This isn't isn't the first time he's taken a no-holds barred shot at the SC. I can't help but this this probably pisses off the liberals on the Court as much as the conservatives on principle alone.
Presidents take shots at the Court when they are restricted by it from doing the things they want to do. I don't have a problem with that. My problem with that particular quote is the fundamental misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of our governmental system and law.
considering his background i think it's typical obmaa misrepresentation. sadly the "i'm only failing because people are playing politics" rhetoric seems to be working.
As in "not unprecedented"? Good question. I use non-words all the time. I don't even bother looking them up. I just roll with it.
The Supreme Court strikes down as unconstitutional laws "passed passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"* all the [dadgum] time. It's part of what they do. Obama knows this. His statement is political rhetoric that banks on the fact that most Americans are really dumb and will believe what they hear just because they heard it. Actually, I guess all political rhetoric pretty much banks on the fact that most americans are really dumb and will believe what they hear just because they heard it. *Is there another kind?
Okay, I looked this one up. Precedented is a word and it means what you think it means, but well-precedented is more commonly used to mean the same thing. According to this random site: English: Precedented vs. Unprecedented | Learn Out Live!
What's funny is if a younger person wrote something like that, they'd be told it was too informal and unprofessional.
I don't feel like looking it up, but there is a tax court case out there involving conway Twitty where the judge gave the opinion in lyric format. If anyone so cares, it involves Twitty burger.
I would never tell somebody something like that. What part do you think a typical English teacher might object to?
I think Antonin Scalia is a great person to use as a model for one's own writing. And I'm not even referring to his combative tone -- not that I take issue with his tone -- but just his writing generally. He's gooood.
This one will be good for the criminal defense bar if it comes out as the author predicts. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...t_lockhart_case_scalia_argues_for_lenity.html
See, I used to think that there must be something defined or special about laws and legal writings that made these things absolutely certain when written, and that is what one learned when going to law school. Like there must be some legalese English that had rules like a programming code so everything was always understood one way when written, if one knew it. Now I wonder if the second amendment is about tank tops.