Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Does anyone remember?

by Coryphaeus / May 30, 2012 4:43 AM PDT

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the health care issue in June. Anyone care to speculate? Since Obama had his "lawyers" try to intimidate the court, do you think that will sway the opinion?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Does anyone remember?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Does anyone remember?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
They are honorable judges
by Josh K / May 30, 2012 5:07 AM PDT
In reply to: Does anyone remember?

They're not going to let a perceived attempt to influence them, influence them. They will rule on the constitutionality of the health care plan, period. Does your use of quotes mean you don't think the president's lawyers are really lawyers?

I have no guess or prediction on the outcome. Some cases are pretty easy to call -- I knew the Westboro Baptist Church would win its case, for example. This isn't as cut and dried to me. It takes a level of legal and constitutional expertise that I do not have.

Collapse -
Quotes . . .
by Coryphaeus / May 30, 2012 5:55 AM PDT

Honestly, I didn't remember if they were lawyers or some person on his staff. Just covering my bases.

Collapse -
They are lawyers
by Diana Forum moderator / May 31, 2012 3:32 AM PDT
In reply to: Quotes . . .

They have to have permission to present anything to the Supreme Court. Not just anybody and argue in front of the Supreme Court.


Collapse -
And something just dawned on me . . .
by Coryphaeus / May 30, 2012 6:01 AM PDT

Honorable is not a good word for most judges. Reason being is that there are republican judges, and there are democrat judges. And they vote their party. It's a fact. They try to vote the law but they can't. An honorable judge would be one that has no party affiliation. I feel the same way about ALL elected or appointed judges and lawyers.


Collapse -
RE: honourable
by JP Bill / May 30, 2012 6:24 AM PDT
North of the Border we refer to politicians as honourable...of course we also call them "members"

Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. My comments today will focus on the heart of the issue, ensuring that the government uses our taxpayer dollars to support Canadian industry.
All these cuts are hurting our regions and costing jobs for our citizens when there is no need to make the cuts. The money jar is full and overflowing, yet the Harper government continues in the heartless and shameful penny pinching.

An hon. member: You can't say "Harper".

Mr. Ken Boshcoff: Did I say that? I apologize immediately.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): Order, please. The member should refer to colleagues by their riding names or by their titles.

Mr. Ken Boshcoff: When I do something wrong, I appreciate the chastisement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Collapse -
Sounds like
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / May 30, 2012 6:30 AM PDT
In reply to: RE: honourable

a typical Prime Minister's Q&A Wednesday in the UK Parliament.


Collapse -
RE: Q&A Wednesday in the UK Parliament
by JP Bill / May 30, 2012 6:54 AM PDT
In reply to: Sounds like

Wednesday is the best day to watch in Canada....they are all wired up from caucus meetings...I think they have an open bar also.

Collapse -
I think
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / May 30, 2012 7:15 AM PDT

most of our MPs have just returned from the bar when Q&A begins here. Happy


Collapse -
I feel that it's not the individuals who are as much
by Steven Haninger / May 30, 2012 6:31 AM PDT

of the problem as it is the party they belong to...and belong they must or they won't get work. Over and over we get to see new blood enter the system and quickly blend in with the rest of them. I wouldn't mind seeing both major parties kicked out but don't think it will happen soon.

Collapse -
I never understood the US system
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / May 30, 2012 6:32 AM PDT

Selecting Supreme Court Judges should be non-political and left to the judges themselves to vote on, not any part of political battles.


Collapse -
In theory, you are correct
by Steven Haninger / May 30, 2012 7:31 AM PDT

Supreme Court candidates are, in a sense, presidential appointees. The sitting president selects candidates for approval or rejection. A rejection just lets the president pick someone else until congress finally OKs them. It does seem that a president almost invariably will select candidates that he knows share his ideology. That really shouldn't matter when interpreting what the law actually is but we know that lawyers aren't always about how to adhere to law but how to get around it. Happy

Collapse -
A more completely hilarious statement I cannot conceive.
by Ziks511 / May 31, 2012 11:18 PM PDT
In reply to: Does anyone remember?

Lawyers intimidating the Supreme Court !? It works the other way, Lawyers are more intimidated by the Q&A by the Justices than the Justices are intimidated by lawyers.

I can only hope for a very good Obama victory with his coat-tails drawing in enough Democratic Representatives and Senators to reverse Citizens United through a Constitutional Amendment.

Then again a convenient plane crash with the 3 most conservative members on board would work as well. It's just so unlikely.


Collapse -
you wish death on others you disagree with?
by James Denison / June 1, 2012 8:59 AM PDT

How about forum members? Are they included in those wishful thoughts of yours?

Collapse -
Very typical comment from the far left ...
by Edward ODaniel / June 12, 2012 11:48 AM PDT

and sadly so but happens all the time.

Let's call it the poor party of the death wish rather than the party of the poor (read WELFARE).

May such wishes be returned to you ten fold.

Collapse -
A related question
by Josh K / May 31, 2012 11:40 PM PDT
In reply to: Does anyone remember?

If the Court rules that there is nothing unconstitutional in the health care plan, will that stop the plan's opponents from calling it unconstitutional?

I'm betting "no."


Collapse -
then it goes to "unworkable"
by James Denison / June 1, 2012 9:00 AM PDT
In reply to: A related question

and "intolerable".

Collapse -
(NT) Did a birth certificate stop the birthers?
by Diana Forum moderator / June 3, 2012 11:58 PM PDT
In reply to: A related question
Collapse -
TWO of them didn't, LOL
by Josh K / June 4, 2012 12:03 AM PDT

That's what I find so hilarious about the similar "why won't he release his college transcripts" nonsense, which is equally racist (all those people convinced that the only way he could have gotten into Columbia or Harvard is via affirmative action). Like if he did it, that would end it.

Collapse -
I'd have thought that Obama's making the Harvard Law Review
by Ziks511 / June 7, 2012 10:11 AM PDT

would have silenced all of that poking and pointing. You don't make Law Review based on affirmative action, you make it on being at the top of your class. Clearly he got the marks, which should silence all this idiocy.

But if they were to grant that he got the marks, that would mean that a ni... coloured person was just as smart as the whites. Unthinkable.


Collapse -
Oh com'n Josh

we all saw the "token" activities in the 70's in all schools, including colleges, around the USA. The most obvious, and dangerous, examples were those "tokens" in medical schools ahead of others who had better qualifications. Why do you think it so strange that someone might believe that Obama was a "token" addition to Harvard?

Collapse -
First of all, Rob posted that, not me
by Josh K / June 13, 2012 4:34 AM PDT
In reply to: Oh com'n Josh

Secondly, I don't find it at all hard to believe that some believe that and have trouble accepting that he got where he did on merit and not because of his skin color. Racism is still, unfortunately, alive and well.

Collapse -
Ever watch....
by James Denison / June 13, 2012 10:35 AM PDT

"Through the Wormhole"? Stars Morgan Freeman. You might enjoy the episode "Is There A Superior Race"?

Collapse -
Never heard of it
by Josh K / June 14, 2012 12:23 AM PDT
In reply to: Ever watch....

I can't imagine what it has to do with the president's past service as editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Collapse -
Mostly to Ziks
by James Denison / June 14, 2012 4:18 PM PDT
In reply to: Never heard of it

"But if they were to grant that he got the marks, that would mean that a ni... coloured person was just as smart as the whites. Unthinkable."

Collapse -
Some people wonder, Josh...
by J. Vega / June 8, 2012 6:05 AM PDT

Josh, some people might want to see his Harvard paperwork for another reason. With affirmative action, you imply that his black ancestry was the reason. O.K., there may have been people who got into Harvard for that reason, but why Obama specifically. There are many, many people of black ancestry who apply to get into Harvard or apply for aid once accepted.
Why was Obama successful as one of that large group? When you consider his previous conduct in school as a member of the "Choom Gang" and the resulting drug use and study habits, he would not seem to be a prime candidate for entry to Harvard under an affirmative action or "diversity" category. As I said, he would have been just one of a large group under the heading of "Black". What could have caused him to stand out and be selected, especially under the category of diversity?
However, if he identified himself as Kenyan, he would have been in a much smaller group under consideration under diversity, potential students and/or aid applicants with connections to another country.
I believe he was born in Hawaii, but back then when there was a lot of competition for entry or aid under a limited number of available slots, there could have been a powerful temptation to claim a Kenyan classification to qualify. I wouldn't think that there were a lot of those applying. Remember the politician who was recently in the news for claiming questionable Native American ancestry? Some people might wonder if something similar could happen to try to qualify for Harvard admission or aid. Josh, wouldn't it be best for Obama for release all of his Harvard paperwork, show that that was not the case, and rapidly end such rumors? It would be an easy thing to do and solve that situation.

Collapse -
and solve that situation.
by JP Bill / June 8, 2012 6:10 AM PDT
Laugh VBG
Collapse -
People can "wonder" all they want
by Josh K / June 14, 2012 12:26 AM PDT

Nothing I can do about that. I think that if there was anything untoward about his past at Harvard, that Harvard would have something to say about it.

The people hanging onto stuff like this need to adjust their priorities.

Collapse -
I personally find Obama to be an enigma
by James Denison / June 14, 2012 4:25 PM PDT

sort of like the description of the double minded man, who is unstable in all his ways. 30% of blacks in North Carolina are ready to vote for Romney because they feel Obama has disappointed them. Considering that's a big change from the previous presidential support they gave Obama, I'd say not only the 30% who will no longer vote for him, but probably some of those who will still vote for him just because he's "black like us", nevertheless find him something of a puzzle to them also.

By enigma, I mean a lot of what he does just doesn't seem to jive with his stated beliefs. I also consider the possibility that we still don't know what his actual true beliefs are. I think it all comes down to one question, which is, "Can anyone actually trust the man"? I can say I don't.

Collapse -
(NT) But you don't trust any Democrats
by Diana Forum moderator / June 17, 2012 7:46 AM PDT
Collapse -
that's not true
by James Denison / June 18, 2012 6:20 AM PDT

There's a whole lot of Democrats I now trust. Of course they are all dead. Wink
I trust however they will remain as last placed, for the most part. A few may
yet change position.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?