[ElJamoquio]

He mis-spoke. I say some stupid stuff too. On campaign, Obama's miked 24-7. I'm not.

I mean, heck, you said 'tough row to how'. It's rather silly to start mocking you for that and invoking Muphry's law, etc.

[metaglypto]

I mean, heck, you said 'tough row to how'. It's rather silly to start mocking you for that and invoking Muphry's law, etc.

Whoops, I did at that. But then I don't have speech writers and proof readers at my disposal. If I did they would be fired right now.

[ihasa]

Getting the number of states wrong was a gaffe. What he said about SCOTUS was intended to bully them into leaving partisan loyalties at the door. Which is worse, a gaffe or bullying SCOTUS? I don't know but I do know they are different.

Palin has made the occasional gaffe too, but more than that, virtually everything she says is riddled with nonsense that a child could detect. Even McCain thinks she is a joke.

[kswier]

Obama is confused as well about "judicial activism" as well. Judicial activism is not, as he insists, simply the act of overturning an existing law; it is when judges allow their personal views about public policy, and not the Constitution, to guide their decisions. It is the job of the Supreme Court Justices to invalidate a law they deem to be unconstitutional, it is in fact is precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

I don't think Obama is confused at all. When the courts is sharply divided on the constitutionality of a the bill across a political line (i.e. whether the president who appointed them was republican or democrat), I think you have a problem. If the law is unconstitutional, then let it be found unconstitutional. And if it is constitutional, let it be found constitutional. I realize law is not a concrete science with one particular answer, but the division that it appears this supreme court verdict is expected to have suggests that the supreme court is playing politics (both liberal and conservative judges).

I think Obama was doing a combination of trying get the members of the supreme court to think twice before throwing out the law, trying to show confidence in his bill, a bit of grandstanding. From previous remarks, I do not believe the democrats ever though this would make it to the supreme court.

In the end, I just hope this bill receives due process, and that the judges look at it with an open and objective mind. If this is done, I am confident the correct decision will be made.

[kswier]

Unless you are not out of grade school, how do you make that kind of mistake?

Try going with little sleep for an extended period, and talking in front of people every day. You will make silly mistakes like that as well.

[Parallax]

But then I don't have speech writers and proof readers at my disposal. If I did they would be fired right now.

Just exactly how does a speech writer prevent the speach maker from making a mistake?

Unless you are not out of grade school, how do you make that kind of mistake?

Aside form the fact that he is human, and humans make mistakes, I have no explanation for it either.
I agree with many of your positions, and you have some well reasoned arguments in support of them. The position that you appear to be taking here however, is that you make no distinction between misspeaking and ignorance. I have to assume that you don't actually feel that way, but rather it is through one of those simple human mistakes that you have presented your case in such a way that it appears as though you do.

[metaglypto]

The position that you appear to be taking here however, is that you make no distinction between misspeaking and ignorance. I have to assume that you don't actually feel that way, but rather it is through one of those simple human mistakes that you have presented your case in such a way that it appears as though you do.

You are correct. However, in post # 68 in this thread I stated, "I have read a number of times in these threads people waxing passionate, though seldom eloquent about the stupidity of Sarah Palin, often at the same time bowing before his Highness, Obama. I have pointed out a number of stupid statements by Obama in another thread in defense of Palin's stupid comments. Almost without fail, Obama'isms have been defended as being gaffes while Palin's are attributed to pure stupidity."

To which Ihasa in post #70 stated, "I don't think your argument is helped by wheeling out poor beleaguered Sarah Palin and trying to draw comparison between her numerous brainfarts, and the President's comments which were more 'political grandstanding' than ignorance." and "Obama knows what the Supreme Court is and what it's supposed to do".

Of course they make mistakes! But to defend Obama and attack Palin, particularly now, when it is Obama who has a J.D from Harvard, and was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004—teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School,and then to say, "I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law" proves he is nothing more than an educated idiot,or could it possibly be he thinks the rest of us are idiots and he can just rest on his credentials, hoping no one would possibly challenge the Almighty himself. Please explain to me how that is "grandstanding". He has succeeded only in showing me, and hopefully many others, that he is replete with a plethora of college credentials and totally lacking in experience in the real world. So that is why he taught for all those years I suppose. Couple that with all those resources, seven speech writers with combined salaries around $500,000 and now a consulting firm as well. ( All the President's Speechwriters | WRKO.com )

Then to make Palin out to be the idiot, when she has a Bachelor of Science degree in Communications and Journalism, and none of those resources at her disposal, is shallow thinking at best. Palin has done pretty well for herself, all things considered, and she can still get an education.

[Jack]

I just hope this bill receives due process, and that the judges look at it with an open and objective mind

I'm sure Kagan who had a hand in the health care bill will look at it with an open mind.

Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn't be on the court anyway.

Elena Kagan Must Be Recused In ObamaCare Case - Investors.com

[metaglypto]

Just exactly how does a speech writer prevent the speach maker from making a mistake?

He doesn't write "57 states" into the notes. I don't know this is was what happened, but it is conceivable.

[kswier]

I'm sure Kagan who had a hand in the health care bill will look at it with an open mind.

Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn't be on the court anyway.

Elena Kagan Must Be Recused In ObamaCare Case - Investors.com

The article sounds pretty biased (it is written in an attacking, almost angry tone, instead of an objective tone), but if it is true I agree that Kagan should sit out.

[Parallax]

Well, most everyone has miss- spoken at some point. I know I have tasted my own shoe leather on more than one occasion. If you never have, I envy you.

[metaglypto]

Far be it from me to ever admit to making a mistake.

[Jack]

The article sounds pretty biased (it is written in an attacking, almost angry tone, instead of an objective tone), but if it is true I agree that Kagan should sit out.

I just did a quick internet search. Not looking for anything biased. This is from the Washington Times. Again, I have no idea where they stand politically.
SMITH: Kagan and Obamacare - still no answers - Washington Times

The rules regarding recusal are clear. The current recusal law, enacted in 1974, bars justices from hearing certain cases in which they were involved as government lawyers. If Justice Kagan participated in legal or procedural discussions regarding the health care law challenge, she should be recused from ruling on the case. The intent of recusal is to prevent any personal or professional bias that may impact a justice’s decision.

The administration claims that Justice Kagan was walled off from discussions and therefore is eligible to hear the case. But emails and documents released last year bring the administration’s assertions into question.

For example, the administration released a chain of then-Solicitor General Kagan’s emails dated March 21, 2010, under the subject line “Health care litigation meeting.” There also is material from Golden Gate, a case with a “possible nexus to the health care bill,” in which Justice Department lawyers have acknowledged that Justice Kagan “substantially participated” when she served as solicitor general.

If Justice Kagan received emails discussing a meeting on possible litigation over Obamacare, Congress and the American people have a right to know what was in those emails.

also
E-mails Suggest Kagan Misled Senate About ObamaCare

The objectivity of judges is an essential component of the American constitutional system. When Elena Kagan was Solicitor General of the United States, she and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe had e-mail exchanges, which were obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act, that suggest that she could not be impartial in ruling on Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because she has taken a position for the bill.

[jsherman999]

Then to make Palin out to be the idiot, when she has a Bachelor of Science degree in Communications and Journalism, and none of those resources at her disposal, is shallow thinking at best. Palin has done pretty well for herself, all things considered, and she can still get an education.

There are literally 8th-graders out there who can demonstrate more institutional knowledge of the United States, awareness of current events and even judgement than Palin has up until now.

Honestly, comparing Obama's demonstrated capabilities to Palin's says a bit about your ability to judge relative intelligence - if you're being serious, which I don't think you entirely are... I detect a taste of Devil's Advocate going on.

The GOP embarrasses itself by putting forth candidates like Palin. She got where she is now by bringing religion into play, using it as a tool in what was a couple of small-time elections that had no business being about religion. She used that recognition to gain a governorship, despite her lack of qualifications for that job, and then was red-meat enough for McCain to tap to enthrall a nascent Tea Party-ish faction of his party that he felt he needed in the general election. Everyone involved in that decision regretted it.

We saw what happened to our country under GWB - Palin represents a less-capable version of him, one that speaks to a more radical and easily-malleable demographic. The GOP can do much, much better than her.

.

[seacapt]

He doesn't write "57 states" into the notes. I don't know this is was what happened, but it is conceivable.

Barry was just thinking pleasant thoughts about Mrs. Kerry's special sauce and it slipped out , give the man a break