Rob's House Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 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. I don't get this. The CEO of the Federal Government can throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled child and everyone else needs to STFU? As far as the history of the court with the President, if Obama thinks he can go back to the days of Jefferson canceling a session of the court for a year and threatening impeachment if he doesn't get away, this guy's more deluded than anyone's given him credit for. 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. Which would be more plausible were it not coming from the same guy who said the Warren court didn't go far enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 That is interesting. I guess that would be the view from the right. Which part are you disputing - that he's thin skinned or an empty suit or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Remember how during the 2010 elections, the Republicans promoted ‘Constitutional Authority Statements,’ proposing that all proposed legislation include a citation to some specific constitutional authority? Remember how the Democrats heaped ridicule on that idea, saying that decisions on the constitutionality of legislation was the sole domain of the Supreme Court? Just sayin’.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Uh...yeah. What's wrong with that? What would be the benefit to this Nation of such policy? A sicker, less productive, segment of the Nation that feels downtrodden and at risk... how does that help this great Nation? The providers in this country take an oath which dictates the opposite of that very sentiment. I get buying a home- if you can't afford it, you shouldn't get the loan If you can't afford a Car, walk or take the Bus If you can't pay your Cable Bill, tough. If you get Cancer, and everybody just strugged and says "sucks to be you", how would that make us a more benelovent people? Sickness does not seek out the Poor or People with Unhealthy lifestyles, its indiscrminant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Which part are you disputing - that he's thin skinned or an empty suit or both? 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. I don't get this. The CEO of the Federal Government can throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled child and everyone else needs to STFU? Well a coded temper tantrum but yes. That is what I'm saying, not everyone else though just Federal Judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 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. How about analyzing the evidence and coming to a conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) How about analyzing the evidence and coming to a conclusion? There's nothing to analyze for me it would just be part of a campaign, an issue that presented itself that can possibly be used to generate momentum. Pretty much standard operating procedure for all politicians. It is just a campaign decision it doesn't make him thin skinned to me, it just means he/his campaign thinks this could be a good thing to focus on. I don't really find making an issue out of the makeup of the supreme court offensive in an election having followed many significant 5-4 decisions. Also the docket is geared to keep it going there's a few more significant ones coming. Edited April 4, 2012 by dayman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 There's nothing to analyze for me it would just be part of a campaign... Except that that many people on the right, middle and even on the left all are starting to agree: he IS a thin-skinned empty suit. It's not really even a talking point. It's a fact proven every time he talks to more than 10 people with a microphone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Except that that many people on the right, middle and even on the left all are starting to agree: he IS a thin-skinned empty suit. It's not really even a talking point. It's a fact proven every time he talks to more than 10 people with a microphone. Sorry, got here late...we talking Romney? Newt? Santo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Sorry, got here late...we talking Romney? Newt? Santo? Not so sure about Romney or Santo but come one man, Newt's suit is far from empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Sorry, got here late...we talking Romney? Newt? Santo? To be fair, Newt and Santorum get stung by the hits, but Romney lets that **** roll off his shoulders. This to him is the next step in a life of ambitious goals set and reached. For Newt, Santorum, and Obama it's the next step in the never-ending quest for validation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Sorry, got here late...we talking Romney? Newt? Santo? Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 To be fair, Newt and Santorum get stung by the hits, but Romney lets that **** roll off his shoulders. This to him is the next step in a life of ambitious goals set and reached. For Newt, Santorum, and Obama it's the next step in the never-ending quest for validation. That might be the most glowing comment I think I have ever read/heard about Romney from any source including his own campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I suspect Judges will act Judicial when the President starts acting Presidential. Good job, American electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 What would be the benefit to this Nation of such policy? A sicker, less productive, segment of the Nation that feels downtrodden and at risk... how does that help this great Nation? The providers in this country take an oath which dictates the opposite of that very sentiment. What? What is that nonsense? If you get Cancer, and everybody just strugged and says "sucks to be you", how would that make us a more benelovent people? You're welcome to be as benevolent as you want. Go ahead and pay for everyone's cancer treatment. But is there some sort of Constitutional mandate that the government be benevolent? Did I miss that somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Starting with Kagan, I'm sure... I wouldn't be so quick to point the finger at Kagan. She's reached the point where she is accountable only to herself and her position. I doubt she is the leak, directly anyway. My suspicion is that one of the clerks or staff of a Democrat appointed judge is looking out for their own future and scored some points to be cashed in at a later date That is interesting. I guess that would be the view from the right. I know several Liberals that have come to the same conclusion. But fear not Comrade for they will still support The People's Party in November But they have come to see Obama for what he really is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 You're welcome to be as benevolent as you want. Go ahead and pay for everyone's cancer treatment. But is there some sort of Constitutional mandate that the government be benevolent? Did I miss that somewhere? While not in the letter of the constitution, it is within the spirit of the constitution, which John Marshall assured us is just as good. The problem is, we're not all privy to the whims of this spirit. Fortunately we can call on John Edwards to channel the spirit and tell us what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Fortunately we can call on John Edwards to channel the spirit and tell us what it says. He says it's not a good idea for Presidential candidates to cheat on their wife, get their mistress pregnant, and videotape the act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 He says it's not a good idea for Presidential candidates to cheat on their wife, get their mistress pregnant, and videotape the act Then cover it up with campaign funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 anyone read this critique of the men in black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts