Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Obama Delivers Warning to Supreme Court on Healthcare

Posted 8 years ago on April 4, 2012, 5:46 a.m. EST by Umong (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Quite unbelievable and DISGRACEFUL behaviour from POTUS. Actually no..... PATHETIC on his part is probably a better description

Barack Obama has delivered a surprisingly strong warning to the US Supreme Court, saying that it would be guilty of an “unprecedented” case of “judicial activism” if it overturned his signature healthcare law.




Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Obama is an absolute disaster

[-] 2 points by Umong (0) 8 years ago

I think that has to be the understatement of 2012!


[-] 3 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

The U.S. Supreme Court's duty is to uphold or strike down controversial laws according to the Constitution. It needs to eviscerate the individual mandate from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) because that requires people to do business with private companies which is an extremely slippery slope to go to. The U.S. government is already vastly swayed by corporate interests. Can you imagine what else will be coming down the turnpike if the judicial precedent is established via PPACA that the U.S. government can force people to do business with private companies?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Anytime SCOTUS overturns legislation that is ushered in by a majority, in this case a super majority, of congress, then it is called an activists court. Obama was just making an observation and was pandering to his base.

You don't believe nine people with life long employment are going to be swayed by what a president says on his bully pulpit, do you?

You should be grateful; at least, he ain't threatening to dilute the power of SCOTUS through the act of packing the Court with like minded justices. In today's political reality, utilizing the bully pulpit is one of the only powers at his disposal that has any effect. Congress writes bills, he just defends them, as per the Constitution. As to it being unconstitutional and unprecedented for the president to speak about SCOTUS hearings, that is just plain silly.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

This is basically the same court that should have been defrocked and imprisoned for their overreach of the Florida Spreme Court's decision in the 2000 election. The people of this country should never have stood for that. Gore WON that election, in both the popular and the electoral college vote, and yet Bush became President. This court has already rendered themselves illigitimate.

[-] 3 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

I remember that the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to Florida and there was a vote recount -- those hanging chits, etc. I do not think that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Bush would be the winner of the 2000 presidential election.

Yes, I checked it out -- you can say that the U.S. Supreme Court stopped a more detailed and extensive recount and therefore impeded the reading of the true wishes of the people but Bush probably would have won by a very thin margin anyway.

Knowing what we got from the Bush NON-administration for months on end and failing to catch the ball passed from the Clinton administration's top priority regarding al-Qaeda plots and becoming rather clueless thereafter, I really wished that Gore had won instead. At the time, I thought that Gore was really gracious to concede the election to allow the country to move forward but that did not help with the new "out-to-three-martini" crowd.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

I appreciate your sentiment, but I must disagree about the outcome of that election. Bush's brother was the Governor of Florida at the time, and their is a video of the two of them talking, and they say, Oh, don't worry, we got Florida, and wink.

Florida was called for Gore by CBS based on exit polls early on and those exit polls have never been so out of line with the final count - ever.

That election was stolen, unquestionably, and four or five members of the Supreme Court should be in jail right alongside Dubya, Chaney and Blair.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

You should take a look at the gerrymandering of election districts. It WAS an extremely close election so the quantum party-allegiance fluctuations built into election districts could have easily changed the projected winner as election returns came in. Yes, even CBS exit polls could have been wrong about the final outcome because exit polls are just polls, not the real thing.

As for the talk and wink by Jeb Bush, most politicians suffer from the delusion of grandeur. Just because Jeb was governor did NOT mean that he could have easily tampered with the election returns. I tell you that in the real world, the people who are on the line are the ones who truly have the power to tamper with the election returns, not a so-called powerful politician sitting on his butts in the gubernatorial office.

If Gore had won instead, the U.S. would not have suffered the 9/11 attacks and we would not have been involved in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

If the legal precedent is set that the U.S. government can force people to do business with private companies, what will be there to prevent it from forcing you to sell your house at a specified low non-market price to a corporation? Or seize your land for a nominal consideration to give to the corporation for the very Republican perennial "job creation" program that created "???" jobs?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 8 years ago

Or seize your land for a nominal consideration to give to the corporation for the very Republican perennial "job creation" program that created "???" jobs?

The government already does that; it's called eminent domain.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Local governments do that but do we really want that on the federal level, too? It is already quite controversial at times on the local level where people are supposedly more connected to their own government. If it were done on the federal level for business interests, I could see people up in arms. This happened in other countries and I do NOT want to see that here in our good old U.S.A.

[-] -1 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 8 years ago

Is it really a Republican vs Democrat thing? Really?

It's hard to take ANY OF YOU seriously who seem bent on such dogma.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 8 years ago

Please, learn to read. Did I write anything about polticial parties? No, I quoted grapes, put that quotation in italics, and responded with a simple sentence about eminent domain.

I know, you graduated from the third grade.

[-] -2 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 8 years ago


[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Republicans represent business interests more. By no means am I saying that Democrats are not representing business interests but I heard enough from the Republicans already about jobs, jobs, jobs, and having done much of what they clamored for in the past decades, I ask, "Where ARE the jobs for our people?" There were tax breaks given to corporations to retain jobs but aren't those jobs still gone anyway? A corporation can really move over time without moving.


[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Government already forces people to pay for auto insurance, so that train's already left the track. The whole thing is, when powerful corporations wan't it one way, they get it that way - when they want it another way, they get it the other way. Either way, we're screwed.

[-] 2 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

"Government already forces people to pay for auto insurance, so that train's already left the track."

That's state law, not Federal.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

It's government.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Why don't you learn about how the gov't is set-up before you speak as an authority on the subject?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Are you saying state government isn't government?

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

The US Constitution is different from state constitutions. The state gov't have many powers the US gov't does not.

I think you are reducing a term ("government") to something you know very little about.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

I'm sorry, it is you who apparently don't know how to define "government."

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I better stop hitting my head against the wall before I lose anymore brain cells.

Sure, government is the same in all cases in all ways. You win.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

The case is either Constititional or Unconstitutional. The Constitution is the law of the land. It isn't just one way when that's convienant, and another when it's not.

How many States passed medican maijuana laws, only to have Their power userped by federal authorities - have clinics closed and people arrested by federal authorities? I'll tell you why; it's because established vested interest like State's Right's when it likes them, and doesn't when it doesn't. You clowns aren't fooling anyone.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Just because the government does something that is wrong, like prevent us from smoking marijuana or prostitution, does not mean we should continue to allow them to regulate more and more what we do with/to our own bodies or what we purchase.

It is wrong for the government to force someone to buy something from a private company. It really opens the door to them requiring us to buy flood insurance, fire insurance, medications, put on sun screen...

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Interesting, the things you point to as wrong. I've lived awhile, and I can tell you there are a lot more evil things than either of the things mentioned (although the latter is sad and preventable in an equitable society) Yes, a lot worse things, like making a profit on other people's imprisonment, for example. Like creating false conditions and fears of scarcity, to brutalize entire populations into slavery.

Yes, there are a lot worse things, and they are perfectly legal.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

I have no agenda to get people to vote or not vote. I was having a discussion with you. I was stating my personal belief that the parties in power are corrupt. When I see them throw hundreds of millions of dollars around at a time (adding up to billions and even trillions) it pisses me off. That's all there is to it.

There are only a few dozen people posting on the page lately anyway. Only 9 posts in the past hour. If I had an agenda to influence voting I would certainly not spend my time pushing it here I would go to a more active site.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

So it seems we are agreeing. We should not just follow it sometimes. The government should not tell me what I can eat, drink, smoke, wear, buy, say... As long as I am not infringing on the rights of my neighbor.

Whenever the government steps over the line we need to push back. Putting the Japanese in camps, Jim Crow laws, the Sedition Act, and many others were wrong and fortunately are in the past. I was a little worried after 9/11. We got the Patriot Act which is unconstitutional however we did not round up Muslims and put them in camps.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

My point is that maybe we should cooperate to change the root of all this, rather than just focus on what happens to be most politically damaging to Democrats at the moment. I would think and "Independent Democrat" would appreciate that fact.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Sorry but both parties are the equally corrupt. The Democrats are just better at pretending they care for the common man and the environment all the while diverting funds to their friends with "green energy" companies, medical testing labs, and other seemingly virtuous endeavors.

Why do you think 4 of the top 5 richest counties in the country are the counties surrounding Washington DC.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Not true. That is an absolute and cynical distortion of fact, and the reason you say it is clear; to convince people in Occupy not vote in the next election. Given the reality of where we now stand politically that would be equivical to Occupy commiting suicide, as a unified Republican regime would simply crush us.

Thanks again for revealing you thinly hidden agenda.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

For some reason you comments do not have a reply in them. Both parties are trying to overthrew democracy. Both parties are passing legislation that the majority do not want. Both parties are spending us into insurmountable debt.

It is a shame we do not have a stronger third, fourth and fifth party because everyone believe the hype that if you don't vote R or D you are throwing away your vote.

I have been in other countries during an election period and there are dozens of parties. Their parliaments are made up of members of for five or more parties.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Both parties are corrupted but NOT to the same degree, and how many times does it have to be said that a no vote from Occupiers is a yes vote for Republicans. It has to do with PROCESS. You get change one step at a time, and one of those steps is making CERTAIN we have no more Republicans in power. That is the Starting Point for change.

This is OBVIOUS to any person who sees the current political situation accurately, and genuinely has the interests of the Occupy movement at heart. You start by throwing a monkey wrench into the tracks of the 1% juggernaught.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

First, I am not a Democrat.

Second, I and not sure how saying the Patriot Act, enacted by G W Bush, is unconstitutional is "focusing on what happens to be most damaging to the Democrats"

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

It's called volume. Everything the Bush Administration toughted was damaging to this country as is the current right's agenda to overthrow democracy. I guess you don't care about that either. I't's all about individual examples, and nothing to do with the history of the Administration as a whole?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

I know there are things that are worse however the topic of this post is the mandate in the Healthcare Act that the supreme court is considering. As a liberal I consider most things the government does to control us through coercion wrong.

Also, I consider it a bad practice to defend something by saying "there are a lot worse things".

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

What I am saying is that we are dealing with a power structure (an oligarchy) that follows the Constitution when it's convienant and doesn't when it's not. Where does that leave us as citizens?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Teabaggers in my State ignored our States constitution to raise my taxes.

(R)epelican'ts have little respect for the laws they wish to ignore.

In the end, government is government.

State governments are just cheaper and easier for the corporations to buy and corrupt.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Are you down-voting a fact? What's the point of dialogue if you won't acknowledge a simple fact?

Obamacare is unique from mandated auto insurance because it is coming from the Federal gov't and not the state gov't. What you guys are arguing over is a concept, not actual institutions.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I was commenting on State constitutions, and how cheap and easy it is for corporate interests to corrupt them.

Personally? I think health insurance is a unique thing. Therefore, not entirely out of line with the Constitution as you've related it to State insurance requirements. Just on a larger scale that the Feds are better at administering.

It's a concept that the SCOTUS will decide.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Read threads before commenting, please.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It a pretty lost thread already.

I've already weighed in on the sentiment of the title, so maybe you should read them too.


[-] -2 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 8 years ago

Some do force it and some do not....... in the states that "force" it, if you fail to pay for it, they suspend your driving license

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 8 years ago

That's is only if you want to drive, which is not a right but a choice. You don't need insurance if you choose not to drive. The insurance is only a requirement of that choice, so to protect others and yourself from driver error. Big difference as compared to health care law, which would be required just for living.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

One can get out of paying for auto insurance by not driving the auto. One cannot get out of paying for the individual mandate in PPACA because how can one get out of "body" insurance? By becoming a "soul" and leaving one's body behind?

There ARE people driving around with NO auto insurance. Do you really think that "undocumented" people want to become "documented" for auto insurance? I suppose that one can become an "undocumented soul" to get out of paying under the individual mandate but that may be beside the point -- there are always people who flout the law.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

See, here's the thing. The corporate establishment is opposed to individual rights when it comes to building drones to fly in American air space, for emample, when it's to their advantage, and in favor of individual rights when they see that as to their advantage.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (331) 8 years ago

So what does drones have to do with this conversation. You sound a bit paranoid.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Well, at one time it would've, but not since GWB. In any case the point is the double standard, which is obvious. That's what should be the US Imperial coat of arms. A double standard with a chickenhawk and a two-faced snake on a field azure.

And this is coming from an actual patriot.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

Yes, the corporate establishment is Janus-faced that speaks with a forked tongue.

[-] 0 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

first of all you do not have to buy auto insurance , and its a state thing besides, this a first amendment issue, big brother is taking over.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Yes, medical care for everyone, what a fundamentally draconian idea! I'll tell you what . . . I hope the Supreme Cout does strike it down, becaus then Americans will demand single payer health care, and to hell with the insurance companies!

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

YES Thank You!!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

We should have done THAT 50 years ago!!!

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 8 years ago

A limited strike-down of PPACA by our Supreme Court will most likely be the best outcome for people. The insurance companies pushed for the individual mandate. If that be struck down, much of PPACA can still stand so eventually the People will demand the public option and the public sector's community health centers can give the insurance companies a run for the money and that will be good old capitalistic competition harnessed to benefit the People.

[-] 0 points by Umong (0) 8 years ago

the only justices that are illegitimate are those who do not follow the Constitution

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Which they did not do in 2000.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 8 years ago

Really? I didnt know Roberts, Alito, Kagen & Sotomayor were on the court in 2000. So how is it basically the same when almost half the Justices were not there?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

The radical, activist, right-wing distortion of justice is still in tact. They are not solving cases based on merits, they are solving them based on supporting a political agenda.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 8 years ago

Yeah - I guess if you think the Const. is a living & breathing document of course you'd think that lol! Tell me - what are the merits of the case as you see it?

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 8 years ago

As I so deftly put it in another thread, all he had to do was issue a tax, not a mandate, and the Supreme court couldnt touch this. But he lacks courage and conviction, wimped out, worried about being re elected, and cobbled togethdr this monstrosity of a bill.

5% payroll tax and this is a moot point. But he didnt want to be seen as a tax and spend liberal.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

A deft doofus, is a contradiction of terms.

And as I said in that same thread, you would have been hollering even louder if he did that.

You're so predictable, you must have the mind of a conse(R)vative, because it shows in your lazy thinking..

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

The partisan resistance to governance that has been met by the Clinton and Obama Administrations is unprecidented in American history. We spent three years talking about Monika Lewinski's underware while legislation was completely stonewalled and it's worse now than it even was then.

I think we should consider that message to the Supreme Court as a warning shot over the bow of those who would destroy the democratic process and replace it with a fascist world order.

In case you haven't noticed, people are fed up!

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 8 years ago

Why do liberals only want recounts in elections they lose? Why do they want to stop recounting once they have 'found 'a few votes?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

Okay, foreverDaft. Whatever.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

That was a warning from the Insurance companies who will make a fortune off of this legislation. It was simply spoken by their current favorite puppet.

[-] 1 points by tomdavid55 (93) 8 years ago

Here is a link to a protest song I wrote and the video I posted on youtube. If the link doesn't work when you click on it, copy and paste it into your address bar. Please send it to others on your contact list. Thanks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY

[-] 0 points by enough (587) 8 years ago

Obama made his ill-advised comments regarding the case during a press conference the day after the Supreme Court jurors met behind closed doors to make their decision, which will be made public in June. Any president in his right mind would remain silent until the Court rendered its decision, no matter how strongly he felt about the case. Is it possible that one of the jurors leaked the bad news to the White House that the Court had privately ruled against the mandate? Armed with this inside information, the president failed to show any restraint by deciding to scold the Supreme Court. The timing is suspicious to say the least. If the Supreme Court rules against the mandate in June and guts ObamaCare, it may be time to start an investigation into the source of the Supreme Court leak, if that is indeed what occurred.

If the Court rules against the mandate and guts ObamaCare and the president learned about it from a leaker beforehand, this thing could get ugly.

[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 8 years ago

Amazing, he wasn't complaining about them granting his push to insert his hands up the asses of people arrested and I doubt they'll give him any problem detaining anyone.

At least a Broadway show has integrity.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

The Roberts Five SCOTUS will live in infamy for treachery and corruption, and should, hopefully will, be impeached. You crazy-Cons have over-reached and you're going to get punished. The "harsh words" Con talking points underline your unbelievably abject hypocrisy. Only your minority herd of homo-ignoramus zombies listens to this blather. But it's nice of you to post it for us to see how dumb and lost your cult is.

The "thug" is the cretin who stalked and murdered Treyvon Martin! The POTUS should have stepped off the podium and slapped Roberts in the face over his disgraceful Citizens United reply! And America should adopt the gun and domestic terrorism laws and practices that keep the RW-Fundementalist Crazies in check in other countries!!! Starting with restricting irresponsible Hate and Lie broadcasting monopolies.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

No More Keys For These Insane GOPs!!!


[-] -2 points by JOELEWHITE1 (14) 8 years ago

supreme court justices who vote to rescind o'bama care should be impeached-forthwith.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 8 years ago

so upholding the US Constitution is now an impeachable offense?

[-] -2 points by Umong (0) 8 years ago

to be honest if he really had his way he would like to water board them.... Let's hope none of the judges who vote against the bill don't take any late-night walks otherwise they might be liable to drop dead unexpectedly of heart attacks!

[-] 2 points by JOELEWHITE1 (14) 8 years ago

Upholding the constitution only when it suits our partisan needs should be impeachable. We are already contractually obligated by way of income tax to buy both goods and services which, in some cases, are regarded with unmitigated contempt by large groups of the American people. Oil subsidies are O.K.? Nuclear weapons? Black ops? Warrantless wiretaps? A growing list of state secrets which are unrelated to national security? But O'Bamas health care is unconstitutional? Objectivity must be a dying art---

[-] -1 points by Umong (0) 8 years ago

I suppose you are one of these people that believe in 100% income tax also as Obama does

[-] 1 points by JOELEWHITE1 (14) 8 years ago

I have tried to limit our discussion to the issues at hand--- 100 % income tax is an unreasonable projection.