http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/politics/obama-health-care/index.html
He seems to be easing off his Monday statement.

At the joint news conference Monday with visiting leaders from Mexico and Canada, Obama was asked about the three days of high court hearings last week and subsequent speculation that conservative justices would rule against the individual mandate.

"I think it's important and I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care," Obama said then. "So, there's not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this and I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."

He also took a shot at critics of the health care bill, noting that such opponents now were calling for the kind of "judicial activism" they have opposed in the past.

"I 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 passed law," the president said.

 

-----signature-----

Wow



We will let the courts decide and the people can vote in November...

That's Obama's stance on the issue... That's some heavy handed 'fear and intimidation' right there... Guess the GOP is scared as hell about the upcoming election...

 

-----signature-----

So all politicians who bitch about judicial activism are "hitting new lows?" Or does your reasoning only apply to Obama?

 

-----signature-----

Obama is being a hypocrite, but then so are politicians on both sides.

They cheer judicial activism when their side wants it and they vilify it when they are on the losing end.

I agree. We've discussed it before, but "judicial activism" = when a judge strikes down a law you like, while "constitutional judicial oversight in accordance with Separation of Powers" = when a judge strikes down a law you don't like.

 

-----signature-----

"In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would 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."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

Wow the 5th circuit must have completely cleared its docket

 

-----signature-----

Sounds like an outpost thread

Good lord. What a total tard Judge Jerry Smith is. They need to shepard him into retirement because he's clearly lost his marbles if he thinks that's a responsible way to behave.


Also, a little google brought up this gem, from a 2003 Q&A:





Only making 150k+ a year is so HARD!

It's hilarious to watch all the "conservatives" get their panties in a wad over the President strongly stating his opinion.

After Citizens United, no one in their right minds doubt that this Supreme Court practices judicial activism. Conservative judicial activism....that idiot from the 5th circuit is just another example of it.

While Obama was stupid (not wrong, but stupid) to say "unprecedented", everything else he said was accurate and true. In context of which he was speaking of course, it would be unprecedented, the SC has never overturned a major piece of legislation based upon one aspect of it. They rule that the part that is unconstitutional cannot be enforced and that is it.