I put the word 'threatened' in quotes because it was a thinly veiled threat, but it was pretty clear what he was saying. "There's a human element to this and I hope that's not forgotten." If the SCOTUS rules that the individual mandate violates the Constitution, then the judges are being "inhumane."
The mandate requires young healthy people who have little need for healthcare to purchase a product (or service) from a private company in order to subsidize the costs for people with preexisting conditions and the elderly, for whom it would otherwise be unprofitable for insurance companies to cover. Obama wants the Court to ignore the fact that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to force people to buy stuff just because it would help other people out.
He says he is confident that the court will not take "what would be and unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority (219-212!) ..." The Court overturns laws all the time. That is their job--to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. They are supposed to rule on the law and not take in to account whether or not it's a good law, or it means well; only whether or not it is allowed by the Constitution. To do otherwise would be 'legislating from the bench,' or engaging in 'judicial activism' which is the very thing he warns them not to do.
He calls the SCOTUS "an unelected group of people" implying that Congress's decision should have more weight than theirs and thereby undermining the authority of the Court.
He swore to defend the Constitution and he has been attacking it. Republicans have not called for his impeachment (yet), because they are waiting for the ruling, and it's also very close to an election. We can vote him out of office without impeaching him.
First of all, it's not 'personal hatred.' It's hate for his policies and the decisions he has made/is making that we feel are detrimental to the economy, the Country, personal liberties, domestic safety, etc. I personally think Obama is a nice guy; a bit smug, arrogant and condescending, perhaps, but I think he means well and his heart is in the right place. I just feel that his priorities are skewed and his methods of bringing about what he feels are positive things are not effective. Maybe this is due in part to his long-time associations with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, I don't know.
And second, the media relentlessly attacked Bush for the entire 8 years he was in office. Every time he even misspoke, they jumped on it in an effort to make him look dumb. (I guess graduating from Yale is nothing compared to graduating from Harvard.) They blamed him for everything that went wrong with the economy (even though the congress that passed all those laws had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, and they are still blaming him for the policies that have just made things worse under the Obama administration. The media is just now starting to hold him accountable, a little bit, over 3 years into his term!
You're missing the point. Nobody wants the the poor and disabled to go without quality healthcare. In fact it is already illegal for publicly funded hospitals to deny care to people who can't afford to pay. The Government and private insurance providers are already subsidizing these costs. We just don't feel that it is necessary to violate our basic constitutional rights in order to bring down the costs and bring about more universal coverage.
How would that be a good thing? Other than the military and a national highway system, name one thing that has improved under government control.
the courts had previously ruled that stations could advertise Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 which called for Bush's defeat, but couldn't run adds for Citizens United's Hillary: the Movie which is why the case made it's way to the Supreme Court. Corporations are absolutely made up of people, not buildings or products, and people have a constitutional right to do what they want with their money, provided they aren't using it for illegal activities like gambling or drug trafficking. Limiting how much they can give to support politicians violates freedom of speech.
It is still illegal for foreign investors to contribute directly to political campaigns, although that didn't stop Al Gore from accepting contributions from Tibetan monks (Vow of poverty?).
non sequitur? I'm not sure how this relates to Obama attacking the court for upholding the constitution ...
Of course the Constitution isn't perfect. That's why a system was put in place to amend it where appropriate, and it has been these amendments (starting with the 'Bill of Rights') that have corrected the problems you mention since it's inception; not the courts bypassing the Constitution and legislating from the bench. If the People want to expand the role of the Federal Government to include providing health care to all of it's citizens, then there is already in place a method for amending the Constitution to allow for that. You don't just ignore the Constitution to pass a law that you feel provides for the common good. (Well, apparently Congress does when it has a Democrat majority!)
And therein lies the problem that brings us to where we are today. Initially the Federal Government was too weak and unable to keep the Country from splintering. Since the Civil War, it has slowly but steadily seized increasingly more power to the point where States rights have been diminished, and taken control of things that are far more effectively and efficiently handled on a local or state level (like education and healthcare).
No we don't. That's a gross exaggeration. Very few conservatives want to roll back the clock to the 1850s, but the 1950s weren't so bad, if we could couple that level of Federal involvement with the gains we have made in civil rights and fair labor laws.
Now on that, we can agree. This is still the greatest nation on earth, but in recent years, it has been on the decline, relative to other developed nations. The war on poverty has lead to increased poverty. On the conservative side, the war on drugs has lead to more drug use. In the bipartisan arena, 'no child left behind' has lead to declining test scores and literacy. There is much that both conservatives and liberals can do better and neither side is blameless in the problems our country faces. But throwing out the Constitution, or intimidating the SCOTUS into ignoring it will not solve our problems. Congress needs to stop 'playing politics' and start working together to come up with middle-ground solutions that will get this country moving back in the right direction. We can make a real good start on that in November.