Political & Elections

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: "Unprecedented?"


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Apr 12, 2012
RE: "Unprecedented?"
Permalink  
 


If coal's entering the 'obsolescence' phase, it's only because the Greenies are behind it, pushing. Stable price, no trade ding, jobs here, but what we get is ever tightening sulfer restrictions and that laughable "can't emit anymore CO2 than natural gas" diktat Lisa Jackson handed down the other day.

Can't really fault her for barking on command, though; our president weighed in early on whether he needed the money from the Luddites or electoral votes from W. Virginia, Wyoming, Texas, etc., etc., etc., long ago, and it seems nothings changed - he's solidly behind shipping resource to China like some Third World colony rather than trying to pad those US employment numbers out a tad.

He reeks more of Carter every day, including that mean little streak that surfaces whenever he's not being praised as the smartest guy in the room.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

.  I don't know that with proof, but I do know that summering at Sidley does not lead to a permanent position at Miner Barnhill for the top African American recruit of the year unless something went wrong.  This is universal -- the process is the same for all Big Law firms and it's done in direct coordination with the law schools.


Fascinating!



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

zoos coal plants are already obsolete. we have a coal plant in Boardman OR slated for closure approc 2025. Owners are already taling about converting to NG within few years. Its currenly cheaper to burn NG than to burn coal even without pollution control upgrades. Also owners can resell its coal purchases to China-japan and make a profit. Which is also good for you and I. Portland General and Pacific Power have coal plants that are near NG reserves. The Boardman plant has emissions that affect Idaho than it affects the deserts of Oregon. anyone want to reconvert NYC-NJ power plants to clean coan plants? anybody in ÇA would like to go back to the old gasoline and engines? I think most of us would like to get rid of gasohol for the reson that it costs us more. money to produce than alternative technologies.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

Zoose,

Thanks for explaining.  The extent of my knowledge about law school and the recruiting process is fairly limited.  



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 227
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

Samurai, Mr. Obama was a summer associate at Sidley.  The recruiting process for becoming a summer associate is extremely rigorous because (with the exception of two years ago and the year before that) when someone is hired as a summer associate, he is courted, mentored and entertained with the expectation that he will join the firm as a permanent associate after graduation.  He is being hired a year in advance for a permanent position at that firm and brought in as a day camper to lock him in.  It generally happens after the second year of law school and the summer associate is really then a part of the firm -- attends holiday parties, events, and is kept in touch with.  The firm pays a lot of money in salary during his summer and the program, itself, is staggeringly expensive.  With the exception of the darkest days of the recession which caught some firms unaware, when the firm makes its budget for a new year, they plan for the exact number of summer associates as they will bring in as first year associates after that class graduates.  It isn't random and it's not based on applicants, it has to do with the number of hours to be billed at a specific hourly rate to make budget.  At the end of the summer, the summer associates are called in and officially given an offer.  It is almost undeard of for a summer associate to not receive an offer.  This is called a "no offer" and only happens in very rare cases.  In my present firm, in the last 17 years there has only been one true no offer (sometimes people tell us ahead of time that their plans are different) and that was about 4 years ago for a young man from a top school who had hand trouble with women and couldn't control his drinking.  It just does not happen.  The competition for African American law students is so fierce that we recruit at different law schools, offer fellowships to them, have special social events.  An African American HLS law review editor is the absolute top recruit of his year.  For him to be no offered at Sidley means that there is something somewhere that went wrong.  I know people at Sidley (we have organizations) and I've always heard that he really wasn't interested in practicing law and made it clear.  I don't know that with proof, but I do know that summering at Sidley does not lead to a permanent position at Miner Barnhill for the top African American recruit of the year unless something went wrong.  This is universal -- the process is the same for all Big Law firms and it's done in direct coordination with the law schools.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

zoose,

What do you mean about "no offered"?  



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 227
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

As we look back even further to Nov 2000 and Sept 2001, would we had wished that President would have made better choices? 

I'm not sure I think there were other choices to be made.  No one can ever know what might have happened but didn't.  I could ask what Saddam might have done with the Oil for Food money if left in power.  I don't know the answer.  No one does.  Possibly it would have been worse.

Is Mitt's vision the same as the R Party? Are the visions looking backwards towards the Old Ways? Do you really want the a fossil fuel economy? Unfettered business? Deregulation? 

There are some values and principles held by prior generations of Americans that are worthwhile to re-discover.  The value of hard work, the importance of family, the value of personal responsibility.  Those have been lost in the sludge of the 60s generation.  I don't support unfettered business, but neither do I support strangled business.  I reject the position that only either extreme is possible.

I want a fossil fuel economy.  I want fracking, I want coal.  I want responsible use of those fuels, using modern technology.  What I do not want is the Obama vision of an economy where gas is $10 per gallon, coal plants are regulated out of existence, and we reject prosperity for our children based on the dishonest goals of the anti-American, anti-Human extremists among us.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

In Nov 2008, I'd think any President would have said, "that".

As we look back even further to Nov 2000 and Sept 2001, would we had wished that President would have made better choices? 

Is Mitt's vision the same as the R Party? Are the visions looking backwards towards the Old Ways? Do you really want the a fossil fuel economy? Unfettered business? Deregulation? 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

What I don't know and really wonder is whether there actually is a group of people who groomed this empty suit to be president and succeeded.

Reminds me of the movie "The Candidate" starring Robert Redford. Redford wins the election, and at the end of the move says:

"What do we do now? "

I don't know if Obama was groomed in that way, but the "What do we do now?" sure rings true.




__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 227
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

How does he get to be President?  I really don't know if it's just wish fulfillment for some or if there really is a conspiracy.

My mother and her lady friends of that generation are often shocked by the revelations about JFK which younger people don't find surprising at all.  I guess it's because there was such an effort by the media to protect his reputation as there is with Obama.  I have no doubt that lots of stuff will come out.  I don't think he was born elsewhere, but I do think it very likely that there were times in his life when using a different passport was convenient, such as the trip to Pakistan.  I also think it will become accepted easily that he was a crappy student and a nasty piece of work.  I'm sure his drug use will come out at some point (I'm not really bothered by that). I'm sure we will find out that the birth certificate presented is fraudulent, although I don't think it's because he wasn't born in Hawaii.  I think the secrecy concerns his father. What I don't know and really wonder is whether there actually is a group of people who groomed this empty suit to be president and succeeded.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

Huh, very interesting insight, zoosermom.  So how does someone like that get to be President of the US.  Curiouser and curiouser. 



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 227
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

I absolutely believe the man is lazy and I'm sure that's reflected in transcripts.  I'm just not buying that he affirmatively chose to go there.  Miner Barnhill (Barnhill is "Chuck," always referred to as "CHUCKIE") has currently put on a veneer of respectability, but back in the day it was a pit.  Now it's a pit with a piece of plywood over it.  I would pay money (and I'm cheap -- I only bet baked goods) to (a) see those transcripts and (b) see his recruiting file at Sidley.  I don't know much about much, but this I do know a lot about AND was working in the field at the time.  Something in there is not pretty and it is not an accident that it's not public.  After he leaves office, we may find out that he was "no offered" at Sidley,which is what I sincerely and non-politically believe happened.  A generally doesn't leap to F without something in the middle.  Knowing that he started his career at Miner Barnhill tells me everything I will ever need to know about Mr. Obama, and that is the case for even active liberal democrats who are familiar with the firm.  It is just so completely at odds with the narrative that even people who like and support Mr. Obama within the legal community are deeply bothered by it.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Apr 11, 2012
Permalink  
 

Sleazy, Law Firms? Who would have guessed?evileye



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

I really hope I'm alive to see it.

Me too.  I've often thought the same thing.  Great work, ladies!



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

I just did a quick google search and came up from this from The Weekly Standard from 2008.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/452yoxdo.asp

THE MAGAZINE

Would You Hire Barack Obama?

The resume of a chronic underachiever.

SEP 1, 2008, VOL. 13, NO. 47 • BY DEAN BARNETT

For over a decade I worked as a headhunter specialized in placing lawyers. I've often wondered what I would have made of Barack Obama's résumé if it had come across my desk.

I'd start off being impressed--very impressed. In the legal industry, almost regardless of a candidate's seniority, the first thing anyone looks at is the candidate's education. Even 17 years after graduating from Harvard Law School, Obama's work there remains his greatest strength. Obama graduated magna cum laude, near the top of the class. This is a real achievement. Being editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review is an even greater one.

It's when Obama leaves law school in 1991 that his résumé starts raising questions. He didn't begin a full-time job until 1993. Between 1991 and 1993, Obama divided his time between lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School, writing a book, and returning to his pre-law school activity, community organizing.

In 1993, Obama went to work for the small Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland. He could have gotten a job with any major law firm in America. His belated selection of a boutique law firm that offered lower pay but a better lifestyle than the top firms is striking. A lot of people in the legal industry, rightly or wrongly, would infer a certain softness from Obama's chosen path.

Between 1993 and 1996, Obama was a full-time associate at Davis, Miner. On the side, he continued lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School, and his autobiographical Dreams From My Father came out in 1995. (Initial sales of the book were poor, though they would take off years later, once Obama became a national figure.) By 1996, Obama was also running for the Illinois legislature. After winning that race, he became a part-timer at Davis, Miner and a member of the Illinois senate, also a part-time job, while continuing to lecture at Chicago.

What is striking about Obama's résumé circa 2004, as he began his U.S. Senate campaign, then, is that 13 years out of law school, he had yet to commit himself to one line of work. More important, potential employers would wonder about a gulf between the ability Obama showed at Harvard and his actual accomplishments. Obama never made it beyond lecturer at Chicago, where he wrote no scholarly articles. He wrote one book, then stopped writing for over a decade. And he was less than a force in the Illinois legislature. After roughly three years practicing law, he had turned away from that career.

As a former legal headhunter, I am interested in Obama's law firm work. Last week, I spoke with George Galland of Davis, Miner--now known as Miner, Barnhill and Galland. When I asked about Obama, Galland raved. His enthusiasm was unqualified. I asked Galland how his relatively tiny firm managed to get a guy with Barack Obama's multitude of options to choose them back in 1993 over the better paying big boys. He said his partner Jud Miner "spent months convincing him it was a better place to work" and that Davis, Miner offered a "superior lifestyle."

Galland added, "Barack could have been as good a lawyer as he wanted to be." This is high praise, and reflects Galland's genuine regard for his erstwhile associate. At the same time, the pattern is familiar: Obama did fine work for Davis, Miner, but his vast potential remained untapped.

So if you'd hired Barack Obama at the end of 2004, let's say to be a United States senator, you would have been on notice: You were getting a wonderfully gifted individual, but one with a history of failing to focus for long on the task at hand. And that's exactly how it worked out for Obama's constituents in Illinois. Shortly after becoming a senator, Obama began writing his second book, and shortly after that he began running for president. His accomplishments in the Senate have been virtually nonexistent.

Looking at Barack Obama's résumé today, part of you would really want to hire him. Talent like his is rare. The feeling would only intensify after an interview process, in which Obama would certainly shine. But you'd still have the cold, hard facts of his résumé staring you in the face. You'd reluctantly have to conclude that Obama's failure to commit himself to any career sufficiently to excel at it suggests some unexplained restlessness. The net effect is this: His accomplishments haven't been commensurate with his talents.

Dean Barnett is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 227
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

His first law firm was Miner Barnhill, which is the embodiment of sleazy.  I've worked on a slew of cases against that firm over the years and I almost fell on the floor when I found out that he worked there because it's one of "those" firms that everyone in the legal community avoids like the plague.  I consider myself pretty informed, but it wasn't until last year that I found this out because it doesn't fit the narrative and is one of the many things kept intentionally secret.  My boss, who is the greatest guy in the world and also a principled liberal (no, really) kept that little bit of a secret from everyone because in says so, so, so much.

For the African American editor of Harvard Law Review to have been hired at that firm is staggering. As you know, I've done hiring for decades at tippy-top firms.  There are all sorts of special recruiting procedures for African American law students. It's a totally different process, as it should be, and an African American grad of Harvard can write his own ticket unless there is something in the transcript.  Something HAD to be in that transcript for him to be hired at Miner Barnhill and that's an open secret in the legal community. Props to him for getting out of there, though, because it is that big of a mark on a person's resume.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I was never an Obama hater (I actually like Mrs. Obama and think she wouuld have been a better choice), but I've come to the conclusion that he really is someone's creation.  As with JFK, the myth will eventually be overtaken by facts and the answers to all the sordid questions will be answered.  I really hope I'm alive to see it.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

Tell us more, zoose.  

Where was his first law firm?  



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 227
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

I must have missed the part of my post where I said I was smarter or more accomplished than Obama,

Don't sell yourself short.  You probably are smarter.  Even a friendly biographer admits he wasn't a great student.  But I'll tell you what, if you provide us with your transcripts we will judge them against his.  Oh wait . . .

How many of you know that Sidley wasn't Mr. Obama's first firm?



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

John Doe, even we mere mortals are entitled to our opinions.  And given  Obama's impressive resume, I'm thinking he knows exactly what he's doing, ie, just saying stuff that sounds good.  He's perfectly capable of saying stuff that is actually correct, and maybe even stuff that is helpful.  But he doesn't.



-- Edited by blankmind on Tuesday 10th of April 2012 06:28:40 AM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

I must have missed the part of my post where I said I was smarter or more accomplished than Obama, jd. Judging by your posts on this thread, though, I think it's possible my reading comprehension skills may surpass yours,

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

vs a Buyout-Opportunist-OPM business person who pays 14% income taxes.evileye

Good choices for everyoneevileye



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

^^ "Groomed" and "smart" aren't synonyms.

The simplest explanation's usually best, blankmind, so I suppose you're right. I've never believed a man can sleep through all of a service, the pews generally being too hard, and over a decade or two, Rev. Wright's love of saying what felt good and the congregation wanted to hear must have rubbed off on our Mensa president.

A little anyway, just enough to occasionally embarass hindoo.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Apr 10, 2012
Permalink  
 

Hope:  I doubt he is as smart or as accomplished as you.  Let's see:

1.  Graduated Columbia University and Harvard Law - President of the Harvard Law Review.

2.  Taught constitutional law at U. of Chicago law school

3.  Successful author

4.  State senator

5.  US senator

6.  President of the US

How do you compare?

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Apr 9, 2012
Permalink  
 

He's a lot smarter than most people including you think.

I am positive that Obama is very smart.  The problem is he's not as smart as he thinks he is, or a lot of people think he is.  I believe that's what I said; and I believe that is causing problems for the country.

I also think he is lazy (before you call me a racist for saying this, he has said it). He is not interested in policy, like Bill Clinton. He is not interested in government process. I completely believe that he said what he meant to say about the subject of this thread. That's because he's an idealogue, and does not take the time to think things through. Hence, his reliance on the teleprompter. I doubt he reads history, or much of anything. He thinks the fact that he's President means the country should do his bidding. It's well-known he has made no attempt to work with congress. He likes campaigning, though, because that's all about him, and he wants the power. Other than that, he'd rather be out on the links, thinking great thoughts about himself.

That felt good. Maybe I should put this post in the cranky thread.  biggrin

 

 




__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Apr 9, 2012
Permalink  
 


It is interesting to me that when a judge upholds the Constitution and our founding principles he's called "activist" by the left.

This culture is so badly skewed to the left that the people in the center look like, and are referred to, as "extremists" or "activists" by the left.

For example, the Tea Party. All they want to do is defend the Constitution and Americas first principles, and to the left they're "extreme."

It's sad.



__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Date: Apr 9, 2012
Permalink  
 

Like I said, Catahoula.  He's just saying stuff that sounds good.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Apr 9, 2012
Permalink  
 

"The answer is simple: Obama isn't as smart as he and his true believers thinks he is. And the American people aren't as stupid as obama And his true believers think they are !! "

He's a lot smarter than most people including you think.  GWB was a lot smarter than most people thought.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Apr 9, 2012
Permalink  
 

His remarks - and the routine clarifications/walk-backs they demand - seemed aimed at the politically clueless, the ones that skipped those government classes and don't even do newspapers.

Is this all the electorate he thinks he needs to get out in November?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Apr 9, 2012
Permalink  
 

The answer is simple: Obama isn't as smart as he and his true believers thinks he is. And the American people aren't as stupid as obama And his true believers think they are !!

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 6, 2012
Permalink  
 

Lots of people are hypocritical hacks, and that seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

There is also a perceived problem with activist judges, on probably every judicial level depending upon which way you lean politically.  I don't disagree with this statement.

The narrative before and since President Obama was elected was that he was an intellectual, highly educated and a Constitutional scholar. I don't disagree with this, either.

What I find amusing is that our President - who is all of the things I listed in the second paragraph above - would make such a ridiculously out of line comment before such a big decision has been made.  It made him look clueless about constitutional law, particularly Marbury vs. Madison. He obviously isn't clueless about the Constitution or how laws work.  So - the next question is why would he make this statement, before a decision has been handed down?  To influence the Court?  To influence the public?  To help sway over voters?  He just stuck his foot in it.  

I don't know what is in his head and why he would make comments when he did, or why he made these comments.  

As for Bush - he isn't president, any longer.  And we know, because we were told countless times by nearly every partisan hack on one side of the political divide that he was stupid and the intellectual inferior of, well most everyone in the Democratic Party.  

The bottom line it is the Supreme Court's role to decide the constitutionality of laws and our President misspoke.  

 

 

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 6, 2012
Permalink  
 

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/04/obama-congress-and-the-constitution/

The Week Obama Jumped the Shark

In a press conference on Monday, President Obama said, “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.” Obama went on to say that the court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns the law because it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Set aside the fact that the House, despite a huge Democratic majority, passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by a margin of 219-212, hardly a “strong majority.” In fact, it barely qualifies as a plurality. Let’s turn instead to the substance of what the president said.

 

Obama, a former community organizer who is perhaps unaware of the finer points of the law, might want to acquaint himself with an obscure  19th century case, Marbury v. Madison, which established the doctrine of judicial review and grants federal courts the power to void acts of Congress that are in conflict with the Constitution. What Obama describes as “unprecedented” has, in fact, been done countless times since 1803.

Then there’s Obama’s confusion about judicial activism. It is not, as he insists, simply the act of overturning an existing law; it is when judges allow their personal views about public policy, and not the Constitution, to guide their decisions and often invent new rights out of thin air. For Justices to invalidate a law they deem to be unconstitutional is precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. (“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution, can be valid,” is how Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist #78.) If one takes Obama’s words literally, he believes an unjust and unconstitutional law, if passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, cannot be overturned.

What the president said, then, was so ill-informed, so ignorant, that people assumed he must know better. There’s no way we can know. But whatever the case, this has been quite a bad stretch for the president. His comments about the Supreme Court, when combined with his astonishingly dishonest attack on the House GOP budget (see here for more), portray a president who is living in a fantasy world — a place where facts and history are inverted, lies become truth, where everything is subordinated to ambition and you simply make things up as you go along. Nietzsche referred to this mindset as the “will to power.” In American politics it’s known as The Chicago Way.

I don’t know what the political effect of all this will be. But intellectually, this is the week where Barack Obama jumped the shark. In a deep, fundamental way, he is no longer a serious man. Nor an honest one. His public words are now purposefully bleached of truth. And that is a painful thing to have to say about an American president.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Apr 6, 2012
Permalink  
 

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

— Barack Obama, on the constitutional challenge to his health-care law, April 2

“Unprecedented”? Judicial review has been the centerpiece of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. “Strong majority”? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes.

In his next-day walk back, the president implied that he was merely talking about the normal “restraint and deference” the courts owe the legislative branch. This concern would be touching if it weren’t coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted to the ultimate judicial usurpation — Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states — that fealty to it is the party’s litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.

...

Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question: If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? Without a limiting principle, the central premise of our constitutional system — a government of enumerated powers — evaporates. What, then, is the limiting principle?

Liberals were quick to blame the administration’s bumbling solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, for blowing the answer. But Clarence Darrow couldn’t have given it.

There is none.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obama-v-scotus/2012/04/05/gIQAZ41txS_story.html

This man, Obama, and those who believe as he does, if understanding of, and belief in, America and what it (is supposed to) stand for are any measure, deserve to be kept as far away from political power as is possible.



__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 582
Date: Apr 6, 2012
Permalink  
 

Peter Wehner is a hypocritical hack. Surely he didn't have a problem with George W.'s constant slamming of "activist judges" when he served as deputy assistant to the White House.The President was right that "for years" we have heard about the threat of activist judges. Yes, we heard from GWB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QffazQIdVlM



-- Edited by Cartera on Friday 6th of April 2012 12:42:20 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 5, 2012
Permalink  
 

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-eats-words-183544524.html

 

Obama Eats His Words

President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law.

He made that statement April 2 in a news conference:

Obama, April 2: Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

As any number of others were quick to point out, there is ample precedent for the Supreme Courtvoiding laws passed by Congress. In fact, overturning unconstitutional laws has been part of the Supreme Court’s job description for more than two centuries.

And the health care law wasn’t passed by a “strong” majority, either. In the House, the final vote was219 to 212, with all Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting in opposition.

‘Unprecedented?’

The first precedent for overturning a law — as many high-school civics classes teach — was in 1803 when the high court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional. That was the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. Chief Justice John Marshall declared for the court that judges must decide what the law is, and must be guided by the principle that the Constitution overrides any act of the legislature.

Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137): It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. … If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Surely the president knew that when he spoke; he was a senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, after all. And as recently as January 2010, the president complained in his State of the Union Address about a much more recent precedent. In his words, “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law” through its decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, holding that the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or oppose candidates in elections.

So if the president knew perfectly well that it would not be “unprecedented” for the court to strike down a law, why did he say it was? The following day Obama was challenged by the outgoing chairman of The Associated Press, Dean Singleton, at a luncheon appearance at a Washington, D.C., hotel.

Dean Singleton, April 3: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence.

The president then attempted to walk back what he had said earlier, stating that he referred to overturning laws “on an economic issue,” and said the court had not done that since the 1930s.

Obama, April 3: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

The “Lochner” reference is to an era in which the court tended to overturn laws held to infringe on individual or property rights. It takes its name from a 1905 case, Lochner v. New York, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a law limiting bakers to a 10-hour work day and a 60-hour workweek was an “unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract.”

The president went on to say that “the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws,” in effect taking back his “unprecedented” remark. He explained that he had been trying to make the point that “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.”

Perhaps so, but “significant restraint” is a far cry from “unprecedented.” Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion whether the health care law’s requirement for individuals to obtain health insurance is an “economic” issue that falls under Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce, as the law’s defenders argue, or a matter of individual rights, as its opponents say. That’s the very question before the court.

More to Come

The matter hasn’t ended. Also on April 3, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans took the Department of Justice to the woodshed over the president’s remarks. He demanded that the DOJ explain them — by noon on April 5 — and in no less than three pages, single-spaced.

The exchange between Judge Jerry Smith (a Reagan appointee) and Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang was transcribed by the Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog:

Judge Smith: 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?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect … that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts ofCongress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

The president would have been within his rights to say that the Supreme Court hasn’t overturned a law like the health care legislation since the days when judges refused to allow limiting the workweek to 60 hours. That’s a matter of opinion with which anyone may agree or disagree. But he misstated the facts (and stirred up avoidable trouble for himself) when he said it would be “unprecedented” to overturn a law passed by Congress.

– Brooks Jackson

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Apr 5, 2012
Permalink  
 


I stand firmly behind what I said.

The guy is clueless.

If he's not clueless, and he actually does understand what America is about, then he is deliberately and willfully trying to undermine it; to "fundamentally transform" it into something diametrically opposed to what it was intended to be, and what it actually was for about 160 years.





-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 5th of April 2012 06:11:16 AM

__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Apr 5, 2012
Permalink  
 

and not enough idiots are going to vote for a guy who has mansions for his cars, wants to escalate wars and increase the the military budget, give tax breaks to the wealthy and continue with subsidies for the most profitable businesses in the world - the oil companies.  George W. Bush was a better and more authentic candidate than Romney.  Its now clear why McCain kicked his butt.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Date: Apr 5, 2012
Permalink  
 

too many idiots will vote for BHO because of the class warfare campaign

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Apr 5, 2012
Permalink  
 

You want to make a $10000 bet on that?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Apr 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

I think it will be a close election, but the results are far from a foregone conclusion. A lot can happen in7 months. Romney is not afraid to hit hard on Obama, as McCain was. Mitt wants to win. Pbo doesn't like to be criticized. Should be interesting! Also, mitt's vp choice could make a huge difference...many other unknowns too. I am mostly looking forward to mr/Pbo debates!

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 147
Date: Apr 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

john doe wrote:

Better get use to it because Obama is going to be in for 4 more years.


 I agree, I do think PBO will be re-elected, but I'll never 'get used' being appalled or embarrassed by what he says or does.

"He has infinitely more of a "clue" than our previous disaster ... er ... chief executive." 

Seriously Hindoo?  It is 2012 ya know.  PBO owns everything now.  The blame/hate/anybody's better than Bush mantra shelf date is a couple years expired.  Although I have heard Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews and PBO himself lean on it quite a bit.   yawn  So 2009......



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Apr 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

Better get use to it because Obama is going to be in for 4 more years.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1124
Date: Apr 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

I find Obama's remarks about the Supreme Court to be embarrassing, as well as disturbing. He is a constitutional scholar?  A "majority" of Congress approved the act? That is just a lie. I am also embarrassed for the people called upon to defend him.

Mitt may be a flip-flopper, but I somehow don't think he has it in him to outright lie like Obama does.

Interesting that the reason I became a Republican was because I care about "people like us."  Look at our inner cities (Dem run), public educational system (Dem run), federal gov't. bureacracies (Dem run). I worked for city government and public education, and it was my first-hand experience that led me to my change of heart.

Democrats are running into the ground the quality of life for "people like us."

 

 

 



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 113
Date: Apr 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

As much as I like you, Winchester, I think you're off the mark on our President. He has infinitely more of a "clue" than our previous disaster ... er ... chief executive. Plus, he seems to care about people like me. I question the thinking of anyone (who's not a billionaire) who's naive enough to think the GOP is even remotely interested in the likes of us. But, thanks to your influence my dear, I won't ever put a bumper sticker to that effect on my car.  ... Thanks again for the book. It's next on my stack.    :)



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 572
Date: Apr 4, 2012
Permalink  
 

why not trust him? he is a law professor, is he not?

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Date: Apr 3, 2012
Permalink  
 

Aw, come on guys.  Obama is merely embracing his media-granted freedom to say whatever stuff sounds good. 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 697
Date: Apr 3, 2012
Permalink  
 

He's clueless. Sorry if that seems harsh, but he just is.

A person with his "understanding" (sic) of America and the Constituion should never be allowed to be president.



__________________
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” – Mark Twain


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Apr 3, 2012
Permalink  
 

President Obama said that if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare it would be unprecedented.  Six out of eight New Deal legislative acts were deemed unconsitutional during the Depression. (See at the bottom of my post)

I am sure that there are better sources out there, and maybe a lawyer or two, plus a bunch of our kids (or ourselves) who just completed AP US History or a government class who can list how many times federal legisltation has been overturned by the Supreme Court.  Hint:. It's definitely more than the 6 times listed in this post.  "Unprecedented", my ass.  

From President Obama's speech: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Would this be the plan that was approved in record time and that former SPeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said (to paraphrase) "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it"? 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_New_Deal_legislation_did_the_US_Supreme_Court_declare_unconstitutional

Federal New Deal Legislation 

The Supreme Court found six of Roosevelt's eight major New Deal statutes unconstitutional, most often due to instances where Congress attempted to exercise the Interstate Commerce Clause in a manner not compatible with the Constitution. 

In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 US 388 (1935), (aka the Hot Oil Case) the Supreme Court invalidated a section of the National Industrial Recovery Act that regulated the sale of petroleum products between states and foreign entities. The Court held that Congress had overstepped its authority by delegating to the President powers not enumerated in the Constitution. The overturned section of the act prohibited the sale of petroleum in excess of undefined state quotas, and failed to set criteria for applicability of the statute. 

In Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railway Co., 295 US 330 (1935), the Court invalidated the Railroad Pension Act of 1934 as violating several provisions of the constitution, including passage of ex post facto laws, and creating arbitrary rules and obligations in a manner prohibited by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Railroad Pension Act made workers who had been employed prior to enactment of the statute eligible for pensions despite their not having contributed to the retirement funds. In addition, the law included former employees who had been fired for cause or who had worked for only a short duration. The Court also held that forcing pensions into a single, pooled fund was unfair to larger carriers who contributed more than smaller carriers, and was not a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. 

In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US, 295 US 495 (1935), the Supreme Court found certain government-imposed regulations of the poultry industry, such as price- and wage-fixing, unconstitutional. The decision limited the government's power to act under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which it had applied to intrastate commerce, and invalidated a portion of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, closing the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Many of the NRA policies, such as setting minimum wage and restricting work hours, were successfully reenacted under the National Labor Relations Act (aka Wagner Act) passed in July 1935. 

In Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 US 555 (1935), decided on the same day as Schechter, the Court struck down as unconstitutional a New Deal addition to the Bankruptcy Act, § 75, the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act of 1934. Under the Frazier-Lemke provision, the federal government exercised eminent domain "in the public interest" by seizing farm property owned by the banks and turning it over to the farmers, in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. 

In United States v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936), the Supreme Court held that the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was unconstitutional because the federal government imposed a tax on processors of farm products in order to fund a program that paid farmers not to grow crops. The decision restricted the government's ability to impose taxes for purposes other than raising revenue. 

In Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 US 238 (1936), the Supreme Court overturned the Bituminous Cal Conservation Act of 1935 that attempted to regulate coal prices and wages by empowering local boards to set minimum prices for coal and to provide collective bargaining services for employees, whose wages were abysmally low. The Court ruled Congress had overstepped its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause and abrogated the state's rights under the Tenth Amendment, by attempting to regulate industry during the production phase. The Court drew a distinction between manufacturing and distribution, affirming the right of the states to regulate production. (This ruling was reversed in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 US 1 (1937)) 


State Minimum Wage Law 

In Morehead v. New York Ex. Rel. Tipaldo, 298 US 587 (1936) the Supreme Court overturned a New York state law setting minimum wages and work hours for women and children, on the grounds that the law removed from workers the right to negotiate wages in exchange for work under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. (This ruling was reversed the following year in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937) when the Court upheld Washington state's minimum wage law for women.) 

Morehead was only one of several state minimum wage laws the Court overturned in 1935 and 1936. This trend reversed with West Coast Hotel v. Parish, (1937). 


Most of the overturned federal legislation was resurrected in other forms, or with appropriate revisions soon after being invalidated. Between 1937 and 1943, President Roosevelt had an opportunity to appoint eight new justices to the Supreme Court, changing the basic tenor of the Court from conservative to progressive. 


For more information on US v. Butler, (1936), and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, see Related Questions, below.




__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard