The SCOTUS would be doing something "unprecedented" if it overturns ObamaCare?
Dingle Barry is supposed to be a "constitutional law professor", WTF does he think that the Supreme Court does?

Why did he invoke the human element of the story? Does that change the CONSTITUTIONALITY of his doomed to fail landmark POS legislation?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/04/barack-obama/obama-attaches-stark-terms-possible-supreme-court-/

If you're not embarrassed by this numbnuts lack of legal comprhension, at least be afraid of the shameless demagogary and disrespect for due process. This is the kind of shit that got Mussolini's career started.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The SCOTUS would be doing something
> "unprecedented" if it overturns ObamaCare?
> Dingle Barry is supposed to be a "constitutional
> law professor", WTF does he think that the Supreme
> Court does?
>
> Why did he invoke the human element of the story?
> Does that change the CONSTITUTIONALITY of his
> doomed to fail landmark POS legislation?
>
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements
> /2012/apr/04/barack-obama/obama-attaches-stark-ter
> ms-possible-supreme-court-/
>
> If you're not embarrassed by this numbnuts lack of
> legal comprhension, at least be afraid of the
> shameless demagogary and disrespect for due
> process. This is the kind of shit that got
> Mussolini's career started.

You must be some kind of dweeb that doesn't understand how the Constitution works.

Do you think this has anything to do with him having been the President of the Harvard Law review? You think?

People forget Obama took top honors in his Law degree at Harvard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettling-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html

Hey dont take my word for it, even listen to this usually libard Obummer apologist at the Post. Even she is dumbfounded at the retarded misunderstanding that Dingle Barry has of how the system works.

Obama strategy: appeal to dipfucks who have ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL knowledge and who think ObamaCare should not be overturned simply because it is a "good thing"....

Misinformed halfwits and willing/eager Big Gov liars are Obumass's constituency.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

If I had Obama as a professor, I would ask form my money back. He clearly has no comprehension of how the constitution works. Any 1L could have debunked this idiot's misunderstanding of the constitution.


White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in "shorthand" since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Hello WingNut, nice to have you back. I thought you died.

Blessed are the murderous.

Shorthand my ass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that
> speaking on Monday the president was not clearly
> understood by some people because he is a law
> professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Worst. Spin. Ever.

Even the crappiest attorney in the land would not fall for this. If this is true, the Illinois state bar should call him up for a review.

No law professor speaks in shorthand. That is their problem. Legal briefs and opinions don't meander for pages and pages because those in the legal profession are known for their shorthand.

SCOTUS overturning this would not be unprecedented, and neither would a President criticizing a SCOTUS decision. Both sides are engaging in some pretty dishonest political theatre.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SCOTUS overturning this would not be
> unprecedented,

The President said it would be. The quote has been reported numerous times. Are you suggesting that you, a non-lawyer, knows more about what is constitutionally unprecedented than President Obama, who is a former constitutional law professor and current President of the United States?

> and neither would a President
> criticizing a SCOTUS decision.

He is prejudging one and firing a warning shot without provocation. That is a bit more than criticizing.

FDR tried to stack the court after it overturned the National Recovery Act and Andrew Jackson ignored the court. If you go back and look at the Alien and Sedition Act, the suspension of due process during the Civil War and the creation of multiple Banks of the United States, there is a long history of presidents from all parties giving the finger to the Judicial Branch.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FDR tried to stack the court after it overturned
> the National Recovery Act and Andrew Jackson
> ignored the court. If you go back and look at the
> Alien and Sedition Act, the suspension of due
> process during the Civil War and the creation of
> multiple Banks of the United States, there is a
> long history of presidents from all parties giving
> the finger to the Judicial Branch.


Again, there is a difference between giving a finger to the court and demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding judicial review. A law professor should know the difference.

Barry has the nerve to talk about activist judges when the 9th circuit is out of control for the libs!