Obama: SCOTUS Hasn't Struck Down Law Passed By Congress As Economic Issue Since New Deal

[ProSense]

...Questioned about what would happen if SCOTUS overturns all or part of Obamacare, Obama says the court hasn't overturned a law like this at least since Lochner. "I expect the Court to recognize that ... I have enormous confidence in looking at this law that not only is it constitutional" but that the court will uphold it. So, he says, the administration is not actively planning contingencies.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/03/1080254/-Live-President-Obama-takes-on-Romney-Ryan-budget-plan-2

Obama: SCOTUS Hasn't Struck Down Law Passed By Congress As Economic Issue Since New Deal

President Obama said the Supreme Court hasn't struck down a law passed by Congress as an economic issue since the New Deal.

"We're not spending a whole lot of time planning on contingencies," Obama said.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-scotus-hasnt-struck-down-law-passed-by

[Horse with no Name]

1. But we have never had fascist criminals sit the bench either

they were financed and put there specifically for this reason.

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[hughee99]

3. "We're not spending a whole lot of time planning on contingencies"

I'm sure this was intended to inspire confidence, but I'm not sure it won't have the opposite effect.

[Ter]

4. Wouldn't that just mean they're overdue?

Sorta like a slumping baseball player that hasn't had a hit in 10 games. When he's up with the bases loaded, the pitcher can't really say "not to worry, he hasn't had a hit in 10 games."

[leftyohiolib]

5. the court didnt have the disease a.scholera

[Major Hogwash]

6. Well, I'm going to say this, and let the chips fall where they may . . .

. . . they (the Republicans) should have never started playing 3-level chess with President Obama.
Because he is a chess master.

He's a freakin' genius.
And behind every great man, there is a great woman, pushing him onwards towards greatness.

Michelle has pushed Barack onwards towards greatness, and it is the absolute awesomeness of those 2 that has me sitting here with my jaw dropped open half of the time.

[ProSense]

7. It's definitely

going to be interesting regardless of the outcome.

[Autumn]

8. SCOTUS has never appointed a president before

2000 either. His trust in this court is foolish.

[ProSense]

9. Imagine

"SCOTUS has never appointed a president before 2000 either. His trust in this court is foolish."

...expecting the SCOTUS to show that they're not political hacks.

If they strike down the law, can we "trust" Congress to pass single payer?

[Autumn]

10. That's the problem Prosense

they are fucking political hacks, and proud of it. Do you honestly believe those creatures on the supreme court worry about how they would be perceived? I can clue you in on that answer. NO. Personally I wouldn't trust congress with my garbage can.

[ProSense]

12. That I

"they are fucking political hacks, and proud of it."

know: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=510591

[great white snark]

11. His trust is with the law, Autumn.

His feelings towards the court is on the record when he called them out on national tv during SOTU. I think he's hoping they will be sensible when considering precidence.

I hope they make the right decision.

[Autumn]

13. From your mouth to gods ear

but I have no faith in them making the right decision. They hate Obama why on earth would they be sensible when considering precedence. I well remember their decision in 2000. What ever they do, they face no repercussions. The law is what THEY decide, Gore V Bush, citizens united. Trusting those bastards is just foolish.