* Login   * Register
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:09 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 1432
An interesting article from CBS news about Obama's comments regarding courts and their role in our democracy.

Quote:
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, suggesting it wasn't clear 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.

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.

UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith's order to DOJ, is available here.

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."

The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/

_________________
"Not for us alone are we born; our country, our friends, have a share in us." Cicero, de officiis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:36 am
Posts: 3530
Location: Houston, TX
Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to once again have all three branches vigorously defend their authority and seek to actually exercise the whole balance of power thing?

I know, I know. Wishful thinking.

_________________
Random Noise Generator 1390-B


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 4:37 pm
Posts: 23584
Location: Seattle
Yeah . . . glad the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (Louisianna, Mississippi, Texas) has time to review random political commentary and DEMAND EXPLANATION!!!!

Jesus.

The Government is looking more and more like the train wreck known as the "Kindle Book Forum" every day.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has posted "REPLY IF YOU THINK COURTS CAN RULE ON LAWS." (93 Replies)
OBAMA has posted "WHO SHOULD MAKE LAWS, THE PEOPLE OR ACTIVIST JUDGES?" (107 Replies)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has posted "DO WE HAVE A KING NOW?" (121 Replies)

:facepalm:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:36 am
Posts: 3530
Location: Houston, TX
dbtrek wrote:
The Government is looking more and more like the train wreck known as the "Kindle Book Forum" every day.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has posted "REPLY IF YOU THINK COURTS CAN RULE ON LAWS." (93 Replies)
OBAMA has posted "WHO SHOULD MAKE LAWS, THE PEOPLE OR ACTIVIST JUDGES?" (107 Replies)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has posted "DO WE HAVE A KING NOW?" (121 Replies)

:facepalm:

That is comedy gold! +1

_________________
Random Noise Generator 1390-B


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 3205
The so-called "constitutional law scholar" opens his mouth, inserts his foot, then backs and fills like a typical politician. What a joke. He's making a mistake to take on the Judiciary. Like that dumb-assed remark by loudmouth Gingrich that he'd use federal marshals to arrest judges, etc. What a bunch of BS from these so-called "statesmen."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 32723
Image

El Señor Presidente commands that the people be happy and rejoice in his heroic struggles with the tyrants in the Judiciary.

_________________
With great power comes great risk of getting yourself killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:22 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 6341
Location: The 50th State
Gotta love it :facepalm: when the "Constitutional Lawyer" questions the constitutional powers of the Judicial Branch. :popcorn:

_________________
Griz

“We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-Edward R. Murrow

My political compass score


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:28 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
This works just like small claims court. You go to court, win your case, then nothing happens. The judge simply makes a ruling stating you won, then no action is taken. All of which makes small claims court a joke.

With Holder, he must file a 3-page double-spaced response to his boss's idiotic remarks. Should he fail to do so the judge will then hold him in contempt of court. So what? Are they going to arrest Holder if he fails to comply? No. Are they going to give him a fine? No. They just make a ruling that he is a bad boy but then don't even so much as make him go sit in the corner.

I'd prefer they treat him like an average citizen instead. First, go arrest him. Next, hide him away where no one can find him. Then, after he stews for awhile, tie him to a chair under the bright lights and zap him with a taser until he tells you what you want to hear. If it's good enogh for you and me it's good enough for everyone else too.

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:54 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:05 pm
Posts: 615
hondo69 wrote:
This works just like small claims court. You go to court, win your case, then nothing happens. The judge simply makes a ruling stating you won, then no action is taken. All of which makes small claims court a joke.


Is this a possible outcome if the Supreme Court says the individual mandate is unconstitutional? Could the administration just ignore it and move on anyways?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:13 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 11072
Partyof5 wrote:
hondo69 wrote:
This works just like small claims court. You go to court, win your case, then nothing happens. The judge simply makes a ruling stating you won, then no action is taken. All of which makes small claims court a joke.


Is this a possible outcome if the Supreme Court says the individual mandate is unconstitutional? Could the administration just ignore it and move on anyways?


It the SCOTUS rules the law unconstitutional, they only thing the others branchs can do is ratify it as a constitutional amendment or rewrite the law to make it constitutional.

_________________
The term "magic" loses it's meaning once you know what's going on.

HJK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:33 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 6341
Location: The 50th State
hondo69 wrote:
This works just like small claims court. You go to court, win your case, then nothing happens. The judge simply makes a ruling stating you won, then no action is taken. All of which makes small claims court a joke.

With Holder, he must file a 3-page double-spaced response to his boss's idiotic remarks. Should he fail to do so the judge will then hold him in contempt of court. So what? Are they going to arrest Holder if he fails to comply? No. Are they going to give him a fine? No. They just make a ruling that he is a bad boy but then don't even so much as make him go sit in the corner.

I'd prefer they treat him like an average citizen instead. First, go arrest him. Next, hide him away where no one can find him. Then, after he stews for awhile, tie him to a chair under the bright lights and zap him with a taser until he tells you what you want to hear. If it's good enogh for you and me it's good enough for everyone else too.

You forgot the strip-search. :D

_________________
Griz

“We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-Edward R. Murrow

My political compass score


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:06 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:50 pm
Posts: 7406
I wonder if Obama would bitch and moan about the "unelected" and "activist" Justices who thwarted the "will of the majority" in deciding Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and Lawrence v. Texas ... :shakinghead:

Obama's rant about "unelected" Justices and judicial review is talk-radio level idiocy and is an embarrassment for someone who was a Constitutional Law professor.

_________________
"Yuck factor aside (along with the potential for the animal to harm the human), if the animal isn't being harmed I'm not sure why bestiality should be a felony." -- drtrech

"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:12 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
I'm hoping the Supreme Court comes back and says they've determined the Executive Branch is null and void. Since this whole thing has devolved to a Jerry Springer show on acid, why not? It will give us something to chuckle about as a diversion from the race riots this summer.

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:24 am 
Offline
Contributing Member

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:57 pm
Posts: 176
Partyof5 wrote:
hondo69 wrote:
This works just like small claims court. You go to court, win your case, then nothing happens. The judge simply makes a ruling stating you won, then no action is taken. All of which makes small claims court a joke.


Is this a possible outcome if the Supreme Court says the individual mandate is unconstitutional? Could the administration just ignore it and move on anyways?


Isn't that what Andrew Jackson did?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:39 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 6341
Location: The 50th State
Obamacare deniers! The consensus is in, you can't deny consensus! Take that Mr (and Mrs) Judgey-pants!

_________________
Griz

“We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-Edward R. Murrow

My political compass score


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Okeefenokee, vive42 and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us