Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is calling him out.

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/

Courts are now political, just like everything else..

Fair game in my book.

Wedgebuster wrote:Courts are now political, just like everything else..

Fair game in my book.

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

was Numb Nuts really a constitutional law professor???

LeadBolt wrote:was Numb Nuts really a constitutional law professor???

Not technically. He was an instructor for a short time. He never held the title of assistant or associate professor.

Guy's got some balls. Challenging Conkunism at every turn.

Four more years!!

Cap'n Cat wrote:Guy's got some balls. Challenging Conkunism at every turn.

Four more years!!

No one questions his audacity, only his judgement, motives, abilities, methods, integrity. If and When he gets 4 more years he will have more flexibility to answer those questions for Mr. Putin and the rest of the world....

Cap'n Cat wrote:Guy's got some balls. Challenging Conkunism at every turn.

Four more years!!

No, he is actually challenging Marbury vs Madison, which is why he looks like an idiot.

CID1990 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Guy's got some balls. Challenging Conkunism at every turn.

Four more years!!

No, he is actually challenging Marbury vs Madison, which is why he looks like an idiot.

Yeah. He was obviously grasping for an analogy in Sharia law.

Good "borrowed" editorial on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page today, quoting from Federalist 78. Which obviously Obama never read.

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

I've definitely heard Conks argue that on this board.

Now they're suddenly the heroes.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Courts are now political, just like everything else..

Fair game in my book.

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

No, I am saying they are not above criticism and not above reproach either.

Wedgebuster wrote:

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

No, I am saying they are not above criticism and not above reproach either.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

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

I've definitely heard Conks argue that on this board.

Now they're suddenly the heroes.

Justices JoltinJoe, danefan and Ivytalk of the CS.com Supreme Court declare this post uncommonly silly, even for CS.com, and order it stricken from the record.

Ivytalk wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
I've definitely heard Conks argue that on this board.

Now they're suddenly the heroes.

Justices JoltinJoe, danefan and Ivytalk of the CS.com Supreme Court declare this post uncommonly silly, even for CS.com, and order it stricken from the record.

Skelly is absolutely right on this one. Courts and constitutional principles are a convenience in the conk world.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Justices JoltinJoe, danefan and Ivytalk of the CS.com Supreme Court declare this post uncommonly silly, even for CS.com, and order it stricken from the record.

Skelly is absolutely half right on this one. Courts and constitutional principles are a convenience in the political world.

FIFY

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Justices JoltinJoe, danefan and Ivytalk of the CS.com Supreme Court declare this post uncommonly silly, even for CS.com, and order it stricken from the record.

Skelly is absolutely right on this one. Courts and constitutional principles are a convenience in the conk world.

So who depends more on the courts for social engineering? Donks, that's who!

The Court has always been part of the political process - anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know their history. With that said, Obama's clearly crossing a line here that maybe no one other than FDR has done in terms of both disrespecting the institution as well as flat out distorting it. Like I said in another thread, his cheap shot at the State of the Union and then his speech the other day practically daring the SC to rule against anything in the health bill (individual mandate included) are bad enough - both were cheap shots and both were full of almost just flat out fabrications.

I've got no problem with trying to score political points where you need to, but this is starting to descend to almost demagoguery - he's basically playing on the widespread ignorance of many people as it relates to Constitutional matters, the law, and history. Saying that it would be unprecedented to overturn the indivudal mandate is patently untrue - the Court has overturned even more popular legislation in the past - heck, it's kind of their job. It was bad enough that even parrots on this board complain about the idea of treating corporations, under the law, as persons, as if that was some new fangled thing that just happen rather than it having more than a century of established law saying that. And the funny thing is, I don't think he needs to do these almost fire-sale type political things to win in the fall - he's scorching earth where there's no need to. Instead, all he's doing is getting people who don't know any better foaming at the mouth over some perceived slight or defeat that isn't anything of the kind. This isn't the leadership I signed up for.

GannonFan wrote:This isn't the leadership I signed up for.

I agree with the whole post, but this final sentence really resonated with me.

A huge disappointment.

GannonFan wrote:The Court has always been part of the political process - anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know their history. With that said, Obama's clearly crossing a line here that maybe no one other than FDR has done in terms of both disrespecting the institution as well as flat out distorting it. Like I said in another thread, his cheap shot at the State of the Union and then his speech the other day practically daring the SC to rule against anything in the health bill (individual mandate included) are bad enough - both were cheap shots and both were full of almost just flat out fabrications.

I've got no problem with trying to score political points where you need to, but this is starting to descend to almost demagoguery - he's basically playing on the widespread ignorance of many people as it relates to Constitutional matters, the law, and history. Saying that it would be unprecedented to overturn the indivudal mandate is patently untrue - the Court has overturned even more popular legislation in the past - heck, it's kind of their job. It was bad enough that even parrots on this board complain about the idea of treating corporations, under the law, as persons, as if that was some new fangled thing that just happen rather than it having more than a century of established law saying that. And the funny thing is, I don't think he needs to do these almost fire-sale type political things to win in the fall - he's scorching earth where there's no need to. Instead, all he's doing is getting people who don't know any better foaming at the mouth over some perceived slight or defeat that isn't anything of the kind. This isn't the leadership I signed up for.

Corporations are not people.

blueballs wrote:

kalm wrote:


Skelly is absolutely half right on this one. Courts and constitutional principles are a convenience in the political world.

FIFY

True.

JoltinJoe wrote:

GannonFan wrote:This isn't the leadership I signed up for.

I agree with the whole post, but this final sentence really resonated with me.

A huge disappointment.

Just like the Pope, I bet.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:The Court has always been part of the political process - anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know their history. With that said, Obama's clearly crossing a line here that maybe no one other than FDR has done in terms of both disrespecting the institution as well as flat out distorting it. Like I said in another thread, his cheap shot at the State of the Union and then his speech the other day practically daring the SC to rule against anything in the health bill (individual mandate included) are bad enough - both were cheap shots and both were full of almost just flat out fabrications.

I've got no problem with trying to score political points where you need to, but this is starting to descend to almost demagoguery - he's basically playing on the widespread ignorance of many people as it relates to Constitutional matters, the law, and history. Saying that it would be unprecedented to overturn the indivudal mandate is patently untrue - the Court has overturned even more popular legislation in the past - heck, it's kind of their job. It was bad enough that even parrots on this board complain about the idea of treating corporations, under the law, as persons, as if that was some new fangled thing that just happen rather than it having more than a century of established law saying that. And the funny thing is, I don't think he needs to do these almost fire-sale type political things to win in the fall - he's scorching earth where there's no need to. Instead, all he's doing is getting people who don't know any better foaming at the mouth over some perceived slight or defeat that isn't anything of the kind. This isn't the leadership I signed up for.

Corporations are not people.

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

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:The Court has always been part of the political process - anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know their history. With that said, Obama's clearly crossing a line here that maybe no one other than FDR has done in terms of both disrespecting the institution as well as flat out distorting it. Like I said in another thread, his cheap shot at the State of the Union and then his speech the other day practically daring the SC to rule against anything in the health bill (individual mandate included) are bad enough - both were cheap shots and both were full of almost just flat out fabrications.

I've got no problem with trying to score political points where you need to, but this is starting to descend to almost demagoguery - he's basically playing on the widespread ignorance of many people as it relates to Constitutional matters, the law, and history. Saying that it would be unprecedented to overturn the indivudal mandate is patently untrue - the Court has overturned even more popular legislation in the past - heck, it's kind of their job. It was bad enough that even parrots on this board complain about the idea of treating corporations, under the law, as persons, as if that was some new fangled thing that just happen rather than it having more than a century of established law saying that. And the funny thing is, I don't think he needs to do these almost fire-sale type political things to win in the fall - he's scorching earth where there's no need to. Instead, all he's doing is getting people who don't know any better foaming at the mouth over some perceived slight or defeat that isn't anything of the kind. This isn't the leadership I signed up for.

Corporations are not people.

Parrot.

GannonFan wrote:And the funny thing is, I don't think he needs to do these almost fire-sale type political things to win in the fall - he's scorching earth where there's no need to. Instead, all he's doing is getting people who don't know any better foaming at the mouth over some perceived slight or defeat that isn't anything of the kind. This isn't the leadership I signed up for.

Obama can't stand to lose, period. He's even a piss-poor winner. But if the court (as they probably will) strikes down Obama-care what, exactly, does Obama have to run on? It's his only real legislative "accomplishment"--and I use that term VERY loosely.

Can "We killed Bin Laden" be enough to get reelected?