Obama lectures Supreme Court (Page 6): Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Obama lectures Supreme Court

1 2 3 4 5 6

View All

vitus979

Apr 4, 12 11:09

Post #126 of 150 (791 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I think you're reaching either way.

What is it about Obamacare that would make overturning it unprecedented and extraordinary. I think there's general agreement that the law itself is unprecedented and extraordinary.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

AlanShearer

Apr 4, 12 11:10

Post #127 of 150 (790 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [vitus979] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

vitus979 wrote:

Let's stick with the case at hand, and Obama's statement about it.

What exactly would be unprecedented and extraordinary about overturning it? Obama's statement seems to imply that because it was passed by a "strong" majority of democratically elected representatives, overturning it would be unprecedented. (He's taking some creative license with that bit about a strong majority, too.)

Look at the context, which includes more than just that particular sentence. He also points to his strong opinion, as well as that of others, that the law is clearly constitutional. If you're confident that a particular law is clearly and unambigously constitutional, especially when considering past Court decisions and precedent, then it's not unreasonable to view a decision overturning that law as an extraordinary and arguably unprecedented breach of judicial restraint.

vitus979

Apr 4, 12 11:12

Post #128 of 150 (787 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Look at the context, which includes more than just that particular sentence.

I have. I don't see that any of the context as provided in your earlier post impacts on or mitigates that particular sentence.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

AlanShearer

Apr 4, 12 11:20

Post #129 of 150 (778 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [vitus979] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

vitus979 wrote:

Again,

"I actually continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it's constitutional.

"That's not just my opinion by the way. That's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case."

and

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who've examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."

Obama's saying that he thinks the law is clearly constitutional and that his opinion is shared by others across the spectrum, regardless of they are sympathetic to the legisltation. And he's saying that he doesn't even think it's "a close case." If he truly holds that opinion (and yes, I recognize that will be challenged), then it's not unreasonable to also hold the opinion that a decision overturning the law was unprecedented and extraordinary.

And by the way, doesn't expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will uphold the law, in itself, imply an understanding of the Court's role and authority?

vitus979

Apr 4, 12 11:26

Post #130 of 150 (775 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

So, what he really meant to say was that the court shouldn't take the extraordinary and unprecedented step of overturning his healthcare law because his healthcare law IS Constitutional- because he thinks it is?

Well, heck, I don't even know why we bother keeping those nine legal eagles around.

Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

AlanShearer

Apr 4, 12 11:34

Post #131 of 150 (770 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [vitus979] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Regardless, I still think it's a poorly worded statement.

You seem to think that's too much of a strech -- that he clearly said X and that it's unlikely that he would have made such a big goof if he had really meant Y

I don't think it's that clear he said X. That it's an ambiguous statement. And that given the context, everything else he said that day and not just that one sentence, his past statements on the issue, his clarification the next day, etc., inartful wording nearly isn't as much of a stretch that you seem to think.

(This post was edited by AlanShearer on Apr 4, 12 11:34)

TheForge

Apr 4, 12 11:42

Post #132 of 150 (766 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

AlanShearer wrote:

If you want to believe that when Obama, former law professor, current president, architect of the massive healthcare bill under review by the Supreme Court, simply goofed when he said it would be unprecedented for the unelected court to overturn a law passed by democratic process, and to do so would amount to judicial activism, feel free.

I think the argument that it was a porrly worded statement is as good an explanation as any.

.

Except he has a problem with frequently making poorly worded statements with real consequences that require him to "back off" at a later point. We are also led to believe by his handlers and some of the smarter people in opposition research that he uses such techniques effectively to get what he wants because he is "so smart". Remember, he often takes the speeches written for him and changes them because he is so smart. In otherwords, that is his MO. Demonize somebody with strongly worded rhetoric, when the public backlash is too hot to handle, back off with an insincere apology or clarification that his followers and the media eat up. The fact is he knew what he was doing when he said that. And he could go on TV today and take it back, but the message go to who it was intended both inside and outside the court. The Obamabots will now frame the court as activist judges beholden to politics. The parasites now have an enemy to blame for an handout not coming their way. But the court now feels their legitimacy was questioned which poses long term damage that goes well beyond this election.

TheForge

Apr 4, 12 11:44

Post #133 of 150 (763 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [vitus979] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

vitus979 wrote:

Let's stick with the case at hand, and Obama's statement about it.

What exactly would be unprecedented and extraordinary about overturning it? Obama's statement seems to imply that because it was passed by a "strong" majority of democratically elected representatives, overturning it would be unprecedented. (He's taking some creative license with that bit about a strong majority, too.)

Way to keep it on message. I like that.

Old Hickory

Apr 4, 12 12:02

Post #134 of 150 (752 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [vitus979] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

vitus979 wrote:

I think you're on to something....

Didn't he also blame the founding fathers and their silly ol' balance of power from keeping all his transformation from taking place?

Dan Os Fan

Apr 4, 12 12:03

Post #135 of 150 (752 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Maybe it should be considered a well worded statement? By being a "poorly worded" statement he can claim he was misinterpreted, while still attacking the credibility of the SCOTUS. Given the context of him making a point of speaking out like he did it was not an off the cuff remark, it was clearly planned.

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who've examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."

Obama's saying that he thinks the law is clearly constitutional and that his opinion is shared by others across the spectrum, regardless of they are sympathetic to the legislatation. And he's saying that he doesn't even think it's "a close case." If he truly holds that opinion (and yes, I recognize that will be challenged), then it's not unreasonable to also hold the opinion that a decision overturning the law was unprecedented and extraordinary.

So, your saying he was again unclear and unable to clarify what he was saying? How can somebody so smart be so misunderstood?

How about my opinion on what he was really saying:

"I'm confident this will be upheld(because to say otherwise would be pretty stupid and political suicide) because it should be upheld.(so that I can have a great legacy and get re-elected) And again, that's not just my opinion,(or hope) that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who've examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."(because they thought I should have made it a much bigger giveaway to the poor and unions)

There, fixed it.

(This post was edited by Dan Os Fan on Apr 4, 12 12:03)

AlanShearer

Apr 4, 12 12:07

Post #136 of 150 (747 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [theforge] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Except he has a problem with frequently making poorly worded statements with real consequences that require him to "back off" at a later point.

If he has a problem with frequently making poorly worded statements, then why is this not par for the course? And I thought the meme was that the Teleprompter-in-Chief was too incompetent to speak on his own. Which is it?

We are also led to believe by his handlers and some of the smarter people in opposition research that he uses such techniques effectively to get what he wants because he is "so smart".

We are?

Remember, he often takes the speeches written for him and changes them because he is so smart.

I'm trying to remember, but apparently this fact wasn't something I already knew. Regardless, this wasn't a written speech, so even if true, how is it relevant.

The fact is he knew what he was doing when he said that.

You calling it a "fact" doesnt' make it so.

The parasites now have an enemy to blame for an handout not coming their way.

These are some pretty well informed parasites, with long term memories. I suspect that 90% of the voting US population, if not more, either have no knowledge of this flap or don't give it any weight.

But the court now feels their legitimacy was questioned which poses long term damage that goes well beyond this election.

Seriously?

TheForge

Apr 4, 12 12:45

Post #137 of 150 (733 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

You want to pick apart my simple statements? fine. I probablty would to if I was getting the beatdown you have been getting. Doesn't change the fact that most of us (many liberals to) believe he was out of line and he admitted as much by backtracking. It also shows a pattern to many of us that he is a demagogue, not above violating institutions and traditions to get what he wants regardless of the long term damage. He is also not above laying waste to America in order to achieve the fundamental change that he promised and people like you continue to defend. In otherwords, you can continue to defend him all you want. I just hope a majority of Americans see him for what he is, a deceiver, a demagogue, a phony, unamerican, a socialist, and ultimately destructive to America's future. I look forward to rubbing in your face when he loses. If he wins, god help us all. Should you reciprocate, it won't bother me as much as the legitimate fear that the republic is near death.

By the way.

- Teleprompter in Chief is a meme used by talk radio pundits to rally people who don't think for themselves. Obama's problem isn't that he is too stupid to go off the teleprompter, but that he tends to show his true feelings. Like he did here, like he did with Trayvon Martin, Like he did with Louise Gate, like he did with Joe the Plumber and on and on.

- I don't get what you are saying here. His people would like us to believe he is some genius. A quick google will show the idolatry shared by the campaign people who came to work in his administration. I don't buy it, but we keep hearing it. So when I say he made a poor choice of words, what I am saying is his words were inentional, he just doesn't seem to be getting the results he desired. A political miscalculation.

- I start my sentence with the fact is, so what, it is a bad habit, but a habit none the less. Doesn't change that most people believe he knew damn well what he was saying as reflected by the numerous articles written in support or disdain for what he did.

- Your last comment is just stupid. While 90% might not have followed what he said on Monday, many of them will surely become familiar with the talking points the closer we get to the election. You know damn well that was where I was going so I'll take your comment as just another example of you doing what you do. Spouting liberal nonsense, being an unquestioning defender of the Democratic party and your butt boy Obama.

AlanShearer

Apr 4, 12 12:59

Post #138 of 150 (724 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [theforge] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Where have I said anything in this thread that would make you think I support Obama politically, that I'm a Democrat, that I'm a liberal, that I'm an unquestioning defender, that i would vote for Obama, etc. What have I said that is liberal nonsense? You're reading an awful lot into things. Makes me qiestion your opinion on and interpretation of other things.

TheForge

Apr 4, 12 13:10

Post #139 of 150 (717 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I don't care whether you question my opinion or interpretation because so far we have never been in agreement. Hence why I came to that conclusion. If I'm wrong, I'll humbly apologize, but so far any memorable thread that you have participated in you were an Obama or democrat talking point apologist. Maybe you have taken other stances, but clearly not with the same effort or passion as you have with the ones mentioned. Like it or not, we are judged not only by what we stand for, but how we go about standing up for it. I stand up for what I believe to be right or wrong regardless of the party pushing it. I think I have been fairly consistent at that. I have also been quick to admit being wrong when the facts contrary to my statements are clearly presented. You as we have seen here keep stretching. I've gotten several personal emails asking for advice on real non-partisan issues, or compliments on my consistency even if they disagreed. Can you say the same? Also, look at how many threads I have started that got a lot of activity. So even if people disagree they are intrigued with the broad range of topics I present and defend. So far all I see out of you is that you are a butt boy for Obama and the Democratic party. Prove me wrong, and I'll take it back.

klehner

Apr 4, 12 13:15

Post #140 of 150 (713 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Hey, this is the guy who thought the US had 57 states, remember? He either didn't know the actual number, or he was lying.

Clearly.
----------------------------------
Of course, with your ears stuffed with outrage cotton balls, all you heard was, rahrahra, govt comes to get your guns, rhahrahrah, stamp out your FREEEEEDOM! - slowguy

AlanShearer

Apr 4, 12 13:24

Post #141 of 150 (705 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [theforge] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Care to point to anything specific? Or perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. I don't know. Maybe I need to check my private messages.

dave_w

Apr 4, 12 13:31

Post #142 of 150 (702 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [klehner] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

klehner wrote:

Hey, this is the guy who thought the US had 57 states, remember? He either didn't know the actual number, or he was lying.

Clearly.

orrr he was exaggerating his case for effect. I think that's what he did at first, then he got called on the inanity of his argument, and had to (in a tacit admission that he overstepped acceptable levels of hyperbole) clarify.

TheForge

Apr 4, 12 13:38

Post #143 of 150 (683 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Maybe, but my impression of you still stands. Because I don't recall you and I ever being in agreement. You just lack the passion, extraordinary knowledge, personality or other pizazz that makes certain people memorable here. Yahey is the clown we can all agree to make fun of but he is harmless. Rob is intellectually superior to most here. Quel is as close to a sensible liberal as there can be. Francois can be an ass, but when the topic is scientific in nature, he is on point. Matt is brilliant to, he and I are pretty much in agreement most of the time, but he is a much better writer than I. Chainpin presents the topics few dare to, and once you get past his anger, which I find totally justified, he makes a lot of sense. The Big Kahuna is just the man. There are several people who are on par with these guys so if I didn't mention don't take it personal. Than there are some notorius people here for all the wrong reasons, but I won't mention any names as it isn't my intention to call out people with insults, except you. You see, you don't even fit in that catagory because frankly, outside of your name you really don't post anything that will be remembered beyond a single thread. I guess you legal analysis or opinions are a value to some as stated here, but even he admitted you lost him on this one.

dave_w

Apr 4, 12 13:45

Post #144 of 150 (671 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [theforge] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Alan usually falls left, but he at least sees right, which is a sight better than most liberals on this site. Quel is more middle of the road, maybe center-left, along with many whom I read with interest, including Sphere, jkal, and a few others.

AlanShearer

Apr 4, 12 13:46

Post #145 of 150 (667 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [theforge] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

theforge wrote:

Wow! Going for the personal.

(This post was edited by AlanShearer on Apr 4, 12 14:08)

klehner

Apr 4, 12 14:00

Post #146 of 150 (658 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [theforge] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

AlanShearer is one of those users whose posts I always read because he doesn't display the "pizazz", found in so many others' posts, that makes me puke. I read his posts because he is informative, knowledgeable and level-headed, and isn't pushing some agenda. The fact that he isn't memorable to you speaks volumes about you.

And he clearly doesn't wear a tinfoil hat.
----------------------------------
Of course, with your ears stuffed with outrage cotton balls, all you heard was, rahrahra, govt comes to get your guns, rhahrahrah, stamp out your FREEEEEDOM! - slowguy

TheForge

Apr 4, 12 14:01

Post #147 of 150 (657 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Hey I'm just saying what others are probably thinking. But I've already admitted that I was born a few centuries to late and that I should be battling other barbarians like me on some ancient battlefield or an arena. In otherwords, I'm not filtered or inhibited by political correctness or fear of upsetting somebody who disagrees with me when they are wrong.

TheForge

Apr 4, 12 14:11

Post #148 of 150 (649 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [klehner] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Considering the post I see aimed at you are consistent with the post aimed at him, I won't hold much wait on your comment either. Like it or not, people go to a thread when they see the last post was made by theforge, sometimes for sheer entertainment value, but for the most part because I am consistent, informative and at the same time entertaining. I also am not beholden to a party or the left right paradigm, not even the one I have dedicated so much time to increase the awareness of.

(This post was edited by theforge on Apr 4, 12 14:12)

chainpin

Apr 4, 12 14:18

Post #149 of 150 (643 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [klehner] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

klehner wrote:

So what you are saying is:

Man Crush

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

dave_w

Apr 5, 12 11:42

Post #150 of 150 (575 views)

Re: Obama lectures Supreme Court [Rodred] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

It's all been explained. Obama was speaking at a level others don't understand:

"Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...a_law_professor.html

1 2 3 4 5 6

View All