterating what amounts to an Obama-apologist mini-tantrum.

It’s clearly an unconstitutional law. The American People saw from the get-go that it was a Trojan Horse power-grab, a deeply disturbing mandate passing as a “benevolent panacea.”

The People were not fooled, but the politicking ruling-class demagogues to the left of the aisle played deaf and passed a vastly unpopular, bloated, blatantly unconstitutional law anyway.

It is the Supreme Court’s job to nip it in the bud. If there’s any “extremism” it is manifest in any judge who has the selective-perception to give this mess of a law a “thumbs up.”

A strictly constitutional analysis from any judge with a shred of integrity will quickly see that the law is unconstitutional on its face.

That’s why we have a constitution — to check against such things. And that’s what the court’s purpose is — to defend the integrity of the US Constitution.

The boy king.

Al,
Because it is not mandated that you own a car or if you do you don’t have to drive it. Nothing like obamacare

The least presidential President in history shows his true colors again.

AlfredReaud,

Just like compulsory car insurance, the only things compulsory healthcare insurance will do is drive up costs and destroy quality. Forcing people/companies to purchase healthcare insurance, as a means of combatting rising costs, is like bleeding a hemophiliac to save his life.

If you understand basic economics, then you can appreciate the fact that proponents of socialized medicine don’t care about economics; because they’d be forcing the opposite situation — they’d deny coverage and abolish guarantees.

Are you required to own a car? Likewise, is the government telling you what to do with your body? If our President and his proponents can’t understand the basic tenets of economics in a free society, we are screwed!

Correction: the Health Care Law was not duly constituted and passed. Quote Nancy Pelosi: “You have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it.” The bill that grew exponentially to over 2700 pages that virtually no one read. That alone should make it unconstitutional! It would be judicial activitism for the Supreme Court to NOT duly consider the Health Care Law and all its facets according to the law of the land, the US Constitution. For Obama to issue such a warning to the Supreme Court is highly disrespectful of the Court and shows complete disregard for the Separate But Equal powers of our Government.

To Alfred Reuald, Are you kidding me? You actually asked why the states mandating automobile insurance in constitutional if Obamacare isn’t. That is easy. 1. It is a state right issue, iaw the 10th amendment the state can do things not allowed to the federal government. 2. You are not mandated to have car insurance if you decide not to own a car. Under Obamacare the federal government is mandating you have insurance if you are a citizen. I could go on, but I’ve already sunk your argument so why waste the time.

Why would I expect Justice Kagan to be a “leak” to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government? Provable? Probably not, but something to think about.

One has to wonder how the limousine liberals who believe that they have the monopoly on intelligence, as well as our “constitutional law scholar” president, could have so stretched the constitution and thought they would get away with it. Oh that’s right, Obama called Americans “uneducated and confused” in 2009. Perhaps he can get all of us into the hallowed halls of Harvard, too, so that we can also be 1%ers like him.

Plain point impression of this Obama statement today: It appears the man is becoming shaken, distracted. Obama is starting to appear disconnected and inconsistant not only on this Obamacare fiasco, but in several other key domestic policy subjects that will be key to his re-election. He is now considered a failure by All conservatives and a huge majority of independents, He is also not considered satisfactory in the least amongst a growing number of his former liberal backers. Meanwhile his total failure at foreign policy is becoming just flat weird.
Not a good sign for Obama.

Dear flashrooster: It appears the only conversation you listen to is the one going on in your own head. The thoughts you espouse are those preached to the masses everyday by the far left liberals. If you don’t educate yourself and soon, you are right, it just might be too late for all of us.

According to O, the bill passed with “a strong majority of a democratically elected congress”. How quickly we forget. It passed 219 – 212 with STRONG bi-partisan support…34 democrats voted against it!!! No Republicans voted for it.. Math has never been Obama’s strong point.

“affordable care act”
Everything the government does is the opposite of what is intended. So this will make care more expensive and it’s a dictate, not an act.

“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,” I know he did not spend much time serving in congress but you would think he realized that a law is not a law unless it was passed by a majority of elected officials. So every law overturned by the court (which is their purpose in the checks and balances) is president for this.

He is also the one who said that elections had ramifications and the 2010 elections were a result of the health care bill. While the economy was collapsing he was so concerned about health care he ignored the economy.

So the supreme partisan hack, Pres Obama, tries to make out like the Supreme Court is his little dog and pony show? Nice try mr narcissist, they don’t care what you think, and they know your ridiculous law is unconstitutional. Get ready for the slap down.

Unconstitutional laws are overturned all the time. That’s why we have a judicial branch.

So I guess Obama is for reversing Roe v Wade now, since that decision was based on actually legislating from the bench. At least if the
Supreme Court overturns Obamacare it would be based on the constitution and not just some imaginary right. You dems are such hypocrites.

If the majority of the Supreme Court does find the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, they are supposed to overturn it. That is not “activism”, that is doing what they are supposed to do. Activism would be to take actions contrary to your objective judgement, it is not taking the actions that are required because of them.

The President’s other apparent argument seems to be that the Court should restrain themselves, basically trying to say that any law passed by the elected Congress is beyond their reach. That idea seems so obviously dangerous that I can’t understand why anyone- Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, or any other label you choose- would buy into that. I would caution those who seem to think that the ends justify the means, or that Obama can do no wrong, that at most he will have one more term. Do you really want these views and the implied power of the Congress (and realistically the President) beyond the constitutional oversight of the Supreme Court to set the precedent for our future? I do not.

it’s pretty simple:
The left believes the government can do whatever it wants to, or ‘for’, the ‘people’.
The right believes that the constitution protects the people from government doing whatever it want to, or ‘for’, the people.
History tells us that unbridled government power is incompetent and disastrous. The right fears the excesses of history, the left thinks they are smart enough to make history irrelevant. Simple.

I was appalled at Kagen’s comment that the state’s would get “boatloads” of free money. “Free”–nothing is “free!!!”. What someone gets for “free”–someone else is paying for it. You are taking from someone who has probably worked very hard…..and giving the fruits of their labor to provide for someone else. Kagan must have a very thick skull—can we say —obtuse?

Obama’s requirement that citizens purchase whatever the federal government says to is unconstitutional. Judicial activism is when new powers are “discovered” in the Constitution – not the protection and defense of the law. Many Presidents have made the same claims – that all laws passed by Congress are proper. However, the supreme law of the land isn’t any willy-nilly “law” that makes it past the majority voting line – all laws need to be in line with the Constitution and instructing free citizens to purchase something isn’t a right enumerated to either the Legislative or Executive Branch.

Obama is creepy, and getting more like Hugo Chavez every day. Now is is taking aim at the Supreme Court justices. Sounds to me like his liberal progressive appointees are leaking back to him. Sorry, but he soils our constitution. I hope that Americans vote intelligently in November and send him packing.

Put GW Bush’s head on Obama’s shoulders saying that, and watch liberal heads explode.

Geez, how many posts do you robo-posters have to post before your Republican masters call you back to your holding cells?

All these posts and nothing said. Let’s look at a few, shall we? Here’s a good one. It’s by ncpg: “I always liked Kagan on “King of Queens”.” Impressive. Shows real class and a deep intellect.

Here’s one by Cogs: “What a jerk Obama is. Does he even remember the number of czars he has given unlimited power to??”
What??? Why no examples of what the heck he’s talking about? What czars and what unlimited power? You mean like that chicanery Bush pulled to get us into an unnecessary war with Iraq? Oh well, that was only a trillion dollars and 4,500 American soldiers’ lives, certainly worth the price to be flown onto an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet to appear like a hero beneath the a banner that read, “Mission Accomplished”. Haha only the mission was just getting started hahahaha. And you guys hate Obama and not that guy? Bush got thousands of people killed for nothing while Obama tried to improve our healthcare, yet you like Bush and hate Obama. Freaky.

Here we go. This is by something called GozieBoy: “Obama’s “Manson is Guilty” moment. I’m sure that the MSM will treat this presidential meddling with the judiciary system exactly in the same way that they did with Nixon…”
So GozieBoy is comparing Obama’s attempt to protect Americans from being dropped from their insurance provider when they get seriously ill to Richard Nixon’s bugging of the Democratic Headquarters and then lying about it. And you consider yourself a defender of the Constitution? Hmmm…GozieBoy, you might want to give a bit more detail to justify your comparison. For example, what Nixon did was illegal. No one, except maybe you, is suggesting that Obama has done anything illegal. Yes, I know, it’s a minor point.

Oh, here’s a good one. It’s by Str8tTalkHawk:
“EVERYBODY KNOWS COMMIECARE HEALTHCARE DEFORM IS JUST MORE NEW CLOTHES FROM THE EMPEROR OBAMARXIST KEENYATTA’S “COMMUNISM WORKS” COLLECTION. I BET HIS APPARATCHI(C)K MOLE KAGAN GAVE HIM THE BAD NEWS THAT WE STILL HAVE A CONSTITUTION. TOO BAD, MARXIST AMERICA HATERS!

IF SATAN HAD A SON, HE’D BE JUST LIKE OBAMARXIST KEENYATTA! TRAITOR!”

I can’t add anything to that. It’s proof that Republicans have a defective gene. Obamarxist Keenyatta? If Satan had a son… You guys are truly deranged.

And you guys wonder why the rest of the world thinks you’re all nuts. LOL…It’s funny because it’s obvious to everyone except you guys. It’s like you guys are the only ones who aren’t in on the joke.

Lights out time! Back to your cells. Tomorrow’s a whole new day that you can spend hating our first black President, a truly decent guy, I might add. (Yes, yes, I know, it has nothing to do with race–wink)

Someone has to come out and say that young people who use up $900 per year in health care will be forced to pay $5,200 per year in insurance payments. So, much for the Democrats just trying to dig into the rich, they’ve voted to do it to the low earning young, also.

Many hours ago..in detail..(where did the comment go?) I pointed out how ridiculous the comment of “strong majority” was. Anyone paying the slightest attention at that time knows it was a nail biter and shenanigans (reconciliation, thoughts of “deeming”, buying Stupak etc etc). And even with the same players, it would not pass today since we had to pass it to see what’s in it.

as we get more laws we get more issues with liberties ,do not pay insurance for 5 years go to jail for a bit while government confiscates everything you got ,for being guilty of being alive !?the reason you have to pay is because you are alive ,every breath you have is translated in cents and money that can be transferred to special interest places ,it could have been done more responsible in many more different ways ,..you have to provide proof that you did not make enough money before you can get your freedom back ?

How dare the Executive threaten the Judicial? The president is way out of line and showing a complete disregard and contempt for the constitution. Mr. Obama is a constitutional lawyer and an expert on the subject. He knows exactly what he’s doing is wrong. This is the same president who smacked down the Supreme Court in his first State of the Union speech which was also out of line. Obama’s arrogance is disturbing.

I don’t understand the logic that this is “Judicial Activism”..

They are doing their jobs…If Congress passes a law, the President signs it, the Court decides if it is Constitutional if it is challenged…

So Brown v. Board of Education is “Judicial Activism” by that logic…

So if Congress passes a law that says all criticism of them is punishable by imprisonment, the President signs it, and the Court rightfully strikes it down as violating the First Amendment, this is “Judicial Activism” by liberal standards..

I guess the Executive and Legislative expect a blank check.. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

They had better go back to high school and re-examine the role of the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I think it’s time for another vacation because for some reason it seems you believe the presidency has unlimited power. I’m sure there’s a nice secure facility near the Peoples House that you can visit where the staff meets your every need and they are neatly dressed in white and the walls are even soft in case you bump into them. Just please use the money you made from those books that you “wrote.”

Dang you checks and balances!!! Dang you constitutional restrictions and “negative rights” (Obama in radio interview in Chicago)!! Dang you mandate !! As Obama argued against one in democratic campaign against Hillary as if ‘the mandate would work, than why not mandate purchasing of a home to solve homelessness’ ridiculing Hilary over a healthcare mandate. Obama is not an honest man, nor an honorable one.

I hope they overturn it. Then the Republican Subpremes can return my Medicare taxes for the last 30 years with interest.

Scalia’s a Republican party hack nothing more!

“Paradoxically, the tendency of narcissists to refer to themselves in the third person stems from precisely this inability. When asked to explain their ill-conceived actions or describe their negative emotions, narcissists usually refuse to take responsibility for them. Instead, they blame others, often by composing narratives featuring a suspiciously-autobiographical “fictitious” character who understands everything, is a world-renowned expert in whatever subject is germane to the issue at hand, and whose authority is therefore unquestioned. This is also why narcissists may be inextricably drawn to the act of making up quotes.”

Any guess who fits this discription just from this article? Put the facts together and understand who was elected to be president.

The USSC is about to pull the plug on Obama’s health care and his second term. The democrats know it, and they know what a joke Obama is.

The only reason he is able to persist as if he an equal to George Washington is so no one comes off looking like the guy that ruined it for the first Black President or worse.

The trick will be how to get this guy not to run for a second term and get a democrat on the ticket that can beat Romney and at the same time dump Biden for a saner VP.

I’m betting the next shoe to drop will be Obama is in the closet; Van Jones is sewing the seeds of that very idea this week.

Tick tock goes the clock, it won’t be long now.

flashrooster, you need help, really man, get some help.

Hmmmmm, ruling that a law is unconstitutional is now considered judicial activism. Even though that statement is pure rubbish even by the most lowly of standards, I simply can’t help saying “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”. Oh, did I forget to mention that I’m sure glad it’s his Rev. Sharpton supported half (wink, wink) that is in full control of this presidency and not his mother’s half.

Barry Soetoro is under the impression that just because he is being allowed to sleep in the bed in the White House…after usurping the office through fraud and by disenfranching and lying to the American electorate – and not being thrown out on his azz, as required by the Constitution…….which can never be negated by the illegally-gained votes. Votes do not usurp our Constitution, even though, Barry, you think you have gotten away with your coup.

Why wouldn’t he think that he can threaten and have his way? Who has stood in the way of this Communist killer, this thug, this illiterate Affirmative Action political abortion?

The American people will. The Supreme Court will.

And you, Soetoro, can go back to the Indonesian cesspool from whence you were spawned.

“…the biggest problem on the bench was judicial ‘activism’”
Come to think of it, isn’t that loud mouthed guy in the news today named Sharpton an, “Activist?” Yes he is, so “activism” is ok when it is on your side? Why are there sides? Why is our current president not interested in what is best for this nation?
Never before has a president attacked the Supreme Court this way. No other president has suggested the Supreme Court was irrelevant.
Think back to the election of 2000 when Al Gore was the candidate for the Democratic Party. He lost the election, but ran crying to the US Supreme Court crying his ballots weren’t counted. We all remember “hanging chads,” and the wild eyed looks of those in Florida re-counting the ballots. The Democratic Party propped up the Supreme Court as being the “Highest Law of the Land!”
The Republican party argued and lost, but won the election. Now the Democratic Party is attacking the Supreme Court! They are attacking the very court they claimed was the “Highest Law of the Land!” Our current president is leading the attack on them!
We don’t need or want a president that attacks our form of government. We need a leader, preferably a veteran, who loves our nation as much as we do. We don’t need a divisive president who attacks our form of government in a bitter tantrum because he won’t get what he wants.

I think you misunderstand, car insurance is not mandated its required, I still have a “choice”, I can stop driving and not get insurance, with the healthcare I have no “choice”

So let me get this straight….. Four liberal judges are expected to vote for the law based upon their ideology. Five are to decide based upon the merits of the arguments and the constitution. Too bad all 9 justices are not willing to represent the people and look at justice blindly, without political influence. This is why we hold liberals in such low regard.

“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,” Obama said …

WOW. This guy thinks that it would be unprecendented for the Court to declare a law uncontitutional.

WOW. He thinks rule by mob is the better way.

WOW.

He’s not only creepy, … he’s downright scary.

That’s funny, “judicial activism” seems very much like what Justice Ginsburg did when rushing to the aid of the Solicitor General when his arguments started falling apart at the seams.

This Clown is unbelievably stupid to take on the SCOTUS. I can’t wait for the pile of Donkey Dung called ObamaCare to go down in flames in June.

It was crammed down our throats with a straight DemocRat vote and it IS unconstitutional as Comrade Obozo would know, IF he is indeed a “Constitutional Law ‘professor.’” Pfft!

It’d funny but in just looking at 2/3 of the posts it seems the Constitutionalists outway the “Federalists” by about 2/3 to 1/3. Isn’t it funny how the Demoncrap of our present society so closlely resemble the Federalists. It’s alright though… they dissappeared into history as well… never to be seen again… except in history books… just like Obama and his Federalist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist cabinet & followers… Good riddance and enjoy being the Dreggs of US History!!!

Since when is this fascist opposed to judicial activism?