#381039
Phaedrus wrote:The job of the Supreme Court is not just to judge based on the Constitution, but also on established case law based on previous Supreme Court decisions including decisions to let lower court rulings stand without comment. Roberts in particular was very specific on this point during his confirmation hearings. The Supreme Court is usually very cautious about overturning previous decisions. They are also usually very cautious about overturning laws passed by Congress. Obama was commenting on this aspect after the court had already had its first vote. As for intimidation, how is it that every other elected official can comment one way or the other, but not the President?


They aren't supposed to but they do. I think the President's mistake was belittling the authority of the Supremes and speaking in improper terms especially given the fact that he was a Constitutional law professor.

Remember when FDR tried messing with the Supremes. Not a good idea.
#381040
astontibs wrote:This situation with our president trying to minimize and intimidate the Supreme Court has me pretty upset. They are unelected for a reason, so that they cannot be swayed by the will of the people. Their job is interpret law against the constitution. Just because elected representative pass a law doesn't make it constitutional. This is a fundamental part of our government system of checks and balances and our president can't change it just to suit his desires.
I was amused that a circuit judge gave the Department of Justice a homework assignment to explain what our president meant by his comments.


I wonder if the President is worried about all the unelected bureaucrats in the federal angencies laying down the rules and regulations that they determine Americans, corporations.business... must liveby. That is something that has progressively gotten way out of hand.
#381041
We have 'progressively' gotten away from constitutional law and leaned more toward case law. It is time to get back to The Constitution.
By Phaedrus
#381042
JuneCarter,
He wasn't belittling their authority. He was questioning their possible decision. The Supreme Court interprets the law. The law is the authority. The justices are just people like you and me and when a decision is rendered by one vote, then that isn't very authoritative.

BF,
Do you mean unelected like the Supremes?

Astontibs,
Any possible authority over the Justices lies with Congress. In any event we are now seeing how the right, which hated "activist judges," is suddenly okay with it when the court is interpreting things the way they see fit. There goes your virginity. :lol:
#381043
Phaedrus wrote:JuneCarter,
He wasn't belittling their authority. He was questioning their possible decision. The Supreme Court interprets the law. The law is the authority. The justices are just people like you and me and when a decision is rendered by one vote, then that isn't very authoritative.


So you're assuming it's gonna come down to Kennedy's vote. For all anyone knows it could come out in favor of the ACA, or Ginsburg could strike it down. Nobody knows.

Are their any decisions that the President can make autonomously?
By Phaedrus
#381044
Kennedy seems to have shifted the emphasis to individual rights, but at the same time he took a unique position that we are all part of the risk pool for insurance which would seem to justify imposing an equitable distribution of costs just like a tax. I think Roberts might be on the fence on this one, as well.

The next question is how narrow is the decision. If they only strike the mandate, then we have a big unfunded liability and the horse-trading starts.
By 50 plus
#381045
If the Congress can yell about the President, the President can complain about the Congress, why is the Supreme Court exempt from criticism? Any decisions are based on their interpretation of the constitution since they didn't write it. Some of them already have Obama on their ***list considering when he called them out on the campaign contribution ruling at the State of the Union. (and we all know how that ruling kept special interests out of elections :roll: )