The answers to your questions are No, No, and No. Every administration files
briefs with the Supreme Court laying out their position on various issues. They
always have, they always will.
@Don S. RobertsonPresident Obama is NOT out of line to announce a
legal position on the issue of who is eliible to marry, nor is he trying to
promulgate a campaign to sway the decision of the court regarding their
deliberations on the constitutionality of changing the definition of traditional
marriage. He is not attempting to change the definition of traditional
marriage; he is merely trying to make marriage available to all people, subject
to appropriate limitations (the gender of the person to whom another person has
sexual and affectional affinity is not one of them). He is not attempting to
force a decision on the subject, nor is he attempting to require a particular
decision from the justices. The administration merely submitted a
legal brief setting forth the reason to uphold the equal protection provisions
of the Constitution when addressing the subject of marriage. In other words, he
is protecting and defending the Constitution. That is what he swore to do when
he took the oath of office.
Members of the Supreme Court have a lifetime appointment barring any criminal
activity on their part. Regar4dless of who is applying pressure from whatever
source, the jusitces of the court have pledged to uphold the Constitution as
they interpret it. Certainly issues before the court both past and present
have, unfortunately, been influenced by political leanings of members of both
political parties. But any influence that is allowed to alter the rulings from
the bench are the fault of the justices, not those who wish, hope and strive for
the court's decision to follow their beleifs.
Lol.Study history please.When hasn't the president
tried to influence the other branches of gov? And vice versa? What
Obama has done isn't any different than what the other 43 presidents have
I don't see anything wrong with filing a brief. His public campaigning is
unseemly, but he crossed that line long ago when he railed on the Supreme Court
during the State of the Union address. Propriety never was his strong point. I
suppose he has to give the special interest groups their money's worth.
If the premises of the letter are correct, then wouldn't Congress also be
acting with impropriety by not only issuing briefs but actually hiring lawyers
to argue the case?Or does the fact that they are on the same side
you are on add legitimacy to their actions?Amicus briefs have always
been submitted to the Courts. Politicians from the President in down have
submitted them and such actions have never been found to be improper. Just because you dislike Obama does not mean everything he does is a violation
of his role and duties.
Translation: Prop. 8 is on the verge of being overturned, so I'm going to
whine about it.
Oh come on Maudine.."Just because you dislike Obama does not mean everything
he does is a violation of his role and duties."...of course it does.
Re: "President Obama is NOT out of line to announce a legal position on the
issue of who is eliible to marry . . . ."Agreed.But,
it will be interesting to observe what he does when the Supreme Court declares
that sophomoric, clearly unsustainable legal position to be erroneous, and
upholds the constitutionality of DOMA.My guess is, he'll find
some other dodge to justify going AWOL on his actual duty, just as he's
done on immigration, the budget, support of the military, the Benghazi debacle,
environmental regulation, border enforcement, voter-intimidation, and many, many
other issues.The President feels no moral compulsion to attend to
people he disagrees with or to obey rules or laws that interfere with his
politics. Not only does he refuse to take "no" for an answer, he
can't even accept "yes," if he feels there's more politics to
be cynically milked from an issue.That makes a separation-of-powers
fight with the Supreme Court inevitable, over this, or one of many other
Democrat vote-buying "big-tent" political issues.
I believe in marriage equality for all consenting adults (love is love), but
this seems misguided. It is not the Court’s job to overturn laws which the
Constitution is silent on. If the Court is smart they will kick this right back
to the Legislature and We The People.If we learned anything from Roe
v Wade it should be that when Courts try to make public policy, they often
create more problems than they solve. Plus, this sort of judicial activism
undermines both democracy and the principles of self-government and needs to
stop.Sadly, it probably won’t as over the last few decades
both political parties are engaged in an arms race of activism, nominating
judges who first and foremost believe in an ideology. Judicial restraint and
deference to the elected branches of government (unless the Constitution has
clearly and unambiguously been violated) is typically low on the list of sought
after qualifications.Is it any wonder that in ~98% of all close
decisions, we know exactly where each judge will end up ahead of time?
For some (probably sane) reason, the Constitution allows more than it disallows.
This causes heartburn for people on both sides of various issues, depending on
personal beliefs and individual interpretation of law. Get used to it. If you
don't like how the Supreme Court rules on this issue, wait a few months;
the justices will confront another issue on which they happen to agree with you.
If you don't like this system, perhaps you could move to China or North
Korea or Iran, where the courts are told by the Party, the dictator, or the
Supreme Ruler how they should judge.
The Constitution is mum on the definition of "marriage".But,
the Declaration of Independance says: "We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and
the pursuit of Happiness."My quess will be that the SCOTUS will
rule banning anyone their liberty to the "pursuit of Happiness" will be
found un-Constitutional...and Gay marrige will be approved.Hence,
the silent but growing Republican Support FOR it.[some Republicans
don't want to be found once again on the loosing side of history.]Rough couple of years for ultra-conservative Tea-Partiers.The
economy is improving, Osama Bin Laden is dead, Obamacare passed and
has been found Constitutional, Mitt Romney lost, and Obama was re-elected,
the House and Senate lost Republican seats, assault weapon bans are
in the works, and gay marriage seems likely to to pass. It's know wonder they feel the end of the world is fast approaching.Fortunately it's only the end of THEIR world that is fast approaching.
Face it, change is hard. Change is especially hard when we thought we were on
the "right" side (read: "winning" side) and now it would appear
that society has changed its mind on the issue in record time. Only 10 States
now allow gay marriage, so the odds that the court will issue a wide ruling
overturning 40 other State laws is minimal. However, the handwriting is on the
wall that what many thought was right is now wrong. Best guess on the coming
rulings: Prop. 8 is dead and Doma is as well, but in a more limited way that
will still allow the States to decide the issue.
I love this very idea that the Justices can be swayed by 10 second sound bites
or 30 second commercials. Something tells me if they were so easily
swayed, they would not have landed in the Supreme Court.
Nope. Nothing wrong with a President lobbying for a decision. Any more than
there's anything wrong with any party filing an amicus brief.
Re: "Rough couple of years for ultra-conservative Tea-Partiers . . . . The
economy is improving . . . ."Wait, wait. I thought the President
just told us we're facing an economic Armageddon because he's only
going to have $15B more to spend this year than last.You're not
suggesting our President may have lied to us, are you?I'm
To "Open Minded Mormon" I hate to tell you this, but the Declaration of
Independance is not law. It is an important document, but is not a document
containing laws or regulations for the US. Nowhere in the US Constitution do we
grant the right to persue happyness. Gay marriage should not be allowed because
it destroys society's view of marriage and eventually destroys that
institution. With gay marriage you will end up with more children born out of
wedlock, which increases poverty rates.Lets talk about some of
Obama's other accomplishments:2 downgrades in the US credit
rating$6 Trillion in debt and countingLegal imprisonment of US
citizens without a warrantLegalized warrantless searches of email.$2.6 Trillion cost of Obamacare up from original $900 billion original
estimate.Highest number of people receiving food stampsLeast
transparent government in historyLegalized drone strikes on US CitizensAverage US income is $4000 less than before ObamaLowest labor
participation rate in the past 31 yearsLongest period with high
unemployment since the Great Depresion.Why look to Obama to save the
US, when his policies have a 5 year track record of failure?
"Why look to Obama to save the US, when his policies have a 5 year track
record of failure?"Why look to Obama to save the US, when
Bush's policies have a 8 year track record of failure? In fact,
instead of repubs like you, complaining about how Obama, why don't you list
and demonstrate how YOUR policies are any different? Why aren't YOU folks
coming up with popular and effective solutions?Momma always taught
me that if you don't have any solutions then don't you complain. Simple. Repubs like to complain about Obama for continuing
the policies which the GOP created. Spend spend spend war war war, heck even
Obamacare was the GOP's health care solution in the 90s. It's no wonder why the GOP is becoming so irrelevant politically.
They're difficult to differentiate from the Democrats. And those who
aren't are just too darn crazy and out of touch with ideas that no one in
the right mind supports or likes. Politics 101, come up with
realistic and popular solutions. The GOP has failed at this. And it showed last
year, when Mitt was beaten down into submission by Obama.
Each Branch of government has its own duty. The President has no authority over
the Court or over Congress. His duty is to execute the laws of this country that
are passed by Congress. Of course, he thinks that his duty is to be supreme
ruler and that Congress and the Court are only minor branches of Government.
The truth is that the Presidency is the least important branch of government. He
cannot decide if a law is good or bad and he can't legislate. He is bound
by his oath to execute the laws of the land, so he can't even choose which
laws to execute and which to ignore (as if an oath would ever stop Obama from
doing what he wants). Failure to execute the law and failure to limit himself to
his authorized duties brings into play the specter of impeachment. The Court is bound to rule everything brought before it against the steel rule
of the Constitution, not the rubber rule of public opinion. This Court has four
justices who bow to public opinion.
Maverick -- may I disagree on one point?You say: "Why look to
Obama to save the US, when Bush's policies have a 8 year track record of
failure?"Actually, that is wrong. It's now a 12 year
record of failure. Obama has been forced to live with, and try to work around,
some of the Cheney policies that were carved in stone.
@mike richardsthe president along with the courts are not rubber stamps
for congress as you continually claim. They are equal branches that act as a
check and balance. setting that aside the president submitting an amocus brief
is no more out of line or telling the supreme court they must rule his way then
it is true that the many congressman where out of line or dictating to the
courts when they did the same thing .
To "The Real Maverick" yes there were many failures on Bush's part
too. So again, why do you and your ilk insist that this time progressivism will
work, when we have at least 12 years of history showing otherwise?
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahEach Branch of government has its
own duty. The President has no authority over the Court or over Congress. His
duty is to execute the laws of this country that are passed by Congress.========== What I find amazing is that you say it, you seem
to know it -- so then -- why do you keep blaming everything that happens
in this country on Obama from the price of gasoline to un-employment?He can't do everything, yet you blame him for all things bad, and give no
credit to things that are good.Might I suggest that it's all
just perception problem.
@LDS Liberal/Open Minded Mormon,The President's duties are
minimal. He only has to do a few things: Consider legislation passed by
Congress and then sign it, veto it, or let it pass into law without his
signature. Represent the United States to the rest of the world. Sign treaties
and then wait for the Senate to ratify those treaties. Nominate judges and then
wait for the Senate to ratify those nominations. Be the civilian Commander in
Chief over the Military.He has fewer responsibilities than most
CEOs, even CEOs of small companies. Why then is he flying all over
this nation telling the people that the sky will fall tomorrow unless Congress
rubber-stamps his agenda today?He is a man who would be king. He
was born at the wrong time and in the wrong part of the world to ever see that
dream realized. Meanwhile, he wastes his time on the golf course or in the
bowling alley. Obama violates the law by sending his attack dogs on Bob
Woodward for pointing out just how little he has done for this country.Thank goodness that his power is limited.
"He has fewer responsibilities than most CEOs, even CEOs of small companies.
"Are you absolutely kidding me! I would love to
respond to this, but this statement is just so off the wall. Then you follow
it with..."He is a man who would be king. "Based
on what? What in the world can you point to that shows this president has
tried to become "king" or dictator, or any other just stupid title you
want to put on it."Obama violates the law by sending his attack
dogs on Bob Woodward "What law.... come on Mike... what law was
broken. And the complete email thread has been released, and even FoxNews
admitted they had been dupped by Woodward. There was no threat - the email
plainly reads that Bob would regret printing that because it would ultimately be
proven false, and his journalistic integrity would be challenged - not that
anyone was going to "threaten" Bon.Stop reading your
non-sense blogs - go to the real sources of information. Your
right, his power is limited.... exactly why most of the nation isn't
freaking out... they actually understand the constitutional limit of powers, and
the checks and balances.
The ignorance of so many people who post here would be amusing if it
weren't for the fact that some of them are voters.Mike Richards
is correct. The President has fewer responsibilities than the CEOs of most
small companies. Look at his job description. It's Article 2, Section 2
of the Constitution. It is three sentences long. Why not visit your local
McDonalds and ask to see the job description of one of the cooks. The job
description at McDonalds is much longer. No wonder Obama has so much time to
play golf.Congress has just a few more duties than the President.
You'll find them in Article 1, Section 8. If a "duty" is not listed
there, then it's not a duty of Congress and must be left to the States or
to the people.The Court's duties are found in Article 3,
Section 2. That section is also just three sentences long. Obama
has bloated his status far beyond what it should be for a man of his limited
responsibilities. Except for his duties as Commander in Chief, his
responsibilities are more akin to a glorified cheerleader than to a CEO.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahJ ThompsonSPRINGVILLE,
UT==========You guys crack me up!Seriously.It was just a few short months ago that Mitt Romney was
going to ride in one a White Horse and completely over-haul the entire United
States of America with powers smaller than the CEO of a small company.Now - the 2 of you are pointing out the extremely limited powers of the
POTUS.So, Which is it?
LDS Liberal,The difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama
doesn't know anything about running a business, yet he thinks that he is
qualified to run the United States. Romney has proven, over and over, that he
knows what it takes to make a business work; that he knows what it takes to put
people to work in tax paying jobs. Obama only knows how to pay people out of
the public treasury.That's the difference. Obama knows little
or nothing about his duties. Romney is qualified.That's
exactly why we have three separate branches of government. When one branch is
out of control with a neophyte in charge, the other two branches can compensate.
It's obvious that the Presidency is out of control and it's obvious
that the Senate is also out of control. Reid won't even allow budget bills
get to the floor. Obama can't convince a single Senator to approve his
budget. That leaves us with the House - our Representatives. The House is
keeping Obama from using his economic ignorance to totally destroy us.The separation of powers is working.