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.
Re: Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law
THAT part made me chuckle. Like a really public dunce-cap homework assignment.
My Chart My Nest Bio
I think the DOJ lawyer is a woman, Dana Lydia Kaersvang.
Bad Bridey, assuming.
I would blame it on lack of coffee, but I've had four cups today, so.....
::shameface::
My Chart My Nest Bio
I'm starting a rumor - bridey has declared a War on Women.
I totally heard that too. Pass it on.
Bridey hates women? I'm totally putting it on FB.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Excellent point.
She also talks about beer a lot. Everyone knows women can't handle beer.
My brother in law's name is Lydia.
Okay so it's Dana but Lydia would have been more fun. lol
Click me, click me!
My brother in law's name is Lydia.
Okay so it's Dana but Lydia would have been more fun. lol
Click me, click me!
Yeah I think what he said was disturbing and I still stand by my earlier post that it smacked of a threat to the Court. Based on other things he has done/things he has signed, this sort of behavior is nothing but expected...and more people should be concerned.
I'm not speaking for 2V, but I can say with every shred of integrity that ANY president making this kind of assertion would bother me GREATLY. It's outlandish and, to borrow from his own statement, overreaching.
But that's not the argument. The word in question is Threatening.
Yup, it's apparent election season is here!
Stupid (especially given his background), political, and incorrect?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Threatening? Not so much.
Click me, click me!
No, not everything. But do you really think that his comments weren't a thinly veiled threat to sway the Court? If he's so confident that they will uphold his law and not resort to judicial activism, then why even say it/suggest it? Because he slipped? Because he made a dumb move? There's one thing Obama is not .... and that's dumb.
Completely unnecessary.
A threat of what, though? What is he threatening to do if the Court doesn't uphold the Affordable Care Act?
I fail to see how this is much different than Mitch McConnell saying that Commerce Clause will be an ancient relic if the statute is upheld. The difference is that McConnell's statement provides great fodder for debate about the extent of the Commerce Clause while Obama's statement that overturning this law would be an "unprecedented" or "extraordinary" step is just patently wrong. It's all just political posturing, but Obama stepped in it a bit in the process.
It's a joke. Simmer down.
Click me, click me!
It may have been a joke but it certainly seemed to inject race into a thread where there was none.
Click me, click me!
(1) McConnell is not the POTUS.
(2) Funny enough, McConnell was not insinuating judicial activism in his comments (and thereby calling into question the Court's integrity if the decision goes against his wishes).
(3) I don't think intimidating comments necessarily have to follow up with actually doing something.
Persoanlly, I think this will actually backfire.
And I personally think it will have no bearing on what the Court decides. And I'm not aware of a single legal scholar who thinks it will have any affect on the Court.
As for the rest, you really don't think that saying finding the law constitutional will essentially rip up the constitution would be calling into question the integrity of the Court if the decision goes the other way?
Again, people have been crying "judicial activism" for years for political purposes. Were they all trying to intimidate the court? Or perhaps just sway public opinion? Obama's statement was wrong, but I'd hardly call it intimidating. I really don't think any of the justices are intimidated by anything the president says in a press conference.
(1) No, it's saying they came to the wrong decision, not the wrong decision for political reasons.
(2) Maybe I'm wrong but I think the cry of judicial activism usually comes after the decisions are made, not an accusation/warning before a decision is made.
(3) The justices may not give a crap what he says, but if they do strike it down, he will say he was right...and I think that will backfire.
See: Terri Shiavo. YWIA, end of replies.
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Jamie__Chandler_EB1949C1-54DB-4ED6-A99F-54069D933302.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/another_terri_schiavo_moment036486.php?page=all
I don?t know that a judge in Texas suddenly challenging the President of the United States to a constitutional fistfight can really be compared in its power to the spectacle of U.S. Senators calling themselves into a special session to micromanage an end-of-life decision in Florida. It obviously involves arcane issues that don?t much affect regular folks immediately. But at a time when the entire conservative movement and the GOP is fixated on the twin goals of destroying health reform and the president who has succeeded in enacting health reform legislation, exposure of their remarkable hypocrisy and extraordinary aggressiveness could turn more than a few persuadable heads. And if nothing else, progressive voters may gain a better understanding that presidential appointments to lifetime positions on the federal bench have real-life consequences for decades.
So rage on, Judge Smith, and cheer on, conservative battlefield converts to the value of judicial review. If nothing else, you may semi-permanently disable yourselves from shouting about judicial activism.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/24/nation/na-judges24_
WASHINGTON ? The legal struggle over the fate of Terri Schiavo is exposing what some see as a credibility gap for the Bush administration, Republicans in Congress and social conservatives who want to rid the federal judiciary of so-called activist judges and even strip them of authority.
In the Schiavo case, President Bush and congressional Republicans exhorted the judiciary to intervene, having passed extraordinary legislation over the weekend giving her case a day in federal court. The maneuver expanded rather than contracted federal power, and appeared to encourage the sort of activism that they had long condemned.
As lawyers for the parents of the brain-damaged woman continued their race through the federal courts late Wednesday in what appeared to be an increasingly long-shot effort to save her life, the legal wrangling is even giving pause to some conservative legal scholars.
Several say the federal courts, by refusing to intervene in the Schiavo case, have so far exercised admirable judicial restraint. And some say the move could undermine conservative efforts to reshape the federal bench, a campaign that is expected to soon come to a head in the Senate.
"Congress' desire to get a particular outcome led it to invite the courts to be activist, and the judges have properly refused," said Douglas Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University School of Law, and a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
Harvard law professor Charles Fried, another Justice Department official under Reagan, accused Bush and congressional Republicans of backsliding on their long-standing commitment to states' rights.
In their intervention in the Schiavo case, the Republicans embraced "the kind of free-floating judicial activism, disregard for orderly procedure and contempt for the integrity of state processes that they quite rightly have denounced and sought to discipline for decades," Fried wrote in the New York Times.
The defenders of the last-ditch moves said they saw no contradiction, and asserted that Congress was acting within its power in an unusual case of singular importance. Federal courts have long played a role backstopping the state courts to review possible injustices, they argued.
The Schiavo appeal is not a question of activism, said John Eastman, a professor at Chapman University law school, who said he was nonetheless disappointed at the short shrift the federal bench had given the case. " It is a little lack of courage," he said.
The administration and congressional Republicans in recent years have voiced a much less tolerant, and occasionally hostile, view of the jurisdiction of federal courts.
The Republican Party platform adopted at the GOP convention last summer suggested that Congress strip courts of their authority to hear cases when they were "abusing their power" with rulings on such issues as abortion and display of the Ten Commandments.
Though some legal experts believe such moves violate the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution, the authors of the platform statement said they were needed to restore balance to the federal courts.
THIS is why I'm O_O at the hypocrisy of the right. Only when it suits them, is it okay and in fact necessary!!!11