Obama should have kept his mouth shut ...

[Wedgebuster]

Dick headed conks are embarrassed for having to stand up for George W Bushtard for eight years, so they naturally lash out and throw temper tantrums when a man of much higher intelligence succeeded him.

They are rightfully embarrassed I agree, but they are still dick heads, and aren't too embarrassed to shoot their mouths off on these boards. Notice none are telling us how much better Bush would have done it, or even how much better McSame/Palin would do things..

What ever happened to all those "one and done" bullshit siggy lines douchies??

Not so sure now, huh?

Probably went the same place all those "Kerry/Edwards" and "His Fraudelency" bumper stickers went in '04 when donks like you couldn't vote out a clearly vulnerable President after his first term then. Incumbents are hard to beat.

Face it, wedgie, you're not any different than the conks you are railing against here, you and them are pretty much cut from the same cloth - blind partisans that see nothing wrong with the party you support and everything wrong with the party you oppose. You're a political automaton - at least when Cappy does it it doesn't come off as sincere. I think you actually believe what you say.

Uh, Mr fair and balanced self styled MB pen artist, It's Bush being compared to Obama...

Use some of your greatly unbiased common sense to soak that one up gannon, then re-post please.

And prove that I am a Donk!

JFC, I would scare "Donks" to death if they saw my reloading equipment, trophy room and gun inventory.

[YoUDeeMan]

Uh, Mr fair and balanced self styled MB pen artist, It's Bush being compared to Obama...

Use some of your greatly unbiased common sense to soak that one up gannon, then re-post please.

And prove that I am a Donk!

JFC, I would scare "Donks" to death if they saw my reloading equipment, trophy room and gun inventory.

Yes, because Donks are afraid of guns, reloading equipment and trophies. You've succeeded in showing your belief in stereotypes on both sides of the aisle. It's perfectly OK to say that you can't understand a middle ground...it doesn't make you bad...it just shows your ignorance.

Bush was a poor President...so is Obama. But you're simply stuck on comparing the two. It's your only act, and it is very similar to the simple thinking of most toddlers.

Congrats!

[Wedgebuster]

Uh, Mr fair and balanced self styled MB pen artist, It's Bush being compared to Obama...

Use some of your greatly unbiased common sense to soak that one up gannon, then re-post please.

And prove that I am a Donk!

JFC, I would scare "Donks" to death if they saw my reloading equipment, trophy room and gun inventory.

Yes, because Donks are afraid of guns, reloading equipment and trophies. You've succeeded in showing your belief in stereotypes on both sides of the aisle. It's perfectly OK to say that you can't understand a middle ground...it doesn't make you bad...it just shows your ignorance.

Bush was a poor President...so is Obama. But you're simply stuck on comparing the two. It's your only act, and it is very similar to the simple thinking of most toddlers.

Congrats!

Yeah, I love comparing the two but you don't like it.

I would be happy to toddle you any time, any where.

No guns, no cops.

[Cap'n Cat]

Dick headed conks are embarrassed for having to stand up for George W Bushtard for eight years, so they naturally lash out and throw temper tantrums when a man of much higher intelligence succeeded him.

They are rightfully embarrassed I agree, but they are still dick heads, and aren't too embarrassed to shoot their mouths off on these boards. Notice none are telling us how much better Bush would have done it, or even how much better McSame/Palin would do things..

What ever happened to all those "one and done" bullshit siggy lines douchies??

Not so sure now, huh?

Probably went the same place all those "Kerry/Edwards" and "His Fraudelency" bumper stickers went in '04 when donks like you couldn't vote out a clearly vulnerable President after his first term then. Incumbents are hard to beat.

Face it, wedgie, you're not any different than the conks you are railing against here, you and them are pretty much cut from the same cloth - blind partisans that see nothing wrong with the party you support and everything wrong with the party you oppose. You're a political automaton - at least when Cappy does it it doesn't come off as sincere. I think you actually believe what you say.

Oh, bullshit, Ganny. You know there ain't a damned thing wrong with Obama.

[kalm]

Corporations are not people.

Under the rule of law they are in many cases...

So the rule of law is not based in reality? I agree!

BRRAAAWWWWWK!

[kalm]

President Obama may win re-election and I always hope for the best for the sitting US President.

Nonetheless, I voted for him, and I've been disappointed by his tactics and leadership up to this point.

Worse, Pres. Obama could have been one of the great presidents if he came in during nearly unprecedented economic contraction and rallied the country to turn it around. That's what I expected him to do. Instead, he divided the country by pushing through a divisive national health care bill at a time when such a debate was counter-productive. Whatever your thoughts about national health care, it was a huge political mistake to prioritize it at a time of rampant unemployment and severe economic malaise.

If the President had prioritized the economy, resulting not merely in ending the recession but resulting in growth, he could have then pushed through the health care bill on the wave of his popularity.

Instead, he now barely leads some cartoonish-like characters in national opinion polls in head-to-head presidential match ups.

I agree with this post 100%.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yeah, I love comparing the two but you don't like it.

I would be happy to toddle you any time, any where.

No guns, no cops.

Perhaps your anger is getting in the way again.

Bush was a buffoon. Obama is another typical politician...just another buffoon. So, go ahead and compare the two...they are one in the same. However, you actually don't enjoy comparing the two because you rarely make actual comparisons...all you enjoy is making absurd statements in order to rial up whatever imaginary army of hard-line right wing zealots you feel is out there...or in here.

Simple tasks for simple folks, I guess.

You'll just keep on adding another trophy to your room, the small one, for good measure. It is as good as a first grade, "Atta' boy!", except most people tend to grow up and toss those aside...especially when they realize everyone gives themselves an "Atta' boy!" for their efforts.

D1b occasionally puts out something funny and interesting. The initial reports from the Japanese tsunami were some of the best stuff on here in quite some time. Hell, we need another disaster and D1B has a shot at putting on some strong work. You, on the other hand, want to toddle me. Lofty goals, indeed.

[YoUDeeMan]

Probably went the same place all those "Kerry/Edwards" and "His Fraudelency" bumper stickers went in '04 when donks like you couldn't vote out a clearly vulnerable President after his first term then. Incumbents are hard to beat.

Face it, wedgie, you're not any different than the conks you are railing against here, you and them are pretty much cut from the same cloth - blind partisans that see nothing wrong with the party you support and everything wrong with the party you oppose. You're a political automaton - at least when Cappy does it it doesn't come off as sincere. I think you actually believe what you say.

Oh, bullshit, Ganny. You know there ain't a damned thing wrong with Obama.

Well, he's half-white. That kind of spoils things for some folks.

[JohnStOnge]

o you're saying that courts do not have the right to strike down a law deemed to be unconstitutional?

As a pratical matter, they do because that's the way things have evolved. But they shouldn't. The Constitution does not authorize them to. And giving them that level of power is inconsistent with how those who represented the Constitution while trying to get it ratified in the beginning represented things. The Judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. And part of that was supposed to be because the executive could just ignore the judiciary...refuse to enforce its judgements.

The most egrigeous act of Judicial Activism in our history was Marburry vs. Madison...where the Court gave ITSELF the power of Judicial review. It shouldn't have it. The other branches made a HUGE mistake by not slapping the Judiciary back into its proper place right at that point.

Yes, I disagree with Obama on the idea that the his health care law is Constitutional. But that's a separate issue. I do NOT disagree with the idea that we have allowed the Judiciary to have WAY more power than it was intended to have and with the idea that it should NOT be the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not.

[Ivytalk]

o you're saying that courts do not have the right to strike down a law deemed to be unconstitutional?

As a pratical matter, they do because that's the way things have evolved. But they shouldn't. The Constitution does not authorize them to. And giving them that level of power is inconsistent with how those who represented the Constitution while trying to get it ratified in the beginning represented things. The Judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. And part of that was supposed to be because the executive could just ignore the judiciary...refuse to enforce its judgements.

The most egrigeous act of Judicial Activism in our history was Marburry vs. Madison...where the Court gave ITSELF the power of Judicial review. It shouldn't have it. The other branches made a HUGE mistake by not slapping the Judiciary back into its proper place right at that point.

Yes, I disagree with Obama on the idea that the his health care law is Constitutional. But that's a separate issue. I do NOT disagree with the idea that we have allowed the Judiciary to have WAY more power than it was intended to have and with the idea that it should NOT be the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not.

I'm speechless, and that's difficult to do around here. Let's go back to Separation of Powers 101. Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. Congress can't sit in judgment on the laws it passes. The Executive can't legislate. So which branch is left to do the dirty work? Bing! The Judiciary! Just because you disagree with specific court holdings doesn't mean the Constitutional framework is flawed. To the contrary, it's a work of political genius. Go back and read Federalist 78.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm speechless, and that's difficult to do around here. Let's go back to Separation of Powers 101. Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. Congress can't sit in judgment on the laws it passes. The Executive can't legislate. So which branch is left to do the dirty work? Bing! The Judiciary! Just because you disagree with specific court holdings doesn't mean the Constitutional framework is flawed. To the contrary, it's a work of political genius. Go back and read Federalist 78.

John doesn't like law enforcement officers...and he doesn't like the judges that interpret the law.

Perhaps John is just another one of those gangsta's with a loaded keyboard comin' after us click afta' click!

[Cap'n Cat]

Hey, Obama ain't perfect, but he ain't no asshole, either.

[Ivytalk]

Hey, Obama ain't perfect, but he ain't no *******, either.

According to the official Zimmerman verbal simulation test, you just dropped the N-bomb!

[CitadelGrad]

Hey, Obama ain't perfect, but he ain't no asshole, either.

You're right. He's just a preening, pompous, petulant, egotistical, narcissistic megalomaniac. Oh wait, that's pretty much the definition of an asshole

[citdog]

Agreed. However, his "opponent" is going to be Romney. Romney can't win the general election. Obama could lose it, but Romney can't win it.

it appears that we will have 4 more years to find out what Obama will do with increased flexibilty....

he can kiss my whole Confed Ass.

[JohnStOnge]

Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. Congress can't sit in judgment on the laws it passes. The Executive can't legislate. So which branch is left to do the dirty work? Bing! The Judiciary! Just because you disagree with specific court holdings doesn't mean the Constitutional framework is flawed. To the contrary, it's a work of political genius. Go back and read Federalist 78.

I think Federalist 78 supports your view to an extent but it also supports the view that simply ignoring what the Judiciary has to say...just refusing to enforce its judgements...is a legitimate exercise of Executive power. It also unambiguously states that the Jusiciary is the weakest branch. And how can one possibly say that the Supreme Court today is the weakest branch? It's arguably the dominant branch.

And who protects us from circumstances in which members of the Judiciary substitute their own will for the original understanding of the Constitution? That has happened an awful lot. In fact it is broadly accepted. Routine. Can you, for instance sit with a straight face and type that those who ratified the language of Aritcle I generally understood the commerce clause to mean the national government has the authority to tell a farmer he can't grow wheat on his own land for his own consumption because that activity "affects" interstate commerce?

It's not that I disagree with any particularcourt holding. The problem I see is systemic. Instead of the Constitution controlling what the Judiciary says, the Judiciary controls what the Constitution says. And when the Court says the Constitution says something that it does not really say, there is no recourse. The end result is that we are not governed, ultimately, by the Constitution at all. We are governed by a council of nine unelected and unaccountable officials who cannot be removed from office and have reached a point where we might as well not even have a Constitution. "Constitution" has become just a word that lends an aura of reverence to what the council of nine unelected individuals decrees.

In this case the effect of the court saying the health care law is unconstitutional would be an effect I favor. And I would also agree that the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to be what it's doing in this case. But there's a lot of other stuff that the Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal government to do that it IS doing specifically because the Judiciary deviated from strict adherence to an honest effort to stick strictly to the original understanding and language of the Constitution. The system is rotten even if the result is one I favor in this case.

It's as I've said many times before: Favoring the current level of power enjoyed by the unaccountable and unelected branch of government because one agrees with the effects...the balance of the decisions...is like favoring monarchy as a form of government because the king has been a good king. There is something fundamentally wrong with granting the kind of power we have granted to the Judiciary to a council of unelected and unaccountable officials.

[kalm]

Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. Congress can't sit in judgment on the laws it passes. The Executive can't legislate. So which branch is left to do the dirty work? Bing! The Judiciary! Just because you disagree with specific court holdings doesn't mean the Constitutional framework is flawed. To the contrary, it's a work of political genius. Go back and read Federalist 78.

I think Federalist 78 supports your view to an extent but it also supports the view that simply ignoring what the Judiciary has to say...just refusing to enforce its judgements...is a legitimate exercise of Executive power. It also unambiguously states that the Jusiciary is the weakest branch. And how can one possibly say that the Supreme Court today is the weakest branch? It's arguably the dominant branch.

And who protects us from circumstances in which members of the Judiciary substitute their own will for the original understanding of the Constitution? That has happened an awful lot. In fact it is broadly accepted. Routine. Can you, for instance sit with a straight face and type that those who ratified the language of Aritcle I generally understood the commerce clause to mean the national government has the authority to tell a farmer he can't grow wheat on his own land for his own consumption because that activity "affects" interstate commerce?

It's not that I disagree with any particularcourt holding. The problem I see is systemic. Instead of the Constitution controlling what the Judiciary says, the Judiciary controls what the Constitution says. And when the Court says the Constitution says something that it does not really say, there is no recourse. The end result is that we are not governed, ultimately, by the Constitution at all. We are governed by a council of nine unelected and unaccountable officials who cannot be removed from office and have reached a point where we might as well not even have a Constitution. "Constitution" has become just a word that lends an aura of reverence to what the council of nine unelected individuals decrees.

In this case the effect of the court saying the health care law is unconstitutional would be an effect I favor. And I would also agree that the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to be what it's doing in this case. But there's a lot of other stuff that the Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal government to do that it IS doing specifically because the Judiciary deviated from strict adherence to an honest effort to stick strictly to the original understanding and language of the Constitution. The system is rotten even if the result is one I favor in this case.

It's as I've said many times before: Favoring the current level of power enjoyed by the unaccountable and unelected branch of government because one agrees with the effects...the balance of the decisions...is like favoring monarchy as a form of government because the king has been a good king. There is something fundamentally wrong with granting the kind of power we have granted to the Judiciary to a council of unelected and unaccountable officials.

Very good post JSO!

I'll pare it down for ya IT. What if 5 members of the court are douchebags?

[Ivytalk]

Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. Congress can't sit in judgment on the laws it passes. The Executive can't legislate. So which branch is left to do the dirty work? Bing! The Judiciary! Just because you disagree with specific court holdings doesn't mean the Constitutional framework is flawed. To the contrary, it's a work of political genius. Go back and read Federalist 78.

I think Federalist 78 supports your view to an extent but it also supports the view that simply ignoring what the Judiciary has to say...just refusing to enforce its judgements...is a legitimate exercise of Executive power. It also unambiguously states that the Jusiciary is the weakest branch. And how can one possibly say that the Supreme Court today is the weakest branch? It's arguably the dominant branch.

And who protects us from circumstances in which members of the Judiciary substitute their own will for the original understanding of the Constitution? That has happened an awful lot. In fact it is broadly accepted. Routine. Can you, for instance sit with a straight face and type that those who ratified the language of Aritcle I generally understood the commerce clause to mean the national government has the authority to tell a farmer he can't grow wheat on his own land for his own consumption because that activity "affects" interstate commerce?

It's not that I disagree with any particularcourt holding. The problem I see is systemic. Instead of the Constitution controlling what the Judiciary says, the Judiciary controls what the Constitution says. And when the Court says the Constitution says something that it does not really say, there is no recourse. The end result is that we are not governed, ultimately, by the Constitution at all. We are governed by a council of nine unelected and unaccountable officials who cannot be removed from office and have reached a point where we might as well not even have a Constitution. "Constitution" has become just a word that lends an aura of reverence to what the council of nine unelected individuals decrees.

In this case the effect of the court saying the health care law is unconstitutional would be an effect I favor. And I would also agree that the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to be what it's doing in this case. But there's a lot of other stuff that the Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal government to do that it IS doing specifically because the Judiciary deviated from strict adherence to an honest effort to stick strictly to the original understanding and language of the Constitution. The system is rotten even if the result is one I favor in this case.

It's as I've said many times before: Favoring the current level of power enjoyed by the unaccountable and unelected branch of government because one agrees with the effects...the balance of the decisions...is like favoring monarchy as a form of government because the king has been a good king. There is something fundamentally wrong with granting the kind of power we have granted to the Judiciary to a council of unelected and unaccountable officials.

Sounds like you'd be perfectly comfortable with the SCOTUS if it adhered to the Borkean theory of "original understanding," which is close to my own view as well. I also thought that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided (your wheat farmer case), and that the "penumbras and emanations" of Griswold v. Connecticut might have been the worst Constitutional decision since Dred Scott (Roe v. Wade followed).What bothers me about your post is its implicit endorsement of untrammelled executive power. And by that I mean not so much the President, who is accountable to the electorate (at least in theory), but the unelected administrative/regulatory types -- like Lisa Jackson at EPA -- who are accountable to no one. Do you favor that?

[AZGrizFan]

Sounds like you'd be perfectly comfortable with the SCOTUS if it adhered to the Borkean theory of "original understanding," which is close to my own view as well. I also thought that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided (your wheat farmer case), and that the "penumbras and emanations" of Griswold v. Connecticut might have been the worst Constitutional decision since Dred Scott (Roe v. Wade followed).What bothers me about your post is its implicit endorsement of untrammelled executive power. And by that I mean not so much the President, who is accountable to the electorate (at least in theory), but the unelected administrative/regulatory types -- like Lisa Jackson at EPA -- who are accountable to no one. Do you favor that?

And by that I DO mean the president. He's already shown he doesn't give two shits what the electorate OR the judicial branch thinks of his actions. He and ONLY he knows what's best for the country.

[Cap'n Cat]

Again, unlike the "good" Conks who ran away from the 2012 run and the fools in their stead, Obama has exhibited the courage to challenge long-held, outdated notions that have failed us such as our ineffective health care system. Saw a documentary which said we have THE MOST expensive health care in the world while it is only the 37th most effective. He's trying something. If it gets thrown out, so be it. He tried. If the Conks get in, it's more of the same and the problem gets worse. One day, like most of the rest of the modernized whorl, we'll have universal health care AND we will pay higher taxes for it. It's evolution.

[AZGrizFan]

Again, unlike the "good" Conks who ran away from the 2012 run and the fools in their stead, Obama has exhibited the courage to challenge long-held, outdated notions that have failed us such as our ineffective health care system. Saw a documentary which said we have THE MOST expensive health care in the world while it is only the 37th most effective. He's trying something. If it gets thrown out, so be it. He tried. If the Conks get in, it's more of the same and the problem gets worse. One day, like most of the rest of the modernized whorl, we'll have universal health care AND we will pay higher taxes for it. It's evolution.

Really, where else in the world are people flocking to get health care?

[Cap'n Cat]

Again, unlike the "good" Conks who ran away from the 2012 run and the fools in their stead, Obama has exhibited the courage to challenge long-held, outdated notions that have failed us such as our ineffective health care system. Saw a documentary which said we have THE MOST expensive health care in the world while it is only the 37th most effective. He's trying something. If it gets thrown out, so be it. He tried. If the Conks get in, it's more of the same and the problem gets worse. One day, like most of the rest of the modernized whorl, we'll have universal health care AND we will pay higher taxes for it. It's evolution.

Really, where else in the world are people flocking to get health care?

Good point, Z. Our health care is good only because of the technology and research which leads to cures and treatments. That's a very good thing. HOWEVER, the barriers as to expense are monumentally high. Part of that "37th most effective" thing is the fact that there is not universal access, as in most other modernized countries. Bottom line: poor people die waiting for hearts while the rich, like Cheney, get them sight unseen.

[AZGrizFan]

Really, where else in the world are people flocking to get health care?

Good point, Z. Our health care is good only because of the technology and research which leads to cures and treatments. That's a very good thing. HOWEVER, the barriers as to expense are monumentally high. Part of that "37th most effective" thing is the fact that there is not universal access, as in most other modernized countries. Bottom line: poor people die waiting for hearts while the rich, like Cheney, get them sight unseen.

And in the countries you'd have us modeled after, the poor people stay there for crappy universal health care and the rich ones come to America and get 10x better healthcare because they can afford to.

If WE go to universal healthcare, what are the rich people going to do for healthcare?

[Wedgebuster]

Good point, Z. Our health care is good only because of the technology and research which leads to cures and treatments. That's a very good thing. HOWEVER, the barriers as to expense are monumentally high. Part of that "37th most effective" thing is the fact that there is not universal access, as in most other modernized countries. Bottom line: poor people die waiting for hearts while the rich, like Cheney, get them sight unseen.

And in the countries you'd have us modeled after, the poor people stay there for crappy universal health care and the rich ones come to America and get 10x better healthcare because they can afford to.

If WE go to universal healthcare, what are the rich people going to do for healthcare?

I hear we rank 37th internationally. How is ours 10 times better?

[Cap'n Cat]

Good point, Z. Our health care is good only because of the technology and research which leads to cures and treatments. That's a very good thing. HOWEVER, the barriers as to expense are monumentally high. Part of that "37th most effective" thing is the fact that there is not universal access, as in most other modernized countries. Bottom line: poor people die waiting for hearts while the rich, like Cheney, get them sight unseen.

And in the countries you'd have us modeled after, the poor people stay there for crappy universal health care and the rich ones come to America and get 10x better healthcare because they can afford to.

If WE go to universal healthcare, what are the rich people going to do for healthcare?

OK, Z, let me ask you this: What is the Conk solution to this health care crisis? Nothing but more of the same to me. However, I'll give you the chance to stand up for the status quo.


___________________________________