Latest Topics

[nova]

NextYearIsHere, on 05 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Yeah... Citizens United was a great job by the SCOTUS. That will be right up there with Dred Scott in 100 years

So I take it you're in the camp that can't read the plain language of the first amendment?

Or are you in the related camp that thinks you forfeit your speech rights by excercising your assembly rights?

Inquiring minds would like to know the answer...

[nova]

jthomas666, on 05 April 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

What kind of message could he be trying send them?

It was more than a little bit of a veiled threat, doubly so when certain other elements of his party are pushing for impeachment proceedings for justices if they don't get a ruling they like.

[jthomas666]

CrimsoNation713, on 05 April 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

I totally disagree JT.  That's his arrogance and his stupidity. He thinks he can bluff them.

That makes no sense.  How can he bluff them when he has acknowledged that they have all the cards?

[CrimsoNation713]

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

That makes no sense.  How can he bluff them when he has acknowledged that they have all the cards?

Like I said, its his arrogance that makes this whole thing laughable. The laughable part is the fact he believes he can buffalo them into voting the way he wants. And you're exactly right, it makes no sense but thats how Barry rolls.

[jthomas666]

nova, on 06 April 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

It was more than a little bit of a veiled threat, doubly so when certain other elements of his party are pushing for impeachment proceedings for justices if they don't get a ruling they like.

Get real.

Sure, whackjob elements are screaming impeachment, but that's a far cry from the president endorsing such a position.

Besides, to impeach a justice, the House has to pass the articles of impeachment, then the Senate has to have a super-majority vote to remove the judge from the bench.

Not gonna happen.

[nova]

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Get real.

Sure, whackjob elements are screaming impeachment, but that's a far cry from the president endorsing such a position.

Besides, to impeach a justice, the House has to pass the articles of impeachment, then the Senate has to have a super-majority vote to remove the judge from the bench.

Not gonna happen.

I'm sure people said the same thing when FDR threatened to pack the court 80 years ago but the threat was enough to get him what he wanted.  And who's to say what the make up of Congress is going to look like post-Nov anyway...

[jthomas666]

nova, on 06 April 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I'm sure people said the same thing when FDR threatened to pack the court 80 years ago but the threat was enough to get him what he wanted.  And who's to say what the make up of Congress is going to look like post-Nov anyway...

The key vote regarding the New Deal took place prior to FDR's threats, so it's unclear how much of an impact FDR actually had on the court (according to Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge ).

What is clear is that BOTH parties were uncomfortable with FDR's actions, resulting in the 22nd amendment.

And even if the Democrats were to make landmark gains in both houses, I doubt that they would attempt to impeach an SC justice over a point of legal interpretation that is clearly debatable. That sets too dangerous a precedent. They would be more likely to simply use their unassailable majority to pass a revised law.

[nova]

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

The key vote regarding the New Deal took place prior to FDR's threats, so it's unclear how much of an impact FDR actually had on the court (according to Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge ).

Depends on what phase of the New Deal you're talking about.  SCOTUS tossing the NIRA along with a string of other losses was what ticked FDR off to the point of threatening to pack the court.  It's  a strange "coincidence" that the admin started winning all the court cases after it made a push to pack the court....

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

And even if the Democrats were to make landmark gains in both houses, I doubt that they would attempt to impeach an SC justice over a point of legal interpretation that is clearly debatable. That sets too dangerous a precedent. They would be more likely to simply use their unassailable majority to pass a revised law.

Sorry but I don't put anything past them, not after they used the reconciliation process in a legally dubious manner to pass Obamacare in the first place.  Everybody said there was no way they'd set that precedent and in the end, they did whatever it took to get what they wanted...

Edited by nova, 06 April 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[jthomas666]

nova, on 06 April 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Sorry but I don't put anything past them, not after they used the reconciliation process in a legally dubious manner to pass Obamacare in the first place.  Everybody said there was no way they'd set that precedent and in the end, they did whatever it took to get what they wanted...

Is it a somewhat dubious procedure?  Yes.  But let's not pretend that the democrats have set some sort of precedent.  The republicans have used reconciliation when it has suited their purposes as well, including most of Ws tax cuts, as I recall, including the delightfully ironic Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

[Penguin]

NextYearIsHere, on 05 April 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

If you don't like what Barry did, that's cool. However, he and most people are smart enough to know that you can't intimidate a Supreme Court judge. He's making a political move, nothing more. If anything, he's trying to look firmly behind it when Scalia finds a way to piss on it in his dissenting opinion

there's a line to piss on obama? where i want in.

[KneesInTheBreeze]

This Socialist prick is a Chavez wannabee.

[nova]

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Is it a somewhat dubious procedure?  Yes.  But let's not pretend that the democrats have set some sort of precedent.  The republicans have used reconciliation when it has suited their purposes as well, including most of Ws tax cuts, as I recall, including the delightfully ironic Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Well, yeah, they did set a precedent, namely using reconcilation for matters that primarily effect revenue or the budget.  Whether you approve of the tax cuts or not, they're inarguably a revenue matter and directly covered by the laws that allow the reconcilation process.  It's a hell of a stretch to say that Obamacare is primarily a revenue or budgetary matter...

[Darth Vader]

Ole Barry is not trying to send a message to the Supreme Court nor is he trying to intimidate them. Barry may be a delusional wannabe dictator but he's not stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing and carefully chose his words in his message. His intent was never to send a message to the Supreme Court. He knows full well it would do no good anyway. Rather he was grandstanding for the masses of stupid idiots who both support him and have no clue how the three branches of government work.

I'm quite sure that Barry was notified that the first vote went against him and so he has to move into full damage control mode. The reason for this is Obamacare is about the only thing the guy has actually accomplished in his almost four years in office. The Supreme court knocks that down and you have a president who's not done a damn thing his entire term. Well since Barry can't stop or really even effect the outcome at this point he instead has to start making up a bad guy. That bad guy is the Supreme Court. His message was intended to paint a picture of the good and benevolent Obama as giving everyone health care and the mean nasty conservatives on the court as taking it all away. In short his speech is a willful lie and nothing but a pathetic political move of desperation. It's a message he knows his followers, just like with the fictitious "war on women", will swallow this lie, hook, line, and sinker and he knows the main stream media will back his play 100%.

[jthomas666]

nova, on 06 April 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Well, yeah, they did set a precedent, namely using reconcilation for matters that primarily effect revenue or the budget.  Whether you approve of the tax cuts or not, they're inarguably a revenue matter and directly covered by the laws that allow the reconcilation process..

That's interesting.  The parliamentarian at the time didn't see it that way.  He claimed that tax cuts fell outside the limit of reconciliation; Trent Lott fired him and installed a parliamentarian who ruled differently.

Again--let's not pretend that the Republicans are somehow above twisting the rules for their own benefit. Given the obstructionist attitude of the GOP over the past several years, I'm surprised that the democrats haven't used it more often.

[nova]

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

That's interesting.  The parliamentarian at the time didn't see it that way.  He claimed that tax cuts fell outside the limit of reconciliation; Trent Lott fired him and installed a parliamentarian who ruled differently.

From what I remember, the parliamentarians argument was that the cuts conflicted with the Byrd rule, which is where the 10 year expiration on the cuts came from....

jthomas666, on 06 April 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Again--let's not pretend that the Republicans are somehow above twisting the rules for their own benefit. Given the obstructionist attitude of the GOP over the past several years, I'm surprised that the democrats haven't used it more often.

I love the terminology.  Obstructionist is such a sophisticated way of saying "WAAAAAH!!! They won't let us do whatever we want.  WAAAAAHH!!!"  As far as I'm concerned obstructionism is a service to the American people.  As long as the Congress critters are fighting with each other, they don't have time to screw us....