Has anyone seen or heard of this???

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but, as i posted in the aca thread, obama has become the first to be critical in between hearing and decision.

After Citizens United, I can't blame him.

Actually, I can't blame Presidents in general for bitching about the other branches. Because, really, who cares? The former Vice President told a Senator to go f*ck himself and everyone shrugged.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

After Citizens United, I can't blame hiim.

Actually, I can't blame Presidents in general for bitching about the other branches. Because, really, who cares? The former Vice President told a Senator to go f*ck himself and everyone shrugged.

I don't think he should have said anything before the decision. How would he, or congress, have felt had they weighed in while the bill was being put together? There's a reason he is the first...and i do not think it was a good precedent to set.
As for citizens united, from all i have read, i expect a revisit of the decision with a probable change.


and for the cheney GFY-that wasn't a case of him trying to influence a decision. much like obama's open mic 'give me space til after i win the election' moment, it wasn't actually for public consumption...and it also pales in comparison with other, far more physical moments between rivals on the house and senate floors.

[Danzig]

just got home..read an article by krauthammer in the paper on the way to LA and back, and thought i'd find/post it here.


http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...ma-vs-justices


an excerpt:


....This concern would be touching if it weren't coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted to the ultimate judicial usurpation -- Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states -- that fealty to it is the party's litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.

With Obamacare remaking one-sixth of the economy, it would be unusual for the court to overturn legislation so broad and sweeping. On the other hand, it is far more unusual to pass such a fundamentally transformative law on such a narrow, partisan basis.

Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party -- in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. In the Senate, Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping. The fundamental deviation from custom and practice is not the legal challenge to Obamacare but the very manner of its enactment.





i hope everyone reads the article. then there's this point from the editor in a small writeup:


'Furthermore, the implication of the remark was that the number of votes in favor of a bill was somehow relevant to its constitutionality. It's not. Otherwise, whichever party or point of view is in the majority would be free to tyrannize the minority.'