This guy used to teach Constitutional Law for a living?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
nekulturny

nekulturny

Splendid
Feb 9, 2012
5,150
0
26,460
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would 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."
Click to expand...

Isn't reviewing existing law that was passed by Congress the entire purpose of the Supreme Court? :ange:
 
Hmm, I've heard two opposing opinions as to what would happen should the SCOTUS overturn Obamacare. First is that it would serve as a rallying cry for liberals & Dems (is there a measurable difference??) in the election. 2nd is that it would prove a humiliation for Obama and negatively affect his reelection chances. I'm sure Romney will make hay with it.

Personally, the only thing I like about it, is that now my 23-yr-old daughter who graduated with a degree in something about ocean environment, maritime law, and some other stuff (heh, you can tell its an amalgamated degree) from URI last year, and is now back in school to get a useful, employable degree in nursing, is covered under my health insurance policy until she turns 26.

Considering that in the past year she has sprained her knee, been to the ER several times, and various other mishaps totalling around $20K if uninsured, I'm pretty happy about that 😀.
 
The part that sucks about your situation Fazers.. is that the college provided a worthless degree, made money on it, and doesn't help career placement or anything else.

That to me is a giant scam that needs to be addressed.
 
I never liked the worthless degree argument. It makes me feel like you cant study what you want you have to get a degree in certain fields. But then again I also think college should be cheaper.

As for the Individual Mandate I am curious to read the judges opinions.
 
Personally, I strongly believe in autodidacticism. Self directed learning. We have more tools available today to educate ourselves than ever in history.

Yet, we continue to follow the same path that has been in place for centuries. Many of the people who have had the greatest impact were self educated people.

There are many fields I am interested in and can purchase a book on, or attend cheap/free classes, or even discuss with others. I do not need to go to college/unversities to attain this knowledge.

What's the difference from buying a college book, reading it, understanding it.. $130.. and buying that same book to have a professor discuss the contents of the book.. for $2500.

There are areas where yes, you may need a professor or instructor. Do you need them in all classes, in all areas? I do not believe so. I can teach myself to a certain level or limit prior to needing additional knowledge or wisdom provided by these people.

When you think of some of the greatest minds in the world.. you don't know where they went to school to get educated. There is a reason.. the vast majority of them were self educated.

Granted, select fields such as nanotech and whatnot will require advanced education. Do you really need to have a college degree to be a plumber? Or a journalist? Or a photographer? Etc.
 
I suppose I should have said you don't need a 4 year degree to be a plumber. Trade schools are good and all that.

But when you get a 4 year degree in something not really in demand, well that's just a scam.

Those are also skills that can be taught on the job as a trade and do not necessarily require high priced college education. Mutliple paths for that one. But the jobs are always in demand.

Whereas marine biologists.. well, good luck.
 
I just wonder, why are people so shocked at the comments by our court?
Obviously, the idea of the smallest most immediate government is also the most predominant one has failed, and I do blame that on our education system, where thats a non gray area, and shows how ignorant many are, including in high places, as power distorts reality
 



Oh no problem, feel free to derail. I thought it was a funny thing story for Obama to say something like that, considering his "qualifications", and I just wanted to share.

I agree that there is far too much emphasis put on college education these days. There are many employers who have positions and they insist on candidates having college degrees regardless of whether or not said degree has anything at all with the position they are applying for.

Whats more. I once read a story on a "Geek humor" website, where a guy went to a fairly prestigious school in Arizona, got a 4 year degree in computer tech, and upon graduating he heard of an opening at the college for a network admin, he went to the interview and they allegedly told him "we don't hire recent graduates because they are not work-ready".... Not that I intend on working at my college after I graduate, but you can bet I'd be trying to sue them for the balance of my student loans if they told me something like that. What the hell did that guy just spend 4 years of his life and 10s of thousands of dollars there doing if hes not "work-ready"?

 



Yea, used to be you didn't need to go to law school to become a lawyer. You apprenticed, did paralegal work for a couple years, then you took the Bar Exam. I wonder if such a lawyer would at least understand the purpose of the Supreme Court?
 

Wow
My daughter is 29
Graduated from URI with a degree in psychology in '06, spent a few years putting it to use
Next month she finishes nursing school
 

I'm sure he'll have a great explanation for why his state deserves it but the rest of the country can go F$&# themselves, that will go over great in the debates, can't wait for the film real.
 

:sarcastic:

And I see no reason why regulating interstate trade falls outside of the scope... but then, you are going to point to your own reasons within the constitution, I'll point to the commerce clause, and we'll still wait for the Supreme Courts ruling.

Your tunnel vision; no hope for you.
 
No, I just think differently than both of you; I don't think insurance should be regulated by the State, for the lone reason that health insurance is a scam. Single Payer systems work amazingly because of their buying and bargaining power. Let all the insurance companies flock to Delaware to set up shop, just make the declaration that all health insurers are not for profit single product providers, and let there also be a public option to give a real level of competition.
 
Some of this stuff I don't fully comprehend all the details of the issue. As I was a polysci major years ago and dropped out because I got so damn disgusted with politics. But a few random thoughts I have on it:

-Obama spends too much time talking about what the Government should do for us. This whole health care thing, how is the government going to pay for it to give to us? Nothing is free in this world. We're paying for it. To me the American way is, we should have the freedom, and right to choose what we want to buy, not be told. Why should I be forced to pay into this health care?

-On the same token, it enrages me that cigarette taxes have been raised in the name of children's healthcare. That to me as a homosexual smoker in a committed relationship with no children, nor the desire to have children is an outrage. If you have kids, PAY FOR YOUR OWN DAMN KIDS OR DONT HAVE THEM.

- I also don't see the need for compulsory health care. We already have laws in this country that hospitals receiving federal money are not permitted to refuse treatment regardless of the person's ability to pay the bills. If you walk in to an ER barely conscious in need of medical attention, they can't turn you away because you don't have insurance.

There are already many programs for those in need, there are tons of free medical clinics throughout the country for people in low income situations. Would it not be cheaper to pump some more money into those rather than requiring perfectly healthy individuals to pay into compulsory insurance?
 
Whats funny is, the president of course thinks the supreme court is wrong, and has more or less said that what theyre doing isnt allowed, when, last I checked, it is the supreme court to uphold and defend the constitution.
Every 16 months it has declared something voted on as unconstitutional, yet this is new to the president?
Get him out before he finds anything else out
 
:lol:

Obama was first a Constitutional Lawyer... I find the remarks so entertaining and outlandish it makes me giggle.

@nekulturny - Smoking is a public health issue with no known benefits for partaking in it. If we are going to allow tobacco to be adulterated with harsh, cancer & birth defect causing chemicals, I don't see why we just don't legalize everything else which is just as toxic. I mean, smokers consume BILLIONS of dollars of health care every year, and frankly I think they should pay for their own masochism. And this is coming from a former Newport smoker of 9 years.
 



He was a professor who taught Constitutional law. Those were Obama's own words, straight from the horse's mouth, what is amusing to you?

I'm not sure which is scarier, the fact that he himself obviously didn't know the purpose of the supreme court, or his puppet masters who typed his speech into his teleprompter didn't.
 


I'm just going to step away and let you guys continue bashing Obama, it's what you do best anyway. I actually don't like defending the guy because I disagree with some of his flip-flopped positions like medicinal marijuana and the lack of a public option on the healthcare bill, the health care bill being the biggest let down. But then, I'm a true centrist. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom