Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Word for the Day, Tuesday April 3, 2012

Posted on 04/03/2012 5:18:52 AM PDT by SoothingDave

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last
To: SoothingDave

So they are pissed-good. Are they also trying to hold him up to public ridicule by demanding s9omething that obvious-I hope?


81 posted on 04/03/2012 5:03:37 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

Obama was taunting and threatening the courts, SCOTUS, I thought, but this lower court is hearing a case on the healthcare bill as well. 3 pages single spaced...OMG. There is speculation that they had no right to demand it, but they are and this court gets to rule on the mandate, so it wouldn’t be prudent to tick them off further.

pass the popcorn....


82 posted on 04/03/2012 7:31:07 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

this was the most delicious thing ever. though i feel for the attorney who was blindsided with it. I have a Third Circuit argument coming up in 2 weeks and i am keenly aware of how she would have felt getting that bomb dropped in her lap. i am listening to that oral argument here at my desk. Haven’t gotten to her yet, am listening to the Petitioner still. There is no guarantee that the DOJ atty would even have known that Obams opened his yap about this, depending on whether she was just politically attuned or not. It’s a mistake to think that everyone at DOJ is political. There are career attorneys who work there under whichever Atty General happens to be in the job at any given time. There are 3 Republican appointees on this particular panel of the 5th Cir., the one who requested the TREATISE is a Reagan appointee.


83 posted on 04/04/2012 4:34:36 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

There’s gotta be some middle manager attorneys out there contemplating whether to run this request up to Holder or not for comment, eh?


84 posted on 04/04/2012 5:08:07 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

CONTEMPLATING? are you kidding? there was no way this wasn’t going to the top of the food chain or at least his inner circle from the get-go. Agencies do NOTHING without the political types weighing in.


85 posted on 04/04/2012 5:18:59 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

Still gotta be awkward. Hey, Boss, do we still believe in Marbury v Madison or not?


86 posted on 04/04/2012 5:40:47 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

the “front ofc” will draft that, the mainline attys will have little involvement.


87 posted on 04/04/2012 5:58:56 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

It’s still pretty absurd isn’t it? I would think there would be boilerplate on judicial review included on just about any petition asking for a law to be struck down.

This is like a teacher asking a student to write an essay on something really basic because the student is a bit thick.


88 posted on 04/04/2012 6:03:20 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

of course, there was boilerplate and she tried to direct him to it, but he wasn’t having any of it. he wants SPECIFICALLY the DOJ to address OBAMA’s ACTUAL COMMENTS in re authority of the fed judiciary to overturn unconsitutional laws. He was very clear about that. So it’s not regurgitating precedent. they are going to have to invent out of whole cloth, what Obams was trying to say and to square that up with actual precedent.
so this isn’t absurd at all, clearly this judge, and a number of others as well, was FROSTED at his effrontery and outright WRONGNESS, and found a way to call someone to account for it. Because the case in question had some toenail nexus to ACA, he could do it here.


89 posted on 04/04/2012 6:08:37 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

and the boilerplate on judicial review is one of the very first sections of EVERY court of appeals brief, not just ones asking for laws to be struck. the circuit court rules routinely require you to outline what the standard of review is for the case in question.


90 posted on 04/04/2012 6:13:48 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

She’s a fashion icon XS, we appearantly have no fashion sense.


91 posted on 04/04/2012 7:01:50 AM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (ABO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson