Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
POTUS on SCOTUS re: healthcare
Did I miss a discussion yesterday on the President's comment about how the SCOTUS striking down the health care law because it was approved by congress would be judicial activism?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/politics/obama-health-care/index.html
I really don't understand how anyone is buying this one:
Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law" passed by Congress.
Re: POTUS on SCOTUS re: healthcare
A Con Law professor saying the Supreme Court overturning democratically-passed legislation is "unprecedented" is more than a little rich.
Find me here instead!
In the context of the full statement, I don't think it's that far off base. He was stating that it was democratically passed by the majority of the House and Senate, and that the conservatives have for years been blasting "judicial activism", of which this would be a prime example should it be overturned. At the end of the day though - this is just petty anyway, and has no influence on the outcome of the SCOTUS review... so really, maybe that's why I just can't care about it too much.
"Overturning the law would be ?an unprecedented, extraordinary step? since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,? he said. ?I just remind conservative commentators that for years we?ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I?m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.?
Yeah I'm not seeing the big deal either, though already my FB has lit up with the "Con Law Prof talks about judicial activism, he obv has NO IDEA how the constitution works, blah blah blah" and I am like look, the cons yell judicial activism any time a ruling doesn't reaffirm their ideology, I just hope they scream as loudly this time.
http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/64825970.aspx
"Unprecedented and extraordinary" aren't any different in the full context. He knows damn well that's not in any way accurate. The Supreme Court has overturned lots of laws passed by majorities of members in the house and senate--even ones that had <gasp> bipartisan support.
If the health care bill were simply a government program like Social Security, where people are taxed and then get benefits, then there's no constitutional question here. They could have written this bill that way, but they didn't for political reasons.
That decision may well make it unconstitutional. It's not judicial activism to say as much. I would argue that it's much more activist to find that the law isn't quite constitutional as written, but we like the results, so we'll keep it anyway.
Find me here instead!
I don't disagree with this. As a matter of fact, I made this same point a million times over back when people were decrying the "activist judges" of the MA SC for legalizing gay marraige.
Again, I just don't really giveashit about his comments - he wants the law to be upheld, clearly, but his comments in the speech above don't impact the constitutionality of the law, so the whole "OMG HE SAID WHAT?!" is petty.
That's why I'm saying that it's just political rhetoric. He's saying this as a politician, not a constitutional law scholar. I haven't studied the issue enough to have an opinion on its constitutionality, but of course he's wrong that the actual act of overturning it would be inherently activist.
But on the list of things to be annoyed with Obama over, this ranks approximately 1,238,437 on my list.
This makes for awesome political theater. Republicans have been clamoring for years that nine unelected justices overturning laws passed by the majority is activism because it's the equivalent of judges making the law, not interpreting it. It's kind of funny to now have to watch them argue that Oh no, well, overturning this law isn't activism. If anything, this whole episode illustrates how horribly misused the term "judicial activism" is about, oh, 99.69% of the time.
Judicial activism is when you find something in spite of the constitution, rather than because of it. Roe vs. Wade is a great example. Penumbral Eminations? Just write legislation that says abortions are kosher and be done with it. That's a judge legislating because a legislature will not.
Overturning this health care bill because it potentially says the government can make people buy stuff and the constitution doesn't allow for that--that's not judicial activism.
Find me here instead!
I get that the perception of the supreme court being politically neutral has gone by the wayside. However, I am still uncomfortable with the President stating that a potential outcome from the Supreme Court that does not go his way is automatically partisan regardless of whether that is the case or not. I don't really like the prez openly stating that he doesn't feel like the branches of government as they are set-up are failures in carrying out their duties.
Thank you. And I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you! - that this a) didn't get posted yesterday and b) is getting what boils down to shoulder-shrugging.
Nor was legalizing gay marriage, but it didn't stop the conservatives from claiming "judicial activism". It's rhetoric. That was my entire point with my first post on the matter, which was saying that what he's doing here is no different than what the other side has claimed in the past.
For the record THIS conservative has never called a court decision allowing gay marriage activist.
Find me here instead!
The OMG HE SAID WHAT?! doesn't stem from any interpretation of what he did, or did not, mean. He was a former constitutional law professor so the shock isn't coming from the context, it's coming from the fact that it is cringe-worthy given his academic background and credentials. It's something Joezo the Clown would say.
Agreed, and I say this without regard to my feelings about this particular matter. IIRC, there is little, if any, precedent for POTUS to speak out publicly in advance of a SCOTUS decision and essentially warn SCOTUS that it had better make the right decision. I shudder to think that this will become a trend, particularly since the Court is viewed as politicized as is. The correct response here would have been, "I've made my opinion clear, but the matter is in the hands of the Supreme Court Justices now and I trust that they will make a reasoned and informed decision."
this sounds good, but if he doesn't believe it...is this a case where he should have stayed silent or said what he doesn't believe?
do you believe the justices make sound decisions of late? honest question, not snark.
This isn't about speaking his mind on this matter; we all know what he claims to believe, so it doesn't need to be said. This is about respect for another branch of government, and in particular, respect for the judiciary when a matter is pending, which is always appropriate.
As for your second question, this is so incredibly broad as to be unanswerable. I may be an attorney, but I am not keeping a scorecard of the various decisions that flow from SCOTUS.
It doesn't matter if he believes it with his whole heart, it is the middle of election season and his legislation is being evaluated by the court. Preempting their response with a declaration that it would be political if they didn't agree with him is well...political. There is nothing good that could come of this. It is not good that our system is broken if his statement is true, and it is not good that prez is vocally suggesting the judicial branch is political. It would be different if the mandate was a slam dunk, but it doesn't sound like this issue is that clear so I don't even understand his confidence on this matter. Actually I take it back, even if the issue was clear I wouldn't expect him to speak out about until a decision was passed down.
::snort::
Nothing about his reaction surprises me. I am not uncomfortable anymore....I expect it.
People are not falling for this. Obama is worried the SC will deam his major accomplishment unconstitutional (which IMO it is)
It is the SC responsibility to make sure laws passed protect the integrity of the constitution.
As for the "unelected court" - that is by design as well - as he well knows. I worry more about the unelected zars and their power - with no recourse or accountability, as well as the unelected 15 member health care board that will make decisions on health care.
As for judicial activism --- Roe vs Wade is bad law for just that reason.