Bjorvald posted:

---

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

"fear, threats and intimidation"

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

"fear, threats and intimidation"

---

Laugh all you want but that is exactly what Obama has been doing and is in perfect keeping with his Saul Alinsky political style that is constantly demagoguing issues.

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

I don't know how else you can see it. Obama has hit a new low, just when you think he has hit bottom.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

"fear, threats and intimidation"

---

Laugh all you want but that is exactly what Obama has been doing and is in perfect keeping with his Saul Alinsky political style that is constantly demagoguing issues.

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

I don't know how else you can see it. Obama has hit a new low, just when you think he has hit bottom.

---

Sansfear posted:

---

Obama is being a hypocrite, but then so are politicians on both sides.

They cheer judicial activism when their side wants it and they vilify it when they are on the losing end.

---

Appeals Court posted:

---

Attack this strawman plz

---

Article posted:

---

1. What are your most favorite and least favorite aspects of being a federal appellate judge?

The most favorite aspect is having the privilege of working closely with the exceptionally high quality of judges we have on our court and with the extremely talented law clerks I have had working for me, and having a great deal of control over my own time, to work at my own pace, in depth, on cases and issues. The least favorite aspect of the job is the huge drag on family income, for a lawyer who was used to working in a prominent, prosperous law firm.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare it will make Obama more powerful than they can possibly imagine!

/cabbyman off

---

Obama posted:

---

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

---

Bjorvald posted:

---

He's banking on stupid uninformed voters lapping it up, along with a biased media that refuses to call him on his lies.

---

CBS posted:

---

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, right wingers are whining about Obama's call to rein in judicial activism? Amazing how the right will instantly turn on an issue a millisecond after Obama speaks in favor of it.

---

Bonzoboy1 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, right wingers are whining about Obama's call to rein in judicial activism? Amazing how the right will instantly turn on an issue a millisecond after Obama speaks in favor of it.

---

I would have thought someone who has a super pac even though he is against them would understand the need to use your opponents tactics to level the playing field.

---

Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

"I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.

Groucho48 posted:

---

Bonzoboy1 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

So, right wingers are whining about Obama's call to rein in judicial activism? Amazing how the right will instantly turn on an issue a millisecond after Obama speaks in favor of it.

---

I would have thought someone who has a super pac even though he is against them would understand the need to use your opponents tactics to level the playing field.

---

Which is what Obama is doing and the right is whining about it. Right wingers have been whining about the Courts overruling what elected officials have decided at least since Brown v. Board of Education. Now that Obama is using that argument, they are /outraged that anyone would dare imply the Court was over-reaching.

---

Link posted:

---

President Bush Monday denounced "activist judges" who have struck down state laws banning same-sex marriage as he urged Congress to approve the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. At a White House event, Bush said:

Some argue that defining marriage should be left to the states. The fact is, state legislatures are trying to address this issue. But across the country, they are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the expressed will of their people. And these court decisions can have an impact on our whole nation.

The American Bar Association has already criticized the proposed amendment as "trampl[ing] on the traditional authority of each state to establish its own laws governing civil marriage."

The Marriage Protection Amendment is being debated in the US Senate this week, following its approval by the Judiciary Committee last month. But Senate Democrats and moderate Republicans are expected to block a final vote. To become law, a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

I would like to think that this case will finally make the right STFU about judicial activism but Groucho is right, as soon as this one is over and SCOTUS strikes down something they like they'll be bleating in the streets once again.

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

I would like to think that this case will finally make the right STFU about judicial activism but Groucho is right, as soon as this one is over and SCOTUS strikes down something they like they'll be bleating in the streets once again.

---

I don't vote for Republican, or Democrats for that matter, and consider myself moderate. But even I know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. The court is exercising Judicial Review. Now we can argue as to whether that was the original intention of the Founding Fathers, to grant the high court that power, but you would be hard pressed to argue that they are being activist judges in this case.

Marbury vs. Madison established Judicial Review, and that was in the beginning of the 19th century, not at the founding of the court. I personally believe that Judicial Review gives the court ultimate authority in our land. The court is going to be partisan, as it is made up of appointees from both the left and the right. I wish they were all moderates, but we can agree that kool-aid drinkers like Alito and Kagan are ultimately where all justices will end up being, right or left, they are different sides of the same busted coin.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

I would like to think that this case will finally make the right STFU about judicial activism but Groucho is right, as soon as this one is over and SCOTUS strikes down something they like they'll be bleating in the streets once again.

---

I don't vote for Republican, or Democrats for that matter, and consider myself moderate. But even I know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. The court is exercising Judicial Review. Now we can argue as to whether that was the original intention of the Founding Fathers, to grant the high court that power, but you would be hard pressed to argue that they are being activist judges in this case.

Marbury vs. Madison established Judicial Review, and that was in the beginning of the 19th century, not at the founding of the court. I personally believe that Judicial Review gives the court ultimate authority in our land. The court is going to be partisan, as it is made up of appointees from both the left and the right. I wish they were all moderates, but we can agree that kool-aid drinkers like Alito and Kagan are ultimately where all justices will end up being, right or left, they are different sides of the same busted coin.

---

It's all judicial review, or judicial activism. It all depends on your perspective.

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

I don't vote for Republican, or Democrats for that matter, and consider myself moderate. But even I know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. The court is exercising Judicial Review. Now we can argue as to whether that was the original intention of the Founding Fathers, to grant the high court that power, but you would be hard pressed to argue that they are being activist judges in this case.

Marbury vs. Madison established Judicial Review, and that was in the beginning of the 19th century, not at the founding of the court. I personally believe that Judicial Review gives the court ultimate authority in our system of government, usurping both the Legislative and Executive branch, something that was not intended by the Founding Fathers. The court is going to be partisan, as it is made up of appointees from both the left and the right. I wish they were all moderates, but we can agree that kool-aid drinkers like Alito and Kagan are ultimately where all justices will end up being, right or left, they are different sides of the same busted coin.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

I don't vote for Republican, or Democrats for that matter, and consider myself moderate. But even I know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. The court is exercising Judicial Review. Now we can argue as to whether that was the original intention of the Founding Fathers, to grant the high court that power, but you would be hard pressed to argue that they are being activist judges in this case.

Marbury vs. Madison established Judicial Review, and that was in the beginning of the 19th century, not at the founding of the court. I personally believe that Judicial Review gives the court ultimate authority in our system of government, usurping both the Legislative and Executive branch, something that was not intended by the Founding Fathers. The court is going to be partisan, as it is made up of appointees from both the left and the right. I wish they were all moderates, but we can agree that kool-aid drinkers like Alito and Kagan are ultimately where all justices will end up being, right or left, they are different sides of the same busted coin.

---

Thank you for your oh-so-fascinating opinion. Now please STFU and go back to ACF.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Right wingers have been whining about the Courts overruling what elected officials have decided at least since Brown v. Board of Education.

---

Bonzoboy1 posted:

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Bonzoboy1 posted:

---

[quote=Groucho48] So, right wingers are whining about Obama's call to rein in judicial activism? Amazing how the right will instantly turn on an issue a millisecond after Obama speaks in favor of it.

---

I would have thought someone who has a super pac even though he is against them would understand the need to use your opponents tactics to level the playing field.

---

Which is what Obama is doing and the right is whining about it. Right wingers have been whining about the Courts overruling what elected officials have decided at least since Brown v. Board of Education. Now that Obama is using that argument, they are /outraged that anyone would dare imply the Court was over-reaching.

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

[quote=Ashmaele]I would like to think that this case will finally make the right STFU about judicial activism but Groucho is right, as soon as this one is over and SCOTUS strikes down something they like they'll be bleating in the streets once again.

---

I don't vote for Republican, or Democrats for that matter, and consider myself moderate. But even I know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. The court is exercising Judicial Review. Now we can argue as to whether that was the original intention of the Founding Fathers, to grant the high court that power, but you would be hard pressed to argue that they are being activist judges in this case.

Marbury vs. Madison established Judicial Review, and that was in the beginning of the 19th century, not at the founding of the court. I personally believe that Judicial Review gives the court ultimate authority in our land. The court is going to be partisan, as it is made up of appointees from both the left and the right. I wish they were all moderates, but we can agree that kool-aid drinkers like Alito and Kagan are ultimately where all justices will end up being, right or left, they are different sides of the same busted coin.

---

It's all judicial review, or judicial activism. It all depends on your perspective.

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

I think I've found a kool-aid drinker.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

[quote=redlegOIF][quote=Ashmaele]I would like to think that this case will finally make the right STFU about judicial activism but Groucho is right, as soon as this one is over and SCOTUS strikes down something they like they'll be bleating in the streets once again.

---

I don't vote for Republican, or Democrats for that matter, and consider myself moderate. But even I know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. The court is exercising Judicial Review. Now we can argue as to whether that was the original intention of the Founding Fathers, to grant the high court that power, but you would be hard pressed to argue that they are being activist judges in this case.

Marbury vs. Madison established Judicial Review, and that was in the beginning of the 19th century, not at the founding of the court. I personally believe that Judicial Review gives the court ultimate authority in our land. The court is going to be partisan, as it is made up of appointees from both the left and the right. I wish they were all moderates, but we can agree that kool-aid drinkers like Alito and Kagan are ultimately where all justices will end up being, right or left, they are different sides of the same busted coin.

---

It's all judicial review, or judicial activism. It all depends on your perspective.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

I tend to just assume stupid people who come here are probably from ACF, since it's pretty much the only other forum still alive.

And because they're all dumb.

---

redlegOIF posted:

---

---

Afio posted:

---

"I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," the president said.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

BUT IF PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD A SON THAT WAS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, HE WOULD LOOK JUST LIKE THIS.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

If the Obama truly believes that super pacs are, in and of itself, a horrible perversion of the Constitution, he should be against it even if it works in his favor.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

Only president Bush and I get to define what is and is not judicial activism

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

This case will not involve judicial activism if they do what I want. It will involve judicial activism if they don't do what I want.

---