Judiciary Responds To Obama's Foolish Comments

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. pspr


    By Jan Crawford

    (CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

    The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

    Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

    The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

    The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

    Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

    Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

    I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.

  2. jem


    That is awesome. I agree with the move that judge made. We do not need a president bad mouthing the courts.

    Obama's lack of experience and lack of respect for our institutions is really starting to show. What the heck is he doing? Trying to foment a constitutional crisis?
  3. Lucrum


    + 1
  4. First the Catholics, now this. He is playing as if he is overconfident, I don't like that. He cannot flout the ruling of the SCOTUS, nor should he be making any comments of any kind about the case.
  5. jem


    Until recently I saw him as the accidental leftist president...but now he is going more over the top by the week. I believe Obama is a smart man, maybe even a very smart man. I do not understand these choices at all. I do not want to go all Glen Beck on him yet. But the Churches a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court 2 days ago Isreal today.

    What is tomorrow?
  6. pspr


    He has advisors? I thought they all quit. I think he is shooting from the hip and practicing to be dictator.
  7. Dickhead Odumbo should know better.


    Odumbo pontificates like he's some kind of F'n KING! That's not what America is all about.

    :mad: :mad:
  8. It would do him well to remember that it is in fact that very same court that ultimately made it possible for him to stand behind the Presidential Seal. It annoys me when people make statements in a historical vacuum.

    As far as Israel goes, this has been ongoing since Hillary outed them for trying a false flag against us. They were recruiting terrorists to hit Iran under our moniker, if I recall. This will continue to escalate until the US decides to wash her hands of Israel. I think this is a planned sequence of events.
  9. 377OHMS


    He may just ignore the Supreme Court ruling like Andrew Jackson did. "The court has made their decision. Let them enforce it."

    He has said that he has no plan for what to do if the Supreme Court rules against him. He may just continue to implement the law regardless.
  10. jem


    Obama's clarification... whatever its worth.


    UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit’s order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out “that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence.”

    Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be “unprecedented” in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress’ power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

    “The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this,” Mr. Obama said.

    “Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has,” he said.

    And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.
    #10     Apr 4, 2012