posted April 04, 2012 12:52 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 05, 2012 04:53 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 05, 2012 05:43 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 05, 2012 05:53 PM            

i asked you a question..did you actually hear obama's words or do you rely SOLELY on the entertainer aka rush the gossip?

posted April 05, 2012 06:38 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 06, 2012 09:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
That #@#@ is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court. Is there no end to his arrogance

---

I wouldn't go insofar as to say he is intimidating the supreme court. There is reason he is talking about it. This piece of legislation is a big deal. For the record, I do not support the individual mandate for the healthcare law and I do not believe individuals should be required to buy health insurance.

The issue is with such a landmark bill like this, the supreme court has to look gelled together. a 5-4 split in either direction is going to look very very bad. Much more so if it's along partisan lines. That will make it look like this is a purely idealogical vote and there is no clear cut definitive answer to the law itself. It would make the supreme court look even worse then it does now, and if that happens the public (on both sides) are going to get further riled up about this.

Obama has a ton riding on this and I can not blame him for sticking to his guns and wanting to pass this. The media is also going to be paying close attention to this (as they have been) and if he were to stay silent on this issue it would result in some very very bad PR for him and his administration. If he were to remain objective it would make him look like a flip-flopper. So really I would not say this is a power grabbing game. I've seen far far worse in other areas of the government right now and in comparision this actually isn't that bad.

posted April 07, 2012 12:01 PM            

there were NO threats in obama's talk about this. it is very important that the SC NOT legislate from the bench especially along party lines. that they have been seen fraternizing with the "prosecutor" is already bad enough.

posted April 09, 2012 09:24 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 09, 2012 06:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
I respect you Tautomer. I may not agree with you on many things but I respect you and I feel you do the same with me

---

So long as you are fair and considerate to others, and you back up your opinions for why you hold them, I usually can respect someone who I might disagree with.

At this point and time I can only assume what your opinions are, but those assumptions are weak at best, and I fear I will make one too many errors for this so I am simply waiting for you to express them more directly for me to figure out where you stand. I genuinely do want to know where you stand on your political beliefs. Reason being is, if my assumptions are correct, I have not gotten to know someone personally who does have the beliefs that you do, and I must understand in your mind how it works, and how you have come to the conclusions that you have. There's a lot for me to learn about this, you, and subsequently the human mind.

posted April 09, 2012 06:23 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 12, 2012 11:57 AM            

while "conservatives" like to say that buffet is being disingenuous and obama practicing class warfare; and that reagan only raised taxes because tip o'neill pulled a fast one on him in a deal that never happened...

reagan actually spent many months preparing the ground for his tax reforms THAT MADE INCOME AND CAPITAL GAINS equal in terms of taxes and cut out a lot of loopholes that have been REinstated in the last 10 or 20 years.

so we are back to where we were when reagan made this speech...sound familiar?

We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it.

if those loopholes were well and truly closed the actual rate could be lowered, and more money would come in anyway.

posted May 03, 2012 05:44 PM            

what is this? they don't even want THIS ONE to be CONSIDERED!
http://thinkprog ress.org/justice/2012/05/02/475022/mitch-mcconnell-the-chamber-of-commerce-tell-the-supreme-court-to-double-down-on-citizens-united/?mobile=nc

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a case that will enable it to correct its error in Citizens United and overrule its indefensible decision to allow unlimited corporate and other wealthy donor money to influence elections. Neither the corporate lobby nor the Senate’s top Republican are eager to see this occur, however. Both of them filed briefs in the Supreme Court yesterday urging the justices to not only reaffirm Citizens United, but to do so without even hearing argument in the case

before anyone gets on their hind legs, let me say that i see the slant of the writer too. it is their OPINION that citizens united decision was an ERROR, and INDEFENSIBLE.

posted May 03, 2012 07:09 PM            

A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes. The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law.

posted May 03, 2012 11:43 PM            

The questioning by all the justices made it abundantly clear they're not drinking the O'Bomber Kool-Aid.

Still, expect a 5-4 split decision because there are 4 Associate Justices who either won't uphold the US Constitution, don't understand the Constitution or just don't give a damn when the law of the land impinges on their leftist views.

posted May 04, 2012 07:16 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 04, 2012 08:42 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 04, 2012 02:05 PM            

it's "INTIMIDATION" for obama to put forth his reasons why he considers this law should stand.

but no sweat when business interests try to talk the Court out of following its agenda.

posted May 04, 2012 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
so you guys are okay with the chamber and mcconell trying to dissuade the Court from looking into a case? any case? why am i not surprised?

it's "INTIMIDATION" for obama to put forth his reasons why he considers this law should stand.

but no sweat when business interests try to talk the Court out of following its agenda.

no double standard here!

---

Ditto.

posted May 04, 2012 04:36 PM            

So now, leftists are in full throated defense of O'Bomber for attempting to intimidate the Justices of the Supreme Court...saying it wasn't intimidation.

OK then, you say O'Bomber wasn't attempting to interfere and intimidate the Supreme Court?

Well, let's move on to something more Unconstitutional O'Bomber did in that..."not intimidation" speech.

Apparently, O'Bomber, who bills himself as a "constitutional scholar" is unaware the Judicial Branch of government is co-equal to the Executive...along with the Legislative Branch...Congress.

So here, we have O'Bomber way, way, way over the line and meddling in the affairs of a co-equal branch of government.

Nevertheless and regardless what leftists are saying, O'Bomber did attempt to intimidate the US Supreme Court into declaring his Unconstitutional pile of crap...known as O'BomberCare...constitutional when it's not.

In fact, a federal judge ripped O'Bomber over his comments and this is the story.

Apr 3, 2012 8:04pm
Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain ‘Obamacare’ Statements

In a remarkable, partisan exchange in a Texas courtroom Tuesday, a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law.

Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.

“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President — stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review,” Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.

“The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific,” he added.

Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be “an unprecedented and extraordinary step” if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by “a democratically elected Congress.”

“I would 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 — and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, there’s a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Obama’s argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure.

“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” he said.

“Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes,” Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question.

Smith didn’t back down explaining that Obama’s statements had “troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that’s not a small matter.” He also referred to the law in question as “Obamacare,” an informal reference that has been politically charged.

Kaersvang again reiterated the administration’s deference to judicial review, but Smith was not satisfied, moving to demand an annotated explanation 48 hours from now.

Neither spokesmen for the White House nor Department of Justice would comment on the matter.

Speaking at an Associated Press luncheon today, Obama appeared to try and clarify his position, arguing that it’s been decades since the Supreme Court struck down a law on an economic issue, such as health care.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it,” he said, “but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/judge-demands-obama-pledge-allegiance-to-federal-courts/