Thursday, April 05, 2012
In a weird way I kinda agree w/Obama
Conservatives have said the President is "threatening" the Supreme Court on health-care reform but Obama is saying here in effect why are the courts the most powerful branch of the US government? Now I oppose ObamaCare myself especially the part about the individual mandate but I'm confused by conservatives' newfound love for the SCOTUS. I mean weren't tons of books written and speeches given on the Supremes having too much power over the will of the people on the various contentious social and political issues of the day Roe being the classic example of course but also affirmative action and so on down the line? When I went to the Mount in the Bronx and I always remember this in History class we learned and it was right there in the textbook that we have or are supposed to have 3 co-equal branches of the Government - legislative to pass the laws, executive to enforce the laws and judicial to interpret those laws, a kind of checks-and-balances system. I don't like the health-care but I find myself kinda agreeing with the President philosophically here. Apparently I'm in the minority though as usual:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems odd to me that we're seemingly all up in arms about SCOTUS arguing about Corporate Monopolized Health Care, while several administrations go unpunished for war crimes. Go Figure.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in the equality of the branches: we freely criticize
ReplyDeletecongress, the administration...and
SCOTUS is subject to to our critique as well. Perhaps moreso, since the judges possess life tenure. Thomas Jefferson's feelings about Chief Justice
John Marshall, for example:
"In the case of Marbury and Madison, the federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealed by the President, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the party, is as yet no deed, it is in posse only, but not in esse, and I withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue a mandamus to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers" ..with emphasis on 'cannot' and the other two branches. So you and Jefferson
a paddling the same canoe.
Let's not forget that conservatives have not in the past been in a love affair with judges...
ReplyDeleteWitness Gingrich call for marshalls and when Bush essentially said left leaning judges did not believe their job was to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...
Criticism of judges is a long held tradition of our political leaders when they do not agree with the decisions of the bench.
People that are crying about Obama's words as if he is the only president to ever do this are just, dare i say it... blindly partisan...
I changed my mind on my last word usage... maybe I'm too nice... jajajaja
The Constitutionality of the law is what they are determining and that IS 100% their juridiction. Of that there is no doubt. It is, after all their most important responsibility. This, regardless of what the Baby-in-Chief wants people to believe, has absolutely nothing to do with "legislating from the bench!"
ReplyDelete"In a weird way I kinda agree w/Obama"
ReplyDeleteWEIRD? That's putting it mildly.
The only thing that I agree with is that I agree that guy is a is a hopeless, self-righteous, arrogant, socialist, wannabe dictator.
His making that absurdly threatening, intimidating speech in an attempt to influence a Supreme Court Justices at the very time that they are deliberating on a decision is just about the dumbest thing as any President has ever done. Or was it "dumb" or sly and as arrogance as a Fox! . This President is completely in a position that is way over his head. Rush was right when he said "I hope that is policies FAIL".
Dave Miller said...
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that conservatives have not in the past been in a love affair with judges..
Please tell me what in the world does that have to do with the President making those absurdly threats to the Supreme Court Justices? We think it's because he's stupid, well it's not that's nonsense, he is not stupid, he's very cunning and scheming and arrogant, but not stupid. He is doing precisely what he has set out to do. And when ever he gets angry he tells off whomever it is and he doesn't care who hears him or what anyone thinks about it. And this is exactly what makes him dangerous.
Personally, I don't think he is stupid at all, maybe his supporters are but he is as arrogant as they come. I'm hoping and praying that the court will strike down this mess he created. And that he's defeated in November.
D Obama is enunciating a very conservative principle here and conservatives have used it over the years mostly to denounce the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. Should the justices then have abolished literally every single state law banning abortions??? What I'm saying is if you have trouble with Roe and I do then Obama didn't really say anything new he's just applying it to an issue we hate.
ReplyDeleteAA: "The Constitutionality of the law is what they are determining and that IS 100% their jurisdiction."
ReplyDelete& yet I agree with you here IF what they are deciding is simply the constitutionality of the individual mandate and nothing else. Is the individual mandate in keeping with the interstate commerce clause? seems this is very much their jurisdiction but if let's say they say you can't pass legislation about pre-existing conditions and what have you then Obama has the stronger point after all what is the point of the Congress? Maybe what I'm trying to say is Obama talking about the court this way conservatives have used very similar language over the years if memory serves so why get in a tizzy?
I just wanted to wish you and your readers
ReplyDeletea very Happy Holiday, may it be Easter or Passover, all my best to you all.
And please continue to Keep up the fight.
Thank you Mal & to you too.
ReplyDelete