dayman

Not disputing just saying that would be a likely Repub spin on it and the Democrat spin would be something the opposite I guess I don't know. Well a coded temper tantrum but yes. That is what I'm saying, not everyone else though just Federal Judges.

That is interesting. I guess that would be the view from the right.

When it comes to this issue certain members of the court absolutely should be told that in my opinion. And many on the right think that about certain members. Not limited to SC either. Hell Gingrich was talking about wanting to abolish the 9th circuit haha.

Did he explain why? I mean any added fuel to rally what has been criticized in recent months as a passive Democratic base would probably be good for him no? It's not like the Republican's can spin it around and say "oh now we love the supreme court and nobody should question them"...both parties bring out the old SC bashing when it suits them. Obviously some over the top crusade would be stupid but making it apart of a more general campaign pointing out that if he can make it another 4 years all these 5-4 decisions handed down recently that his base doesn't like would be different in the future b/c he could swing the court w/ new appointees? I'm just interested in why that would be so stupid?

It's not a defense of POTUS throwing a fit as the right thing to do necessarily, but it's an acknowledgment if he wants to do so he can and the judge should not throw a fit back. Judge Smith would be wise to reflect on the history of the court being at odds with the President and how that goes. It's a delicate line the judiciary walks. The way I see it is president is reminding them to tread lightly in terms of the proper scope of judicial review. I saw the clip and it was a bumble but everybody knows that anyone graduating from Harvard law knows about judicial review and that it exists. The question of the proper scope of that review is another issue all together and one that courts struggle with in all sorts of scenarios. The proper scope of review/level of scrutiny to apply to lower court rulings, agency rulings, congress, the president, various levels of review...that's the sort of thing Courts constantly debate/rule on/consider and the sort of thing that evolves and changes over time. And either way you splice it the original Marburydecision was one of the most brilliant power grabs in American history. Not that the validity of judicial review is being questioned in modern times but the parameters of it are always fair game.

Haha, this is why Smith seems like such an out of control hot head to me right now. To sit from the bench in the 5th circuit and basically use an active case to demand an answer from the president through the DOJ about a comment he makes publicly regarding his opinion of the possible ruling in the States case? Get over yourself. Obama is the president he will do what all politicians do and he will speak his mind and lead his side as he sees fit. As a sitting judge you STFU when the President speaks (are you listening Alito?) act judgly and then go about your day. Nobody is threatening judicial review, but if you were smart you would show humility as a judge and appreciate the concerns about the recent (and more importantly possible future) trend in showing too little defernce (according to some not all) to the elected branches who are also sworn to uphold the constitution. When someone accuses you of a power grab you don't threaten to punch them unless they take it back. Certainly not when they can just decline to take it back and you can't punch them.

I doubt Kagan did it but I'm sure in some manner or another Obama knows. At least more than we do.

Judge Smith is out of control.

Not a fan of that article.

It's hard to stare Shepard Smith directly in the makeup.

I wouldn't declare it dead but I think it's fair to acknowledge how difficult it is. If there is one thing that is forever talked about and never acted upon it is that issue so it's I wouldn't hinge the budget on reform. That said if you are willing to just say "yea, it will reduce revenue and I'm ok with that but there's a possibility with tax reform we can eventually approach the levels we have now" that's ok but to say that it doesn't reduce revenue is as disingenuous as anything Obama has said that enrages the right. I'm no tax expert but it seems people are all for it until the special interests get involved, the value of people's houses are thrown into jeopardy...etc...I mean am I wrong? I'm not trying to be some know-it-all in a competition with anyone on this just genuinely asking if you would agree that tax reform is a difficult beast to conquer politically. Or if it's even realistic that this congress could do it.

And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn’t deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all) Eliminating loopholes w/ proposed tax reform is much easier said than done. Saying this to me is about the same as Obama saying "we'll reduce waste" to cover money for healthcare. It's pretty much meaningless until it's actually being done and real world way in front of our faces. This budget would deny the government revenue as far as I'm concerned.

Haha, clever Obama calling the Repubs budget not 1, but 2 things they don't really like.

Thing is these sort of tactics have a tendency to take a life of their own as of late. Just make sure all the right wing guys agree with you on this, and I'm ok.

You consider this a "serious" budget proposal? The Paul Ryan budget?

Amen to that. This Paul Ryan budget as a (strong) starting point in compromise is one thing. So long as that is what it is. Also, I am not so convinced "fixing tax loop holes" is as easy politically as this plan implies. But either way hopefully both sides are willing to compromise. And I hope those "on the street" that support this budget do so knowing how it impacts them and those in their community and not just on some vague ideological grounds that a few talking points drills into them.

Lighten up for Christ's sake. My God. lol and here I thought you had a sense of humor

Well if I eat crap and poop food as you suggested before I offered to place food in your mouth by ****ing, then the confusion over the censor becomes apparent. My apologies for being unclear I have confused myself.

Uh, food? Is that what you want to here?

Haha, wow. Nice one Joe

Now that was definitely your most creative post. (seriously made me laugh)

But even if CBO continues to play along with the Obamacare-as-deficit-cutter fairy tale, that still doesn’t preclude Congress from repealing it in reconciliation. All the House and Senate would have to do is couple repeal with some strategic cuts in spending (including, perhaps, retention of some cuts that were enacted in Obamacare itself). The total package would then be estimated to cut the deficit and therefore fall well within the normal boundaries of a reconciliation bill. From one of the links at the end of that article. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280274/reconciliation-option-james-c-capretta?pg=2 If Romney wins and all this repeal through reconciliation starts up **** is going to get absolutely brutal. Far more brutal than it has been at the most brutal moments as of late.

Well I added another sentence in there to clarify, in saying that the line had to be drawn somewhere and that is where it was drawn. Since I am not religious I have little sympathy for their line-drawing problem as everybody has line-drawing problems regarding issues that concern them (me included) and yet we all deal with it.

Well now to me that article clearly shows they could see there are potential problems why else would Obama meet with him? As for the lying part I don't agree but I can see how you can make the argument. I mean, I'm sorry that they can't define "hospitals, grade schools, universities and soup kitchens" however they like, but I don't think Obama ever told them they would be able to. Even if he did, I'm really not concerned about the governments encroachment on religion. Just don't care personally so it's hard for me to really dive into the issue the way someone who think they are being forced to commit mortal sin can. Not that it isn't important, just not one of "my issues" so to speak. The line has to be drawn somewhere...sorry they don't like where it was drawn.

Can't argue w/ ignorance.