President Obama Channels Joseph Stalin and Attacks Supreme Court Justices..

Forcing people to buy a commodity like healthcare is the very definition of totalitarianism. The Constitution and the laws that Congress make are props in the hands of totalitarians.

President Obama accused the conservative members of the Supreme Court of being involved in judicial activism and over reaching, and they better think twice if they vote to overturn the law. (Can you say TYRANT),Give me a break, and putting pro-Obamacare Elena Kagan on the Court was not judicial activism?

Obama said the Obamacare vote had a strong majority, really where? The roll-call vote was 219–212 in the House in favor of passage with 219 Democrats voting yes and 0 Republicans. Voting no were 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans. In the Senate, the Bill passed by one vote.

It comes down to this, for the despot, power is all that matters. Words and what they mean, what they can be made to mean,are the goals of a tyrant.

No votes yet

Big deal--so the president voiced his opinion. What a tyrant. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional anyway and then we can have a serious talk about Medicare for all.

Pink Slip

Words have meanings. The DOJ has ALREADY been asked to clarify the position the President took as it pertains to policy in the 5th Circuit. That is because the DOJ is a litigent in a case on HCR in the 5th Circuit.

"What a tyrant." That's exactly what the founding fathers thought of people who didn't believe they could govern with checkes and balances. Apparently this President only believes in judicial review when it supports him.

"we can have a serious talk about Medicare for all." So what they passed previously wasn't serious then huh? Well you've spent a lot time on this site defending nonsense in that case. Why were we talking so much gibberish when we had the "adult in the room"?

MikeyA

"That's exactly what the founding fathers thought of people who didn't believe they could govern with checkes and balances"

Um, hello....the constitutionality of the healthcare bill is currently being determined in the SCOTUS. They may very well kill it. Sounds like checks and balances are working. A tyrant would not allow such an event. The president may bloviate ad nauseum about their decision, but much like the Citizens United case, he can't do anything about it. Some tyrant....

"So what they passed previously wasn't serious then huh? Well you've spent a lot time on this site defending nonsense in that case. Why were we talking so much gibberish when we had the "adult in the room"?

The only thing I've defended against are the moronic obvious falsehoods (death panels, increasing the debt, providing coverage to undocumented immigrants, etc). Don't confuse this with support of the bill. It's rehashed Romneycare, and everyone knows it.

Pink Slip

"The president may bloviate ad nauseum about their decision, but much like the Citizens United case, he can't do anything about it. Some tyrant...." I guess the difference between me and you is I won't support a President who bloviates, especially during the State of the Union

"It's rehashed Romneycare, and everyone knows it." False, Romneycare doesn't affect everyone from Saskatoon to Amarillo. And programs at the state level are much easier changed. Case in point, one party assumes control and passes a bill the electorate don't favor what's the difference between State and Federal? SB5 and Obamacare. Which one is still around? My point exactly.

MikeyA

"I guess the difference between me and you is I won't support a President who bloviates, especially during the State of the Union"

I'm actually looking to support a much more liberal candidate.

"And programs at the state level are much easier changed. Case in point, one party assumes control and passes a bill the electorate don't favor what's the difference between State and Federal?"

So then what's all this talk about "repeal and replace"?

Pink Slip

I can't think of a person who doesn't support finding a way to support those with preexisting conditions but that would take a measured solution without taking the standardization away from the states. That's bipartisian and it was discussed at the White House round table the President had that he ignored when he passed the very imperfect bill through the house with only one party's support.

MikeyA

I don't mind the bloviation myself, other than that he's claiming it in his official capacity. So he made a grievious and intentional error.

But the people have the chance to correct that error (said error being Obama's election in 2008) in November.

You may not be old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" movement. There were thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or more, of bumper stickers around the country bearing this message. It had no effect at all! Perhaps no group of individuals in the world is more secure in their jobs than are Federal judges, all of whom have lifetime appointments.

The theme of this post is vacuous, partisan garbage!

The point was it's different when a President does it vice the general public.

We should expect the President to be above the fray and dignified.

MikeyA

But that's not what that particular piece of arrogance was. It was a rather blatant threat - and may have been because he already knows how the Court's vote went last Friday. He's trying to intimidate a co-equal branch of government. In my opinion, one of the most politically ugly things he has done since he "inherited" the presidency.

How is healthcare a commodity?

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

radicalism would be disastrous for America, and the World.
He and the Liberals, haven't done one thing except to exacerbate our economic and foreign standings in the World.
Anyone not noticing that is as biased as those duped so easily into voting for an Alinsky , acolyte.

Duped citizens by radical liars, are always dangerous and desperate...a Hot Summer, is anticipated.

1968...is coming back this Summer & Fall...can you dig it ?

And she knows it, but that was never going to happen. I've previously posted on that topic & so won't repeat what is obvious to everyone anyway. Further than that -- she is arguably the least qualified individual appointed Supreme Court Justice in the last century. First, she works on BO insurance purchase mandate, and THEN gets to participate in judging its constitutionality. As far as many are concerned, that spells...
C O R R U P T I O N ! !

On radio this afternoon., Sean Hannity, - and even better, Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ - easily knocked down, constitutionally speaking, everything BO said yesterday and today. Like Jay said, if a REPUBLICAN president had dissed the Court as a whole, for political purposes as BO just did - DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE GONE BALLISTIC!!!

(Exactly)

Who cares, let her rule. If it comes out she did litigate for the law then she can be impeached and removed from office. By not recusing herself she paints herself into a corner if it's proven she had done that. So recusal isn't a big deal to me. Let her rule.

MikeyA

Republicans attack judges ALL THE TIME...tell your own politicians to STFU first...

Show me a Republican President who attacked SCOTUS? What makes it even more worse is this time it was on a case currently being decided.

What's next? The President takes the fellow-Democrat Andrew Jackson's take on SCOTUS and tells them to enforce it. I guess we can say this is just one more case of a Democratic President not really caring about the structure of our government.

MikeyA

Again, Republican congressmen, Republican senators and Republican presidential candidates attack judges constantly, but since “they aren’t the President” it’s SO MUCH different. Not so much. Hypocrite much…

As I said before, we expect the President to be both above the fray and dignified. This was neither.

MikeyA

it's usually the Republicans who rant and rave about "judicial activism". It is usually the Republicans who complain that the Supreme Court does NOT have the power of judicial review, because that power is not delineated in the Constitution, and these unelected people should not be able to override the actions of an elected legislature and an elected President. Of course, if the Supremes are going to strike down a law the Republicans don't like, their judicial activism is wonderful!!

No matter which way this goes, just remember to always support the right of the Supremes to make these decisions.

Maybe 0bama was actually an UNconstitutional law professor?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Stalinistic quotes about the courts by...

wait for it...

Republicans.
--------------------
http://tinyurl.com/7tbq3b3

Ronald Reagan ... campaigning in Birmingham, Ala., Thursday, blasted the court’s most recent abortion ruling as “an abuse of power as bad as the transgression of Watergate and the bribery on Capitol Hill.”

Equating the justices to felons? Anyone feeling unsettled?
--------------------
The humanity!
http://tinyurl.com/7u25gff

For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy—and it needs to stop.

--------------------
More Stalin Attacks!
http://tinyurl.com/5pt3h

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country...And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence.

Plenty more quotes out there...

But it hasn't led us on a fast track to socialism like this President.. Big difference when there is an agenda and when its just in the realm of a stalinistic quote.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Fast track to socialism? Why, because of Obamacare?

Calling ObamaCare “socialized medicine” truly lowers the standards on what could be considered socialized medicine. It’s like calling paved roads “government overreach”; a stop light a “government takeover of your commute”; or a neighborhood with speed bumps “a road to communism.” The law is really some regulations to help consumers buy private insurance coupled with a small fee if consumers decide not to buy said insurance.

Is it perfect? No. Could it be improved? Absolutely. However, ObamaCare is the opposite of socialism, it’s a market solution.

The right-wing got a “free” market solution to health care. That was their cause – personal responsibility their mantra – now it’s law. They got an entire reform bill incentivising citizens to buy into private for-profit insurance plans. This is the Republican vision for America: Less government more profits for giant corporations. This core of the Affordable Care Act was an idea floated by President Nixon in 1974, touted by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, introduced by Newt Gingrich in 1993 and implemented by Mitt Romney in 2005. And now? Now it’s a big festering albatross around Obama’s neck.

So the decades-old Republican big idea finally gets Democratic presidential ink and now, if you ask a Republican, it’s an unconstitutional government takeover of health care Stalin would have loved.

It makes the case that their ideas should never be law because if partisanship beckons, they’ll rally against them and call any Democrats who signed the bill, Hitler.
Imagine if Obama signed the most recent Paul Ryan Budget plan – a blueprint to cut taxes further for the wealthy and further increase the debt by not taking in enough revenues. If Obama embraced it, Republicans would storm the Capitol calling it a tax hike and a Maoist plot with Wall Street. People in tri-corner hats with signs reading, “Don’t raise my taxes!” and “Stop government takeover of business!” would swarm The Mall. The erosion of Medicare would make Republicans faint on the House floor. “It’s a tenet of Marxism to kill grandma!” They’d gasp.

Just remember, when Bush took office the budget was set to be balanced in a few short years. Social security was secure. And then he went uber-GOP-with-a-mandate – didn’t pay for any of the wars he started – just showered seniors with unpaid-for Medicare Part D and sent everyone in the country a rebate check. And when this “free market capitalism” failed? He bailed out the banks and the auto industry with taxpayer money, famously saying he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

Now? Now the Republicans blame the deficit, the debt, the recession, the bailouts and the wars on the Democrat in the Oval Office.

It’s a take on the Pottery Barn rule, “You break it, you buy it.” The Republican version: “We break it, we blame you … and call you a Nazi.”

Obamacare is the crown jewel of socialism among others, If not why hide the funding for it in 2700 pages, that took teams of government economists(The Congressional Research Service) 11 months to break out and identify.
If you remember nothing else, remember this, Obamacare despite the saturation propaganda from our fallen media, is not about improving quality or availability of healthcare. It is utterly and solely about power. Power of the state over the individual. We are now witnessing exactly what our Founders explicitly warned us about and took great pains to protect us from. This is an unmistakable attack on our core principles individual liberty with limited accountable govt. of-by-for the people.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

You're clueless, I'm no fan of ObamaCare anyway. He should have gone for the "Medicare for all" approach and been done with it, but it's hardly a goverment take over. Frankly the main reason he picked this plan was becasue it was the Republican plan they had been pushing for decades and figured they'd get behind it.

Are you sure???? I distinctly remember you saying you didn't like the senate bill that passed but instead wanted the House bill....

"The Senate bill is terrible,
Submitted by SensorG on Wed, 2010-01-20 11:16.

The Senate bill is terrible, the House bill is much better. That said, the Senate bill is basically the EXACT same thing that Brown and Mitt Romney implemented and voted for in Massachusetts."

Of course that was after the debate cost the Dems their majority that the GOP couldn't filibuster.

Just a reminder that if this were the House bill the justices would be declaring that it too would be declared unconstitutional. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5570605-503544.html

from the article "The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate."

In fact the biggest difference between the Senate and House versions was the House version didn't pay for abortions, the Senate bill did. The President assured House Dems that he would sign an executive order preventing it from paying for abortions that never really came. No executive order yet. But then again maybe he's waiting for the Senate to pass a budget first.

MikeyA

"However, ObamaCare is the opposite of socialism, it’s a market solution."

Some good stuff in your posting, but that part really has me scratching my head. Market solution? When has a market ever been defined where you're forced to participate by government fiat?

As soon as that part of Obamacare said "you have to buy health insurance", it crossed the line. Morally, economically and constitutionally.

The rest of it I don't give two S#$% about. It's going to only drive up premiums and therefore drive more Americans out of the insurance systems... which is what the unconstitutional "individual mandate" was designed to stop. Well, the SCOTUS really has no choice but to stop it, since the federal government doesn't have the power to force people to purchase a private product or service. So Obamacare will be undermined; I predict the Congress will act fairly quickly post-decision to de-fund as much of the rest as they can, to make O-care watered down to just another set of pissant regulations that add to the processing costs of health care. Otherwise, millions more will be kicked out of the insurers than today, and the crisis we're only pushing off into the future, will loom closer.

What we're really trying to (unwisely) avoid in the USA is the outright imposition of official socialized medicine. We already have unofficial socialized medicine right now, since emergency care is rendered by law. But the costs have exploded for all care, and pushing off the bills on various sectors has merely been a game of musical chairs. The are far too few chairs now, so it hardly matters what happens to the music in the future.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.