Obama "warns" unelected SCOTUS about overturning ACA.

[Glocktogo]

Romney supports Romney care, is that different since it's state run rather than fed?
"Sweeping new laws that expand the scope of government", patriot act? Only one candidate has spoke to shrinking gov. and curtailing it's powers and that's Paul and he's "crazy".
Some would contend because of the situation the country's in there are going to have to be changes, the question is whose changes, and will they be negotiated with the people, sold to them, or crammed down their throats?

Never underestimate The Slave Mentality.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/670-understanding-the-slave-mentality

 

[Billybob]

Never underestimate The Slave Mentality.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/670-understanding-the-slave-mentality

That's a good read.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

The SCOTUS is an equal branch of the government. The POTUS has no business warning, intimidating or threatening another branch of government. These Chicago thug antics are really getting old.

And how about all the unelected CZARS our esteemed POTUS appointed without congressional oversight or approval? This guy's ego needs to be put in check.

 

[Glocktogo]

The SCOTUS is an equal branch of the government. The POTUS has no business warning, intimidating or threatening another branch of government. These Chicago thug antics are really getting old.

And how about all the unelected CZARS our esteemed POTUS appointed without congressional oversight or approval? This guy's ego needs to be put in check.

When caught under pressure, you revert to your training!

 

[Dale00]

The SCOTUS is an equal branch of the government. The POTUS has no business warning, intimidating or threatening another branch of government. These Chicago thug antics are really getting old.

And how about all the unelected CZARS our esteemed POTUS appointed without congressional oversight or approval? This guy's ego needs to be put in check.

Yes, indeed. But how to put it in check? His spokesman says he didn't mean what he said. And apparently he can't be bothered to apologize himself.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney struggled today to walk back President Barack Obama’s false statement Monday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn a law “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Carney repeatedly fended off reporters’ questions at his daily briefing about the president’s remark, arguing that Obama meant there were no laws of “national economic significance” that have been overturned by the court in the past 85 years.

And Carney ridiculed anyone who thought otherwise. “A handful of people didn’t understand what he was referring to,” Carney said.

Carney said Obama does not regret using the word “unprecedented” and noted that Obama clarified the remark Tuesday during questioning at an Associated Press conference.

But the unedited original remark appears just plain wrong. And giddy Republicans released an extensive list of laws passed by Congress but overturned by the courts. And they have ridiculed his claim that the 219-212 majority for the health care reform law in the House represented a “strong majority.” (The core of the health care law did get 60 votes in the Senate.)

When asked repeatedly if that amounted to a “strong majority,” Carney diverted the questions to bashing the budget blueprint put forward by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) instead.

...Republicans point to two fairly recent cases where the Supreme Court struck down laws on Commerce Clause grounds. But neither was of “national economic significance” - one was a piece of the Violence Against Women Act and another overturned a ban on guns in school zones.

Carney also deflected questions about Senate Democrats’ failure to vote on a budget resolution in each of the past three years. Carney said only a bipartisan negotiation would yield spending legislation that the president can sign into law, and each chamber passing a partisan budget wouldn’t get any closer to achieving that result.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/white_house_still_playing_defense_on_barack_obama_scotus_remarks-213624-1.html?zkMobileView=true

 

[AKguy1985]

Nobody should be forced to buy insurance.

 

[bmwguy25]

Yes, indeed. But how to put it in check? His spokesman says he didn't mean what he said. And apparently he can't be bothered to apologize himself.

View attachment 20048
http://www.rollcall.com/news/white_house_still_playing_defense_on_barack_obama_scotus_remarks-213624-1.html?zkMobileView=true

Why not he sure apologizes for everything else we do..

 

[Mos Eisley]

Sometimes he's just plain stupid. Then sometimes I wonder if he's really counting on all of his supporters to be so stupid they won't know that what he's saying is pure BS. You are barely hearing the grumblings of his voters that know he hasn't lived up to his campaign proimises.

 

[Werewolf]

Never underestimate The Slave Mentality.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/6...lave-mentality

If you believe so, then their rights are not limited or exclusive. They are free to say whatever any other American has a right to say.

SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions that members of the military do have limited rights to free speech.

If you believe they do not, then you have relegated the troops to the position of second class citizens, or even property of the state. There is NO in-between.

At least the author has the ability to recognize reality.

Discipline and military coherence be damned.

Stated by one who obviously never served in the military and has no idea why discipline and coherence, to use his words, are so very important to the military being able to fulfill its mission.

Either these men and women have First Amendment protections and are full citizens or they are mechanisms of the government whose civil liberties have been erased.

The author forgets or is unaware that a fundamental foundation of our constitution is that the military must always be subject to governance by civilian authority. The founders set it up that way on purpose less the armed forces someday decide they should be in charge.

Serving in the armed forces is a choice these days. If one joins without understanding the ramifications and consequences and one doesn't like the rules then it sucks to be you.

In this case it sucks to be the Seargent.

He may be being railroaded by a vindicative administration or he may have violated the UCMJ rules regarding political speech - I'm not a lawyer and can't make a qualified judgement in that regard but my gut tells me he's being railroaded and the website he runs hasn't crossed the line in the sand set by the UCMJ.

That said:
I didn't finish the article after reading the section quoted: What would be the point. The author knows not of what he speaks.

 

[WTJ]

Romney supports Romney care, is that different since it's state run rather than fed?
"Sweeping new laws that expand the scope of government", patriot act? Only one candidate has spoke to shrinking gov. and curtailing it's powers and that's Paul and he's "crazy".
Some would contend because of the situation the country's in there are going to have to be changes, the question is whose changes, and will they be negotiated with the people, sold to them, or crammed down their throats?

IAW the US Constitution, 10th Amendment, it is up to the individual state. I have no clue of what the Mass rules state.

Having said that, you are likely correct about Romney.