Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-03-2012, 03:49 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,202,108 times
Reputation: 9623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrench409 View Post
Study him.
Did. Disturbing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2012, 04:01 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian123 View Post
Wow Obama adopting the language of conservatives about judicial activism. I never thought that day would come.

Edit: I personally think a mandate to buy health insurance by the Federal government is Unconstitutional. If Democrats want the mandate, it needs to implemented individually by each state or there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution.
Obama has no understanding of the Constitution, or our government. Or if he does, he doesn't respect it. Perhaps it's really the latter. He understands, but he dosen't like it, so he thinks he can change it.

Edit: How timely is this?
Obama and Pre-existing conditions

"When I received my insurance license back in 1976, we were all taught that the financial viability of insurance companies was based on the exclusion of pre-existing conditions. Otherwise people could get away without buying insurance for decades and wait until they are really sick to buy insurance."

Blog: Obama and Pre-existing Conditions

This appeared this morning, and I found it moments ago, after I had replied to the above post.



Last edited by nononsenseguy; 04-03-2012 at 04:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 04:22 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,858,215 times
Reputation: 4585
Sometimes telling the truth is not the best thing to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 04:32 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrClose View Post
If the 'law' is over-turned .. It will not be a surprise to see him (obama) "order" the Executive Branch to Ignore the ruling!
You've got that right. That would go right a long with "we can't wait for Congress to act."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 04:51 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
No, the one that voted in Bush v Gore, and Citizens United. That one.
That is a lie, and you know it. They did nothing of the sort.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with the case and the ruling instead of repeating the mantra of the ignorant left which they have used since that ridiculous recount fiasco?

What the Supreme Court ruled was that the recount must be done the same way, and fairly, in all counties.

Be familiar with the facts, or you look like a fool. Or was the lie purposeful?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:10 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,858,215 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
That is a lie, and you know it. They did nothing of the sort.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with the case and the ruling instead of repeating the mantra of the ignorant left which they have used since that ridiculous recount fiasco?

What the Supreme Court ruled was that the recount must be done the same way, and fairly, in all counties.

Be familiar with the facts, or you look like a fool. Or was the lie purposeful?
Rather than revising history, here is a description you may understand.

Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore - For Dummies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:10 AM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,858,535 times
Reputation: 9283
The history of judges have been that Liberals are activist judges who go on their own ideology than the Constitution or the laws set forth... The conservative judges have said repeatedly they based the Healthcare decision on constitutional grounds and it seems the liberals lost that argument... now that the liberals lost the argument, they complain the judges being "activist judges"... I guess liberals are bad losers and liars... The Florida had HOW MANY RECOUNTS, you can recount as much as you want the result is still the same... Gore was trying to rework a strategy to win the election by injecting his people on the recount process... the Supreme Court said no... any impropriety is BS..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:17 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
And I thought the RW hated activist judges..unless it's their activist judges.
The Constitutional issue with the "individual mandate" is clear. If the Court strikes it down, it would be the correct thing to do. That is what they are supposed to do.

Unfortunately, the Court has also twisted and bent the Constitution so many times in the past, using the Commerce Clause (which was intended to "make interstate commerce regular") almost as a "catch all" to cover anything.

So, if they do the right thing, and strike this down, the left will call it "judicial activism?" That's rich.

If this is struck down, this may be a re-awakening to the real purpose and meaning of the Constitution, which was to establish a Federal Government, with limited powers.

What people seem to forget, or do not understand, is that it was the States that established the Federal Government, and they did not do it to be enslaved by it or to give it power over them. They established it for specific reasons, as set forth in the firs paragraph:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And "general Welfare" here was not speaking of charity. Substitute "wellbeing" for welfare. There was no "welfare" as we know it today. That was anathema to the people of the day. It was for the churches to take care of the needy. That has always been the roll of the church.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:23 AM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,387 posts, read 6,628,924 times
Reputation: 3362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
That goon knows that his healthcare mistake is going down in flames and there's nothing he can do about it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv View Post
It is constitutional.
Your proof?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer View Post
Judicial activism is when the Libs can't get a law enacted either though Legislation or by Ballot, so they find a Liberal Judge willing to enact the law by order from the bench.

Judges acting to uphold the Constitution by striking down laws that are unconstitutional is not "Judicial Activism"...

...IT'S THEIR JOB.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
the rotten bastard wants to provide health care to the uninsured in a culture of profiteering insurance companies and health care companies?
That's the problem, he is trying to FORCE, on a federal level, people to purchase health insurance.

We don't need "affordable health insurance". We need affordable health CARE. We don't need $300/mo insurance with $50 Dr. office co-pays. We need plain $50 Dr. visits.

Insurance shouldn't be for day to day medical care. It should be for EMERGENCIES only. People forget that, that's where the problems really lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:24 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,311,358 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Rather than revising history, here is a description you may understand.

Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore - For Dummies
No thanks. I prefer to stick with the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top