Obama on Prop 8 and National Health Care - Hypocritical Stance?

[righteousdude2]

I'll let you be the judge as to whether the WH is being hypocritical when it comes to the court having the last word on issues put into law, be it by Congress or at the polls, that he personally supports/opposes.

Obama's administration seems opposed to the SCOTUS ruling on the healthcare referendum, but chose to remain mum/spoke no ill toward the California Supreme Court tossing out the voter passed initiative to deny gays the right to marry under the Proposition 8 votes.

SEE:http://www.thegrio.com/politics/obama-and-gay-marriage-evolving-is-no-longer-an-option.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

So, what say you??? Is the WH being a tad bit hypocritcal (in a passive/aggressive way)?

 

[InTheLight]

I'll let you be the judge as to whether the WH is being hypocritical when it comes to the court having the last word on issues put into law, be it by Congress or at the polls, that he personally supports/opposes.

Obama's administration seems opposed to the SCOTUS ruling on the healthcare referendum, but chose to remain mum/spoke no ill toward the California Supreme Court tossing out the voter passed initiative to deny gays the right to marry under the Proposition 8 votes.

So, what say you??? Is the WH being a tad bit hypocritcal (in a passive/aggressive way)?

It's human nature and politics. Liberals and conservatives both do it. Conservatives have decried 'activist judges' 'legislating from the bench' whenever laws they deem worthy are ruled unconstitutional. Now that SCOTUS might overturn Obamacare conservatives are embracing the possibility that judges might rule in their favor.

 

[targus]

It's human nature and politics. Liberals and conservatives both do it. Conservatives have decried 'activist judges' 'legislating from the bench' whenever laws they deem worthy are ruled unconstitutional. Now that SCOTUS might overturn Obamacare conservatives are embracing the possibility that judges might rule in their favor.

No, the judical activism that conservatives decry is when the court makes a ruling that is not supported by the Constitution - such as the right to privacy in regards to abortion as in Rowe v Wade.

 

[InTheLight]

No, the judical activism that conservatives decry is when the court makes a ruling that is not supported by the Constitution - such as the right to privacy in regards to abortion as in Rowe v Wade.

While you and I don't see Roe v. Wade as a constitutional privacy issue, it's all a matter of interpretation.

What about the example that the OP put forth--the overturning of the same sex marriage amendment?

I'm sure there are other examples, like prayer in the public school being banned or the ruling that students shall not be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[mandym]

While you and I don't see Roe v. Wade as a constitutional privacy issue, it's all a matter of interpretation.

No it is about fabricating things in the constitution so as to win something as constitutional when everyone involved knows its not.

 

[targus]

While you and I don't see Roe v. Wade as a constitutional privacy issue, it's all a matter of interpretation.

No, it is not a matter of interpretation. The Constitution states which areas the Federal goverment is in charge of and which are left to the States.

Abortion is not enumerated in the Constitution so it belongs to the individual States to decide.

What about the example that the OP put forth--the overturning of the same sex marriage amendment?

I don't know about the California constitution or the basis on which the law was over turned.

Since we are talking about the U.S. Supreme Court it is a mute point.

Obama doesn't seem to know the difference between the U.S. Supreme Court and State courts either.