Published: Monday, April 9 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
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.
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.
The Republic survived Dred Scott too. That doesn't make it okay.
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.
@JCSConservatives 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
I appreciate your thoughts, Mr. Benet.
@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.
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
@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.
Re: Twin Lights Louisville, KYObviously 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.
@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
@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,
The Republic may survive, but millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions
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
@@CharlesSo should Clarence Thomas since his wife is part of a political
group that vows to take down Obamacare.......
Living with prosperity is different than just survival.
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.
@ @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
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.@CharlesNo 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?
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments