Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) took to Twitter Saturday morning to express his opinion of the president’s recent comments regarding the Supreme Court, even calling him “stupid,†it seems.
On Monday, the president said he was “confident†that the Supreme Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act, because overturning it would be “unprecedented†and “extraordinary.â€
The president’s comments prompted many to question his comprehension of judicial review and a constitutional balance of powers. A federal judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals even ordered the Justice Department to submit a letter (“no less than three pagesâ€) explaining what he meant.
Senator Grassley responded to the president in his own way on Twitter: “Constituents askd why i am not outraged at PresO attack on supreme court independence. Bcause [American] ppl r not stupid as this x prof of [constitutional] law.â€
Read more here!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 23
Larry, I think that this time he is right. The remark was stupid when it came out of a lawyer...
There are plenty of other ways to make that sort of remark, without creating a flammable situation.
The statement may well have been stupid. Only time will tell from my point of view. But that it is humorous I question. I would say that it is sad.
(By an odd coincidence, both parties in those days was a Republican Party. )
If you google "1828 Presidential election" you can get all the particulars you want.
Please tell me in what way Obama could "threaten" the Supreme Court. He can't fire them. He can't take away their budget. He cannot arrest them. Just what threat could he carry out against them?
Please note that whatever you specify as a threat I will feel free to use on what Republicans and other right wing types on Gather have said about and to Obama. Sauce for the goose and all that. :-)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-selective-memory-of-supreme-court-history/2012/04/08/gIQARSnK4S_blog.html?tid=pm_pop
What threat? How in the world could I threaten you?
The Post article says nothing at all about threats. It concludes:
"On balance, the president earns two Pinocchios—which means creating “a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people”—for his comments about the pending Supreme Court decision."
Your opinion about Obama was fixed long ago, I would guess, and nothing that happens or is reported to you will change that opinion.
So are you going to tell me where the "threat" is or not? Do you have any evidence at all to support your statements?
"Please note that whatever you specify as a threat I will feel free to use on what Republicans and other right wing types on Gather have said about and to Obama."
You can comment in any fashion you'd like on my posts, and it won't make a bit of difference on how I view the current administration.
And you give me far too much credit, if you think I could possibly keep up with your comments on my posts fast enough to answer you immediately. Also, I usually don't respond well to an authoritative tone. My parents died long ago, and I answer to no one but God and my family, and even then I'm not responsive to demands like the one you just made here:
"So are you going to tell me where the "threat" is or not?"
I didn't realize I was on any kind of time clock here and had to answer you ASAP before you got testy.
Never mind.
I read the link you provided at 1:53 as you should be able to tell from my quoting it's conclusions.
I have not read the entire speech.