i think the biggest thing i detest about obama is his continual assumption of the position as the defender of what made america great and the claim to be protecting our american ideals.
when he is the exact opposite of that.
democrats re-define and confuse and distort both history and words to lead the little ones astray. its quite galling.
now with the SCOTUS, the most recent obama mis-direction is his claim that if they rule constitutionally it will be legislating from the bench. just another example of pompous re-defining. legislating from the bench is finding novel theories upon which to base a ruling for purposes of furthering a social outcome, not ruling based upon sound doctrine and clear words of the constitution.
then obama goes on to say that theres a human element to this (his social agenda) and implies that the SCOTUS should rule his way because of his social agenda and therefore the outcome he likes, as if that trumps the law. spoken like a true constitutional lawyer
he picks and chooses and is out of control, reeling from this emotion to that. he presents, without a doubt, the least presidential bearing of any president in my lifetime, and is the most polarizing and separating one.
"i think the justices should understand...." what a pompous display of arrogance and self-deceit and attempt at indimidation. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Jackie I guess you missed the part when the Republican candidates, Romney and Santorum said they would over turn any Supreme Court decision they didn't like if elected president. Originally Posted by BigLouieWhat have you been smoking? Site your sources. Romney and Santorum never said they would overturn a Supreme Court decision.
Actually, if the Executive simply chose to ignore the Court's ruling, what could the Court do? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
As much as I hope Obamacare is repealed, there really isn't anything in the Constitution that says the Supreme Court is the last word on constitutionality. The Court gave themselves that power in Marbury v Madison, which is a horrible case in which Justice Marshall should have recused himself. Much like Justice Kagan should recuse herself from the Obamacare decision. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyThe Constitution does not specifically give the power of judicial review to SCOTUS; however, Constitutional scholars say that it was widely believed by the signers of the Constitution that SCOTUS would have that power.
The courts power is simply the publics will. If an executive chose to ignore the court I believe that the public would force congress to act and the presidents support would vanish. Since they all want to be reelected they will not take that chance. Originally Posted by LazSo you're an advocate of mob rule? Why even have a Constitution? We'll just rule by referendum. Give the people whatever they want. What could go wrong?
So you're an advocate of mob rule? Why even have a Constitution? We'll just rule by referendum. Give the people whatever they want. What could go wrong? Originally Posted by joe bloeAs long as the court does what the public wants it will retain power. You assume the public will reject it if they make an unpopular decision. I believe that as long as they follow the constitution the decision will be accepted even if it is unpopular. Free speech decisions are often unpopular.
If you Google Santorum and over turn Supreme Court you will gets pages of his statements. Originally Posted by BigLouieWell I Googled it as you suggested. The closest thing to Santorum saying he'll overturn the Supreme Court, that I could find, is his appearance on NBC news with David Gregory. He said he would "seek to try and overturn" SCOTUS by amending the constitution. That's a far cry from saying that he would overturn the court unilaterally based on the power he had as president. Amending the Constitution is the only legal way to overturn SCOTUS and that's what Santorum said he would "seek to try" to do. There's no way that Romney or Santorum volunteered that they are going to exercise power they don't legally have.
“I would do the same thing I would with Roe v. Wade, which I would seek to try and overturn it. I think judicial tyranny is a serious issue in this race and this country. And we need judges who respect the people’s voice. Let the people decide with respect to what the constitution says, if in fact they would go through a constitutional amendment process
As long as the court does what the public wants it will retain power. You assume the public will reject it if they make an unpopular decision. I believe that as long as they follow the constitution the decision will be accepted even if it is unpopular. Free speech decisions are often unpopular.I have two simple questions for you.
As for mob rule, if you consider the citezens of the US a mob, then yes I believe in mob rule. Originally Posted by Laz
I have two simple questions for you.Yes and yes. The representatives are there based on the desire of the governed. When the governed get fed up with them they get fired and replaced with someone else. Your point is irrelevant. Indirectly it is a democracy. It just takes a long time to make changes which is probably a good thing.
Do you understand that America is a republic and not a democracy?
Do you know the difference between a republic and a democracy? Originally Posted by joe bloe