Quantcast

Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Republic will survive Obamacare ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 9 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Senator Bennett,

I often agree with you. Two points of disagreement here.

First, reference the Florida Bush v. Gore case, I have always thought that the US Supreme Court should have stayed out of it. It was a Florida election issue and should have been settled by the Florida Supreme Court. Had it been in Utah, Utahns would likely feel similarly.

Second, reference Citizens United. It did not open "the door for more speech by more people". It opened the bomb bay doors of corporations (which, despite anything else we may think, are decidedly not persons in the most widely understood sense). More money simply means more influence by the few (who already had plenty anyway) - which is not good for the Republic.

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

This is a shockingly naive opinion letter from Bennett. The America we know and love will not survive if the Supreme Court cowers and gives in to the attack from the left wing executive.

Obama's threats towards the court are unprecedented. He has thrown all of his training in constitutional law out the window in an effort to frighten the court into advancing his welfare state agenda.

If the court gives in and upholds Obamacare, all Americans will suffer. America will truly become just another failed European-style post-Cristian welfare state.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Republic survived Dred Scott too. That doesn't make it okay.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Twin Lights Louisville, KY
"I have always thought that the US Supreme Court should have stayed out of it. It was a Florida election issue and should have been settled by the Florida Supreme Court"

Actually Bush vs Gore election was a national issue to determine the next US president. Obama has been backpedaling ever since he put his foot in his mouth and questioned the authority of the US Supreme Court. He has known since he signed Obamacare into law that it was unconstitutional. When the ruling is announced Obama is going to get his hand slapped.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@JCS
Conservatives rail against "judicial activism" all the time. Obama's remarks (which were quickly clarified) are what is considered standard operating procedure by conservatives whenever a case doesn't go their way.

John Stewart Pill
Salt Lake City, Utah

I appreciate your thoughts, Mr. Benet.

@Charles
the greater outdoors, UT

@atl: there was nothing to clarify. all who read or heard his comments knew exactly what he was trying to do -- intimidate the Supreme Court. No other POTUS has done what Obama did, ever.

And how is it judicial activism if SCOTUS strikes down the law as unconstitutional? They aren't creating law like Roe v Wade or the Calif Supreme Court in Prop 8.

All they will be saying is, Congress, you wrote a law that is unconstitutional and Mr President, you signed that law which is unconstitutional. Go write another one if you want but this time, read the Constitution BEFORE you write it so we don't have to pass it to find out what's in it.

Sounds good to me.

Bennett is irrelevant these days. He's a big government guy so he's okay with Obummercare.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
"Obama's remarks (which were quickly clarified) ...."

Yeah, Obama started backpedaling faster than the Egyptian military in the Sinai during the Six-Day War when Israel cut them off from their retreat.

Let's be honest here. A federal appeals judge ordered the Justice Department to explain President Obama's comments on the health care case, and Obama asked for help getting his foot out of his mouth.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

@Charles,

"there was nothing to clarify. all who read or heard his comments knew exactly what he was trying to do -- intimidate the Supreme Court. No other POTUS has done what Obama did, ever"

First, I have tried to find the threat made by the President to no avail. The quote most often cited is this one: "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."

You can easily (and appropriately) criticize the president for being wrong in his analysis. The Supreme Court routinely overturns laws that are passed by a wide majority. You can also criticize him for jumping in at a point where his doing so might well backfire. But I simply do not see the "threat".

Second, look up the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Now that was a threat.

Rifleman, (I loved that show)

I understand that Bush v. Gore was an issue with national importance. But (even before it was settled) I thought the State should determine how the voting was going in those districts.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Twin Lights Louisville, KY

Obviously the US Supreme Court view their jurisdiction over national elections differently than you do. Your opinion on the matter is moot.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals federal judge Jerry Smith ordered the Department of Justice to write him a three-page, single-spaced letter discussing the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation. The Obama Administration meekly complied. I think that little "stay after school" punishment was rather funny.

@Charles
the greater outdoors, UT

@Twin Lights: I've read over my comments and don't see where I used the word threat. Not sure how you got hung up on that word since I never used it. Nice straw man though!

No one has done what Obama did in trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to leave an unconstitutional law on the books.

This should be overturned 8-0 with Kagen having recused herself from the proceedings. That inactivity should have been loudly condemned since she was the one who was writing the arguments to support the law. She apparently has no integrity.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

@Charles,

Sorry the word "threat" came from the media reports. But have it your way I'll use the word "intimidate".

The President is hardly intimidating the Supreme Court (and I would find it nearly incredible that any of them actually feel intimidated).

Please feel free to provide the evidence of how the President is intimidating the Supreme Court (given the Justices benefit from life time appointments).

Rifleman,

I understand the Court views their jurisdiction differently. They are certainly entitled to have a different opinion. And so am I.

I assume there are cases in which you disagree with the court. And on those, you are also entitled to your opinion (despite it, like mine, being moot).

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

The Republic may survive, but millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions will not.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

The reality is this: The decision is a no-win for the GOP either way.

If the Supreme Court throws out Obamacare, it will become a rallying cry for the left and sweep Obama and Democrats back in office for a second attempt.

If the Supreme Court votes in favor, it becomes the law of the land and then Obama will be able to point to it as a key accomplishment for poor and middle-class Americans.

Noodlekaboodle
Salt Lake City, UT

@@Charles
So should Clarence Thomas since his wife is part of a political group that vows to take down Obamacare.......

worf
Mcallen, TX

Living with prosperity is different than just survival.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Not only survive, but thrive. The so-called Obama/Romney care concept is a step in the right direction. We just need to go further with it and serve the people of this nation instead of monied special interests.

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ @Charles, when you say "No one has done what Obama did in trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to leave an unconstitutional law on the books", I simply respond that you should go back to school and take some history classes. President's have complained about the Court since the early days of the nation.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

A well reasoned, thought out letter from the Senator. While I generally do not consider myself Republican, I think the nation lost when he was defeated in Convention. If we could step back and analyze a problem on its merits, rather than "who came up with the idea" I think a lot more good could be done in this Country.

@Charles
No other President? Look at FDR and the new deal. He wanted to place 6 more judges on the court, so they would stop striking down his achievements.

The President has a vested interest in the upholding of this law, so of course he would campaign for it. Was he trying to intimidate anyone? No. Even so, it says more about the Court if 1)they allow it or 2)even address it. I am confident the President is clear on how the 3 branches of government work.

When Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in California, the LDS Church used much of the same language the President did, they were saddened a law , legally passed by the People, would be stricken down. Was that intimidation?

homebrew
South Jordan, UT

More lies and garbage from the gop hypocrites. The affordable healthcare act will be found constitutional, because it is. Even our forefathers had the foresight to see that ammendments would be needed to change the constitution. It was written over 200 years ago. One could not even imagine what changes there would be in the world. FDR tried to write a second bill of rights, that included national healthcare. That was 70 years ago. The CBO says the bill will save trillions of healthcare dollars over time. These are facts! Lie about them or arguements about them, doesnt change the facts.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments