That's what you were saying but it needed saying again.

Now Justice Roberts is going to have to look(for him)once again politically incorrect(for his side) and side on President Obama's.
(I am talking about Roberts going against his political beliefs and forcing himself to side with the President.)

Wish the world was 1/10th as smart as President Obama.

Justice Roberts just got ropeadoped.

I heard that and I kind of went, "Oh really, Mr. Chief Justice? Shirking your own job are you? Don't have the courage of your own convictions?"

And then I laughed out loud.

I love the smell of rope-a-dope in the afternoon. Smells so much like flop sweat.

not the president?

Otherwise, the Judicary just concedes that you (apperently) can do whatever the hell you want. Presidential Powers, and whatnot.

But yeah, I think on the merits of this Case, DOMA will come down, and IF Roberts votes to TAKE it down, he WILL be labeled a "dirty traitor" by the rightwing loons.

Rope-a-dope does indeed, smell pretty good, don't it?

Another no love lost

Thanks all - this one is just as bad - how interesting that Obama is a Lincoln fan

During the early years of the FDR administration. Tere was no love lost between FDR and the court, to the point FDR proposed increasing the size of the court and packing it with liberals.

And I've never seen the amount of rudeness directed at a president that Obama has been subjected to since his first day on the job - by judges, politicians, elected office-holders, the MSM, etc.

Despite the blatantly outrageous behavior of Dubya during his tenure - the lies, the
economic malfeasance, the idiocy displayed in public (especially on the international stage), the deliberate misinformation, the 'catapulting of the propaganda', the displays of almost unbelievable stupidity, etc. - Dems managed to tone down their rhetoric out of respect for the office of the presidency, despite having little respect for the man himself.

Call me crazy (and you might) but I don't believe for an instant that the rudeness - and downright vitriol - directed at Obama would have been quite so blatant were he white.

The GOP know their audience - which is comprised of a lot of people who think a black man doesn't 'deserve' respect on an equal par with white folk, regardless of the position he holds - and, as a result, understand that however poorly behaved they are towards the POTUS, it will be accepted, if not cheered, by their adherents.

and yes I too believe racism is a factor

thank you!

(for the record, you told me to say that)

You are also perfectly correct.

'Cause it just whacked you squarely atop your noggin.

Perfectly stated, SH.

As a white person growing up in the segregated South, I absolutely agree. The dog whistles are deafening. So sad.

Your so correct! We have said this on here for a while but each new disrespect towards POTUS just makes it that much more clearer, not that it needs to be.......

basically we have a supreme court that can strike down anything that is passed and signed by our elected officials. this is not democracy.

has now gone back to being a bad guy.

How quickly people forget...Just a year ago Roberts was a Good Guy!
Whiplash!

for the whiners.

who would NOT have died had the full effect of the law been immediate upon its passage?

Edited to add: I do NOT expect you to have the basic courage of an honest answer.

deserve any respect.

This is another "leading from behind" Obama stance.

Heaven forbid he take a stand on this.

Shit, if I remember correctly his opinion of SSM was "evolving". Only after polls became more favorable did he change his mind.

As a proud father of a lesbian daughter, I found his weaseling, chickenshit.

Obama has sort of called out the Supreme Court in his state of the union addresses. Particularly, I am thinking about the remarks he made about Citizens United. I believe I remember Roberts sitting there shaking his head no to President Obama's remarks. I don't think President Obama thought he was "rude" to the Supreme Court justices but in honest disagreement and had the right to be publicly critical. Roberts does not see his remarks as rude either but within fair bounds.

But best of all, Roberts shows his ignorance. Our Federal Government is divided into 3 branches for a reason: checks and balances. Even if the Executive Branch (that would be the President) is a Constitutional lawyer, he has no Constitutional authority to make decisions on the legality of a law; that is the Supreme Court's job, and of course Roberts knows that....

In this particular administration, Republicans would pounce on any given opening President Obama gave them to draft articles of impeachment against him for usurping the rights Constitutionally granted to the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch . Within the last week or so, there was a report of one Southern politician who said opposing the African-American President is always good politics in the South.... That act, the act of filing impeachment charges, would be extremely good red meat to the throw to the right-wing base of the Republican party.

But simply as a Republican, I don't think Roberts wants to go down in history as helping to usher in the rights of same-sex marriage and I believe he resents being put into a position where he will have to do just that. So he is pointing his finger at President Obama saying, "He could have taken care of this." It is another one of those political hot potatoes some politicians don't want to leave their fingerprints on. (Before I get flamed for saying that I would like to volunteer the information that when gay marriage was on the ballot in Maryland, I proudly voted yes and cried with happiness the next day when I saw gay couples' reaction to the passage of this law.)

Sam

The only reason Roberts would make those remarks would be if he planned to vote to strike. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter whatever Obama did or didn't do on this matter. And, a president can't strike down a law passed by congress 17 years ago.

DOMA is done. There's no doubt in my mind that Kennedy will vote to strike. I think Roberts doesn't want to look bad in history and will go with Kennedy. If this were a regular liberal/conservative split on the Court, Roberts would go with the conservatives. But he's in a pickle holding a far right philosophy in changing times.

Only way youre wrong, is if there is some obscure (and otherwise GLARING) technichality by which they decide it's not even supposed to be in front of them (which I don't think will happen, lest they wouldn't have taken it in the first place).

It's comming down. Make no mistake, the rabble-rousers of the Moral Right will put on a Public display of Rage not seen since at least Clinton was President, and will try and label it this generation's Roe decision, but it IS COMMING DOWN, and I think they know thay can't stop it anymore.

Rejoice.

he expressed his disagreement respectfully. I don't know about his legal reasoning, I'm just talking about the tone.

Plenty of judges took shots at Bush for example, and probably in sharper language.

Impeach his ass, then!

One might find that Jefferson was treated the worst. Not sure how one would measure though.

"It is emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is."
--Marshall, CJ, Marbury v. Madison, 1803.

(or had you forgotten that little tidbit of high-school civics?)

He does raise an important point. A law that is valid on its terms, i.e. it has been passed by Congress and signed by the President and satisfies Constitutional muster, should be enforced by the Executive Branch.

Obama and the Executive have Constitutional duties to enforce the laws of the land. Part of those responsibilities include defending the laws of the land against legal challenges by way of the Solicitor General. Enforcement and defense are obviously subject to Administration priorities and resources.

While I have viewed DOMA as patently unconstitutional from the beginning, I believe the Obama administration's public pronouncement they will not defend DOMA is arguably a violation of their constitutional duties. It is not the Executive's responsibility or constitutional power to decide if a law is constitutional. Even if the Administration does not believe it is constitutional, that is a decision left to the courts. Every 1st year law student learns the concept of Judicial Review under Marbury vs. Madison.

(because I'm an idiot I guess lol and can't divine what your answers might be)

1) what does this say about Federal Ban of MJ, in either Medical or Recreational use allowed by states. I ask because we seem to be doing a lot of bitching around here about AttyGen Holder trying to trash Cali pot shops in favor of Federal Power...

2) "enforcement", combined with Executive Order Power, suggests that Obama (or any other President) can, under the guise that EO can only limit the scope of a Law, rather than expand it, simply say "well, I have to enforce this thing I beleive to be Unconstitutional at worst, and a waste of time and energy at best, so I'm limiting the Federal Sentence for weed to practically nothing." In that case, what is the real, effective difference between "enforcing" the law, and not doing so at all...a paper trail?

Again, I'm asking because I'm not a lawyer, and for the purposes of this discussion, that means im stupid lol.

What do you think?