General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJeffrey Toobin: Judges ‘deranged’ by their Obama hatred
4/5/12 9:15 AM EDT
I think what these judges have done is a disgrace, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN Thursday. What President Obama said was entirely appropriate. There is nothing wrong, theres nothing controversial.
He said, I signed a law that was passed by the democratically elected congress and I think its constitutional. And then these judges give the Justice Department a homework assignment, a three-page letter, single spaced, explaining what the president said, he said.
What the appellate courts request boils down to, Toobin argued Thursday, is that some GOP judges are simply out to get Obama for partisan reasons and that the president is in no position to threaten the Supreme Court, as many of his critics have suggested.
That was a perfectly appropriate comment by the president and it just shows how some of these Republican judges are just deranged by hatred of the president, he said.
read: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74864.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)hypocritical assholes. I mean, they make it a practice of threatening everyone. In fact, most of their hissy fits are simply projecting.
Best title on the subject:
After Threatening Judges, GOP Accuses Obama of Judicial Intimidation
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/04/1080678/-After-Threatening-Judges-GOP-Accuses-Obama-of-Judicial-Intimidation
rurallib
(62,448 posts)The President merely commented on the case. I think in a democracy even he is allowed to do that.
And some super goofy-fuck judge gets his panties in a wad and gives the administration an essay as punishment. No detention as yet.
Jesus Christ, who do these judges think they are, Jesus Christ?
emulatorloo
(44,183 posts)Because as you know, Obama is a Kenyan communist bent on destroying the constitution.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)This isn't grade school. Obama has better things to do than give a civics lesson to judges.
Pachamama
(16,887 posts)...her to talk. I suggest if he doesnt need to reply, he doesnt or at least has a clever reply that shuts them the f*ck up. Im so tired of these foaming at the mouth Repukes who are literally obsessed in their hatred of Obama that they do things like this. They dont love their country. They dont love the Constitution. They dont love God. They just HATE....and Obama is the target.
julian09
(1,435 posts)The president was talking to the press and only gave his opinion on why he expects that the court to rule the law constitutional.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Freaked out racists.
saras
(6,670 posts)He doesn't need to do the work, but explicit word from the top down that these bastards go, and the people working to get rid of them will be supported, would be EXTREMELY helpful to the country.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When the majority of the Justices were more liberal than those sitting today, conservatives complained about the overreaching of the courts and argued against judicial legislation. Now they are blaming Obama for far, far less.
The rivalry between the three branches of government is inevitable under our Constitution. I hope that Obama will be given the chance to appoint more justices. If we Democrats had a stronger majority in Congress, maybe . . . .
Jefferson's Letter to Roane Regarding the Supreme Court --
DEAR SIR, . . .
I . . . go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that "the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived." If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I was in office, are better known to me, and the principles which governed them.
A legislature had passed the sedition law. The federal courts had subjected certain individuals to its penalties of fine and imprisonment. On coming into office, I released these individuals by the power of pardon committed to executive discretion, which could never be more properly exercised than where citizens were suffering without the authority of law, or, which was equivalent, under a law unauthorized by the constitution, and therefore null. In the case of Marbury and Madison, the federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealed by the President, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the party, is as yet no deed, it is in posse only, but not in esse, and I withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue a mandamus to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers.* When the British treaty of------arrived, without any provision against the impressment of our seamen, I determined not to ratify it. The Senate thought I should ask their advice. I thought that would be a mockery of them, when I was predetermined against following it, should they advise its ratification. The constitution had made their advice necessary to confirm a treaty, but not to reject it. This has been blamed by some; but I have never doubted its soundness. In the cases of two persons, antenati, under exactly similar circumstances, the federal court had determined that one of them (Duane) was not a citizen; the House of Representatives nevertheless determined that the other (Smith, of South Carolina) was a citizen, and admitted him to his seat in their body. Duane was a republican, and Smith a federalist, and these decisions were made during the federal ascendancy.
These are examples of my position, that each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the constitution, without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question. But you intimate a wish that my opinion should be known on this subject. No, dear Sir, I withdraw from all contest of opinion, and resign everything cheerfully to the generation now in place. They are wiser than we were, and their successors will be wiser than they, from the progressive advance of science. Tranquillity is the summum bonum of age. I wish, therefore, to offend no mans opinion, nor to draw dis-quieting animadversions on my own. While duty required it, I met opposition with a firm and fearless step. But loving mankind in my individual relations with them, I pray to be permitted to depart in their peace; and like the superannuated soldier, "guadragenis stipendiis emeritis," to hang my arms on the post. I have unwisely, I fear, embarked in an enterprise of great public concern, but not to be accomplished within my term, without their liberal and prompt support. . . . .
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2192
JEB
(4,748 posts)so few constructive ideas. Do they have anything besides hate and the tried and failed mantra of lower taxes and deregulation?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Michelle will be knowing whats going on - how thick the resentment and hatred is but how to keep that away from the kids, that must be gnawing at the both of them every day.
I am astounded by the racism - unbelievable pure raw hatred for a man because of his skin. Even tho that man is probably smarter AND MORE DECENT than a town full of white folk who think themselves so bloody superior (but that is probably what gets their goat to begin with).
It's waaaaaaay worse than I ever imagined. I knew Merka wasn't over it's ugliness even tho the PResident was elected, but I never fathomed it would get this far. And we have a long way to go still.
I cry for the Obamas and for all those who have had to suffer this hatred and pain for all this time.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)Response to bigtree (Original post)
Post removed
Spazito
(50,454 posts)by referring to the Act as "Obamacare" whereas it is, within legal bounds, the Affordable Care Act. It certainly shows it is not just the 4 +/- 1 U.S. Supreme Court Judges who have subverted the courts, it is obviously all the way down through the system. Scary.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Yeah, shout it from the mountain tops! Vote a straight Democratic ballot if you've had enough of vaginal probe amendments to transportation bills and faux filibusters against any Democratic legislation in the Senate. Give the President large majorities in both Houses. Hopefully we can appoint at least one SC justice before 2016. I think Thomas is a zombie already somebody should check his pulse, or even better, brain waves.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)I'll bet some folks around him have heard him say worse than that.
Citizen Worker
(1,785 posts)hatred of the first Black president.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)from a member of one of our branches of government.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)think it's okay
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Cheney had to shoot his judge "buddy" in the face to make them all march lockstep.
Moostache
(9,897 posts)Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said it is a "fantasy" to think "every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don't is 'activist.' Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the court correctly applied the law."
OH, REALLY Orrin?!?!?
How about some vocal support for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?
How about some "respect" for Roe v. Wade....after all, it WAS decided by the Supreme Court...
The only two decisions these asshats really support are Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
And for Orrin-fucking-Hacth to have the balls to claim that the GOP does not determine "activism" by who wins or loses a judgement is goddamn offensive hypocrisy. Those fanatics have never met a claim of liberal courts or liberal media that they won't beat to death!
malaise
(269,157 posts)Fuck those fuckers!
They should be impeached for treason - Citizen's United is treason.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It is obvious Roberts did let his personal politics interfere with a major court decision..... what he SPECIFICALLY said he could avoid when that very concern came up in his appointment hearings.
He lied. He cannot handle his job the way he said he could. Get rid of him.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)I bet they did.
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)and when he spoke about the court activism he had far less tact than Obama, by the way.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,758 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I've always liked him.