Impeach the Supreme court for something they haven't done yet?

[Adam]

Someone tell both sides the Wrestlemania was last weekend, they will have to wait until next March to carry on these shenanigans.

[/dev/null]

They told the DoJ to give them three paages, single-spaced but I'm sure the DoJ will mess with the font size.

 

Remember back in '09/'10 when the media types liked to talk about Obama and Teachable Moments.

 

Here's one Teachable Moment where the Obama Administration gets to write a 3 page essay

[dayman]

Remember back in '09/'10 when the media types liked to talk about Obama and Teachable Moments.

 

Here's one Teachable Moment where the Obama Administration gets to write a 3 page essay

Someone tell both sides the Wrestlemania was last weekend, they will have to wait until next March to carry on these shenanigans.

 

 

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.

Edited April 4, 2012 by dayman

[3rdnlng]

You doubt Kagan would act unprofessionally?

 

Wow. Wow.

 

 

Why does everyone kepp misquoting her? She said "Bow Wow"

[GG]

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.

 

Is this a defense of a POTUS who throws more temper tantrums than my six year old?

[Chef Jim]

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.

 

Please explain the power grab by the SCOTUS.

[Dante]

Ya, what next? Will they start acting like the seriously mentally retarded right wing base and ask for Romney's birth certificate?

 

Probably not, the left my get sort of hysterical, but they can't touch the right wing on stupidity, craziness or shrillness.

Perfectly logical to question Barry's real birth place. He acts more like a 3rd world dictator than a real American.

[IDBillzFan]

In the middle of the Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare, I heard an interview with Joe Trippe (former Howard Dean campaign manager), who consistently strikes me as one of the most level-headed political talking heads on either side of the aisle. He always gives an honest assessment of whatever political topic he is discussing, and never bogs down the conversation like an Alan Colmes or Sean Hannity.

 

He was asked about a Media Matters/HuffPost/whatever article that day which urged the WH needed to go after the Supreme Court, and in fact argued that Obama needed to aggressively campaign against it during the upcoming election. As sincerely and honestly as a person could speak, he said that would be a fool's battle, and there is no way the WH would be so unbelievably stupid as to think waging a campaign against the SC was even remotely a good idea at any possible level. It was understandable from a loony left dolt, Tripped explained, but it was impossible to think that this president would be so boneheaded as to waste him time doing something so ridiculous.

 

And yet here we are.

Edited April 4, 2012 by LABillzFan

[dayman]

Is this a defense of a POTUS who throws more temper tantrums than my six year old?

 

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.

 

 

Please explain the power grab by the SCOTUS.

 

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.

[....lybob]

The President now has the power to imprison or execute American citizens he deems a threat to America without judicial process (just with some form of unspecified due process) I see no exclusion of SCOTUS from this power - He also has no obligation to publicly reveal if either of these things were done- While unthinkable, immoral, outrageous,and heinous it would not be illegal- we are no longer protected by law only by the individual and collective morality of the executive branch and the ability or inability of them to express their will through the agencies of action.

[dayman]

In the middle of the Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare, I heard an interview with Joe Trippe (former Howard Dean campaign manager), who consistently strikes me as one of the most level-headed political talking heads on either side of the aisle. He always gives an honest assessment of whatever political topic he is discussing, and never bogs down the conversation like an Alan Colmes or Sean Hannity.

 

He was asked about a Media Matters/HuffPost/whatever article that day which urged the WH needed to go after the Supreme Court, and in fact argued that Obama needed to aggressively campaign against it during the upcoming election. As sincerely and honestly as a person could speak, he said that would be a fool's battle, and there is no way the WH would be so unbelievably stupid as to think waging a campaign against the SC was even remotely a good idea at any possible level. It was understandable from a loony left dolt, Tripped explained, but it was impossible to think that this president would be so boneheaded as to waste him time doing something so ridiculous.

 

And yet here we are.

 

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?

[Adam]

The President now has the power to imprison or execute American citizens he deems a threat to America without judicial process (just with some form of unspecified due process) I see no exclusion of SCOTUS from this power - He also has no obligation to publicly reveal if either of these things were done- While unthinkable, immoral, outrageous,and heinous it would not be illegal- we are no longer protected by law only by the individual and collective morality of the executive branch and the ability or inability of them to express their will through the agencies of action.

this reminds me of a few years ago when the looney tunes left was terrified that president Bush would go to war with Iran and declare martial law to retain the presidency.

[IDBillzFan]

Did he explain why?

Yes. Because doing so would be freaking stupid.

 

And yet here we are.

[Chef Jim]

 

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.

 

You really think the SCOTUS needs to be told to use careful judgement?? Really???? And if Obama feels he needs to tell them that then he's and even more arrogant bastard than I ever thought. Dude has an agenda and you know it.

[dayman]

You really think the SCOTUS needs to be told to use careful judgement?? Really???? And if Obama feels he needs to tell them that then he's and even more arrogant bastard than I ever thought. Dude has an agenda and you know it.

 

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.

Edited April 4, 2012 by dayman

[IDBillzFan]

When it comes to this issue certain members of the court absolutely should be told that in my opinion.

Starting with Kagan, I'm sure...

[GG]

I'm just interested in why that would be so stupid?

 

Because it reinforces the view which is being picked up by more and more people that he's an extremely thin skinned empty suit?

[Chef Jim]

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.

 

Well you're saying that is because you're a dumb !@#$. So why is Obama saying it?

[....lybob]

this reminds me of a few years ago when the looney tunes left was terrified that president Bush would go to war with Iran and declare martial law to retain the presidency.

I think that even the pretense of rule of law is fast disappearing both domestically and internationally.

[dayman]

Because it reinforces the view which is being picked up by more and more people that he's an extremely thin skinned empty suit?

 

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