This is even scarier

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Zimmy, dont feel like playing 3yr old today.
You stated - " they almost always reject even hearing cases of settled law, so to say it is no big deal is a stretch."

Big Stretch? They have overturned 1,315 laws (thats overturned not heard! They uphold most of them!) That would make an average from 1808 through 2002 of 6.7 laws per year ruled unconstitutional. Thats a lot. Of course they receive thousands of requests but many do not make it to the SC.
you were trying to side with Obama and say that if the court overturns the health care its unprescedented which is has been proven over and over in this thread to be utter bull$hit.

Ok, then here is the math 6.7/10000 = 6/100ths of a percent. They uphold or reject 99.94% of petitions. I knew what the numbers were before I made my statement and I will stick with the statement you quoted. It is rare for them to overturn congress or to even hear what is considered settle by past precedent. Those aren't my opinions, they are facts established by the record.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Ok, then here is the math 6.7/10000 = 6/100ths of a percent. They uphold or reject 99.94% of petitions. I knew what the numbers were before I made my statement and I will stick with the statement you quoted. It is rare for them to overturn congress or to even hear what is considered settle by past precedent. Those aren't my opinions, they are facts established by the record.

thats the equivalent of saying its rare for police officers to make arrests. They may respond to 25,000 calls but only arrest 10 people.
Thats not rare, its part of the process to prioritize.
It is commonplace that the supreme court hears cases on established law and will overturn them if deemed unconstutional. Its not rare at all. I will refer you to DadFs posting once again since its tough for you to grasp -

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

"It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Its not rare at all. I will refer you to DadFs posting once again since its tough for you to grasp -

What I said is most of the time, they won't even hear the cases that have precedent in the law. 99.64 % of the time is most of the time. 10/25000 would be that they rarely arrest people relative to the calls. Simple math. Classy responses today Jimmy.

[zimmy]

What Obama should have said:
"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it...I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet...I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

thats the equivalent of saying its rare for police officers to make arrests. They may respond to 25,000 calls but only arrest 10 people.
Thats not rare, its part of the process to prioritize.
It is commonplace that the supreme court hears cases on established law

I have been thinking about how it can be that you can be arguing so strongly against my statements about settled law. Now I see the problem. Settled law specifically is covered by Stare decisis. You didn't know what settled law means in legal terms. "Established law" is not what I am talking about. Of course the supreme court rules on rules that are established. What they do not typically due is rule on settled law. That is a basic rule of the supreme court. You're calling me clueless really was baffling, but in the context that you didn't know what I was talking about, ironically, it makes sense. Whether it is settled law is debatable point. Whether the supreme court is resistant to even hearing cases related to settled law is not.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Ok, then here is the math 6.7/10000 = 6/100ths of a percent. They uphold or reject 99.94% of petitions. I knew what the numbers were before I made my statement and I will stick with the statement you quoted. It is rare for them to overturn congress or to even hear what is considered settle by past precedent. Those aren't my opinions, they are facts established by the record.

Zimmy, if Obama said it's "rare" to overturn a law, then your figures would have some valid place here. He didn't, so they don't. If something has been done more than 1,000 times, it's not "unprecedented". There's lots of "precedent".

That comment, coming from a professor of constitutional law, is as shockingly ignorant as anything Palin ever said.

How completely brainwashed are you and Spence anyway? Do you hear yourselves? Do you really, genuinely believe what you're saying? Would your heads explode if you said "the guy's brilliant, but boy that was a dumb thing to say".

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That comment, coming from a professor of constitutional law, is as shockingly ignorant as anything Palin ever said.

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.

The reality is that his remark was incomplete. It was not a policy position, it was a response to a question. To place it in a box is a deconstructive response not intended to further the debate.

The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant, which another reporter did and what I've posted above as Obama's response.

That's what you should be reacting to no?

-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.

The reality is that his remark was incomplete. It was not a policy position, it was a response to a question. To place it in a box is a deconstructive response not intended to further the debate.

The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant, which another reporter did and what I've posted above as Obama's response.

That's what you should be reacting to no?

-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

"The reality is that his remark was incomplete"

OK, so was Palin's comment about seeing Russia...she should have ended her comment with "if I'm looking thriough the Hubble telescope". Therefore, since it wasn't stupid but incomplete, you cannot use it against her. Sound reasonable?

His remark was not imcomplete. It was demonstrably false, it was erroneous, not incomplete.

"it was a response to a question"

So what? So was Dan Quayle when he mis-spelled potato or whatever mistake he made, and people held that against him. Spence, where is it written that you caan only judge Obama's intelligence by his ability to read things off his teleprompter, things that others wrote for him? Was Palin's comment about seeing Russia a response to a question? If so, you're saying that you won't use it against her?

If anything, his unscripted responses are much more revealing than his regurgitation of someone else's words, right?

"The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant" Hold on. You didn't ask Palin what she meant, you called her stupid for saying a stupid thing. Why can't you hold Obama to the same standard as Palin? Why can't Obama handle the same scrutiny? Why must we give Obama time to re-group, and then come back and tell us what he "meant to say"?

You're being very selective here, Spence. When Palin says something stupid, you take it to mean she's stupid. Fair enough. But when Obama says something equally stupid, you dismiss it, and instead give him a pass, because you'rs sure he really meant to say something eloquent and brilliant.

Do I have that right? IS that about right? You see nothing unfair in your system?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.


-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

snopes.com: I Can See Alaska from My House

The basis for the line was Governor Palin's 11 September 2008 appearance on ABC News, her first major interview after being tapped as the vice-presidential nominee. During that appearance, interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"I think this is geographically accurate


Two days later, on the 2008 season premiere of Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler appeared in a sketch portraying Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, during which Fey spoofed Governor Palin's remark of a few days earlier with the following exchange:

FEY AS PALIN: "You know, Hillary and I don't agree on everything . . ."

POEHLER AS CLINTON: (OVERLAPPING) "Anything. I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy."

FEY AS PALIN: "And I can see Russia from my house."
...........................

From the Thursday, September 11, 2008, World News:

CHARLES GIBSON: Let me ask you about specific national security situations. Let's start, because we are near Russia. Let's start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said, we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

SARAH PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable. And we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked?

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked. And we have got to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska

GIBSON: You in favor of putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously he thinks otherwise.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean that is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.




what the President did the other day, he has done routinely during his tenure and as usual his supporters struggle to make excuses for his arrogance, ignorance and infantile behaviour

Spence, you know that Saturday Night Live isn't "real life" just because it says "live"...right?

can we cross this off her list of "shockingly ignorant things" said?

[scottw]

even the Obama friendlies were shocked

By Editorial Board
Published: April 3
The Washington Post

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S comments Monday about the Supreme Court were jarring.

As we said last week, after the oral arguments had concluded, it is troubling that some liberal supporters of the law are preemptively trying to delegitimize a potential defeat, as if no honest justice could possibly disagree with the mandate’s constitutionality. The president’s initial remarks added unnecessary fuel to this contention. Given the power of the bully pulpit, presidents are wise to be, well, more judicious in commenting about the high court.



Mr. Obama tones down his Supreme Court rhetoric - The Washington Post