Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's On: 5th Circuit Dares Obama to Deny Power of Judicial Review
Breitbart News ^ | April 4, 2012 | Breitbart News

Posted on 04/04/2012 5:11:33 AM PDT by expat1000

Jan Crawford of CBS reports that a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to "answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law."

The response is to be three pages long, single-spaced, according to an unnamed lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The court's response appears to be a direct challenge to President Barack Obama's attack yesterday on the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review, which federal courts have exercised for over 200 years.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; backoffbarry; bhocorruption; bhofascism; bhotyranny; constitution; elections; nobama; nobama2012; obama; obamatruthfile; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 04/04/2012 5:11:40 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Why is the time for an answer set to Thursday?

Seems to me that instead of a 2-day response time, 4 or 5 minutes would be more appropriate. Actually, the time needed to say “1803” would be quite sufficient.


2 posted on 04/04/2012 5:23:12 AM PDT by C210N (Mitt "Severe Etch-a-Sketch" mcRominate-me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

“Why is the time for an answer set to Thursday?”

BFD. The king need not answer to anyone. Thursday will simply come and go as usual.


3 posted on 04/04/2012 5:33:16 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N
I believe the lawyer for the DOJ did answer quickly and correctly when the judge first asked.

Problem is that the Presidient of the US seems to be saying that the judicial branch is not co-equal because they are "un-elected". And, the president does not seem to agree with the DOJ lawyers opinion.

Requesting official clarification from her bosses seems warranted.

Plus, it makes Obama look like the snotty school kid - given a homework asignment by the wise professor judge.

Should make Eric Holder write it 100 times on the chalk board too.

4 posted on 04/04/2012 5:34:16 AM PDT by thedrake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
existing thread
5 posted on 04/04/2012 5:41:47 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
The king need not answer to anyone.

That's how Charles I of England saw things too. Where is our Cromwell?

6 posted on 04/04/2012 5:43:19 AM PDT by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

After murdering more than 300 Mexicans and 2 federal agents with Fast And Furious guns, Holder just gives the middle finger to congress and it’s requests for documents and witnesses.

They could not care any less about what a few judges “demand.”

Are the judges going to send a Judicial SWAT Team? No. It’s a joke.


7 posted on 04/04/2012 5:54:33 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Getting AG Holder on record with an written answer, I just can’t fathom it’s significance. He will just lie when he later orders his dept. to ignore the judicial review.


8 posted on 04/04/2012 5:54:50 AM PDT by swamprebel (Where liberty dwells, there is my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
...a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to "answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law."

No! Not federal judges, too!! Say it ain't so!

I do not think the supreme court has the 'right' to declare a federal law unconstitutional and to strike it down. I think the supreme court has the POWER to declare a federal law unconstitutional and to strike it down.

I was taught in variious Civics and History classes that governments have powers; that PEOPLE have rights.

9 posted on 04/04/2012 5:55:52 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

So what’s the over / under on when the Generals step in? No really, I’m saying that with a straight face. We are heading into Banana Republic territory.


10 posted on 04/04/2012 6:05:46 AM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

We are heading into Banana Republic territory.

. . .

We’ve been there for a while. It’s just becoming more obvious.


11 posted on 04/04/2012 6:09:24 AM PDT by Nickname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

Unfortunately most Generals are political animals so don’t look for it.


12 posted on 04/04/2012 6:11:24 AM PDT by vanilla swirl (searching for something meaningfull to say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
I was taught in variious Civics and History classes that governments have powers; that PEOPLE have rights.

Most of our rights are being taken away by those we've given power.

Sad really.

13 posted on 04/04/2012 6:11:43 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

President Obama is a litigant before the Supreme Court on the legislation which is being defended by his Solicitor General, and as such should be respectful in his comments about the Justices.

Instead, Obama resorts to political extortion before the press and public in a bid to force the Court’s hand to decide in his favor: i.e, “if you don’t decide my way I will engage in a smear campaign about your judicial temperament.”

The Supreme Court should hold President Obama in contempt of court, and expose him as the Chicago thug he is.


14 posted on 04/04/2012 6:17:21 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Yes. Yes, it is.


15 posted on 04/04/2012 6:17:25 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
Ah...the arrogance of the king who ultimately believes his own bullshit - that he is truly king and emporer.

All the while the King forgets he got where he is by specific activism from his liberal judge allies.

His arrogance now tugs on the tail of the tiger(s).

I hope this continues - his mandate gets struck down in its entirety. And, he throws a two-year old's tantrum. Doesn't make good sense in the run up to his faux re-election.

16 posted on 04/04/2012 6:21:21 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
Judge Jerry Smith, of the 5th circuit, who slapped down obamas solicitor general, demanding withing 48 hours (Thursday, noon) a 3 page, single-spaced (minimum) statement of clarification as to whether or not the obama administration believes the court system is Constitutionally prohibited, or not, to perform judicial review, is the same judge who, in the Salazar case, refused to uphold the administrations right to place a moratorium on Gulf drilling. Watch as see as the obamaites attempt to disassemble the judge and the 3 member panel. It will be framed as a rogue vendetta operation . We need to be prepared for this. There is nothing, there noone the pricks in the obama adminstration won't savage.
17 posted on 04/04/2012 6:28:37 AM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
One of the comments at the end of the article:

lukuj
Good for them! Someone needs to call this president out on his lies and misrepresentations. If he taught Constitutional law, you would think he would KNOW the tasks of the Supreme Court. Either he is stupid, or he only wants the court to do its job if it agrees with him. I hope the Republican candidate, whoever he is, calls attention to this during debates. The American people should be livid, but too many of them are steeped in basketball and reality TV to know or care.

18 posted on 04/04/2012 6:42:24 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
HEY PREZ!!!!

How ‘bout all those judges striking down the anti-gay marriage laws the people keep passing?

19 posted on 04/04/2012 6:51:25 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
*** I was taught in variious Civics and History classes that governments have powers; that PEOPLE have rights. ***

Come on now where's your compassion for the 'learning impaired'.
That 'Courts/Rights' thing came from a CBS Femi-Nazi 'journalist', Jan Crawford.

You know, 'Journalists' -- the people that Flunk Out of Teacher Colleges (Colleges of Education) then transfer to J-School to party, protest, and where any actual "learning" is optional. And as long as you have a left-wing agenda you Graduate with 'honors'. And the further to the left, the higher the 'honors'.

[When 'Reporters' became 'Journalists' the news industry died.]

20 posted on 04/04/2012 6:57:41 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C210N

This is actually starting to worry me. First those idiot Senators came out with the not-worth-obeying crap if the ruling didn’t go their way. Then Bozo with the unelected speech and a couple of honorable mentions for impeaching the Justices scattered about.

I read where the Judge who ordered this response is an Obama appointee so is this another setup? Could the judges just accept the answer on Thurs. as valid and drop that case? Just wondering out loud here.


21 posted on 04/04/2012 7:10:29 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N

“Why is the time for an answer set to Thursday?”

Maybe they will fast track unfavorable cases in 5th Circuit of MS, LA or TX (eligibility or such?), but just not saying so?


22 posted on 04/04/2012 7:13:22 AM PDT by Suz in AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
only wants the court to do its job if it agrees with him.

Well... all libs want that.

23 posted on 04/04/2012 7:14:54 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
I hope this continues - his mandate gets struck down in its entirety. And, he throws a two-year old's tantrum.


24 posted on 04/04/2012 7:17:58 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kenny
I read where the Judge who ordered this response is an Obama appointee so is this another setup? Could the judges just accept the answer on Thurs. as valid and drop that case?

"As long as we've got a voucher"


25 posted on 04/04/2012 7:23:08 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Or else ! What is else, exactly? Nobody can make Obama’s injustice department do this. They’re laughing as we type.


26 posted on 04/04/2012 7:28:50 AM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Are the judges going to send a Judicial SWAT Team?


27 posted on 04/04/2012 7:31:50 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Why is the time for an answer set to Thursday? Seems to me that instead of a 2-day response time, 4 or 5 minutes would be more appropriate. Actually, the time needed to say “1803” would be quite sufficient.

I think the time, plus the length mandate, was to force the DoJ to actually put some effort into it and remind them of how things are supposed to work.

28 posted on 04/04/2012 7:33:05 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

wrong. Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of appeals is a Reagan appointee.


29 posted on 04/04/2012 7:35:08 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

...unnamed lawyer who was in the courtroom....

&&&&
I know nothing about law, but I am wondering if the “unnamed lawyer” who leaked this would be considered in contempt of court.

Can anyone answer this?


30 posted on 04/04/2012 7:41:07 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
wrong. Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of appeals is a Reagan appointee.

Great! Maybe there's hope our judges won't just let this pass.

31 posted on 04/04/2012 8:05:29 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

It was bound to happen. Power corrupts and . . .you know the rest.


32 posted on 04/04/2012 8:11:27 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
Now there's a 'nom de FRume' I haven't seen in awhile !

Hiya xs, hope all's well   :-)

33 posted on 04/04/2012 8:15:48 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

wow, a slap back at the President! Good for them.


34 posted on 04/04/2012 8:17:07 AM PDT by midnightcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Suz in AZ

Probably due to the Easter Holidays. The courts are probably going to take some time off and they would want to have an answer before then. Or they could just be wanting to come down hard on 0 and show they are in charge, not him. It will be interesting to see if he just ignores the court or not. He is elected, after all. (That last comment was meant as sarcasm.)


35 posted on 04/04/2012 8:19:13 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

>>existing thread

Not really. Different source - different headline, plus it was pulled!!


36 posted on 04/04/2012 8:27:25 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: murron; Suz in AZ

it is not at all uncommon during oral argument for the judges to give you a short turnaround time to address, in writing, an issue that comes up during argument that was not presented in the briefs prior. what is uncommon is that here the subject matter was the President’s ill-considered remarks that she may or may not have even known about!


37 posted on 04/04/2012 8:31:28 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

hiya : )


38 posted on 04/04/2012 8:32:30 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

Accept their answer and drop the case?

The Supreme Court has the Obamacare case before it, not the Fifth Circuit appeals court which this judge sits on.

Do you mean drop the Obamacare case, or do you mean drop the question the judge demanded they answer, just as long as they answer it somehow?

They can’t drop a case they don’t have, nor could the Supreme Court drop a case they have heard...they have to rule.

Dropping the question...that would depend on how far this judge wants to push it, but it is unwise to tick off federal judges by ignoring them.

What tickles me is the judge just put a mandate on DOJ.


39 posted on 04/04/2012 8:35:04 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

ALL oral arguments are available for anyone to listen to on the 5th circuit website [indeed i think most circuits post them to their websites], so whether the lawyer was named or unnamed is really irrelevant.


40 posted on 04/04/2012 8:35:14 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Did that video of obamma kicking the door actually take place? If not, it a very good dramatization.
41 posted on 04/04/2012 8:38:14 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
Here is the audio of the oral argument if anyone is interested. It's the 7th one down the list Physician Hospitals of America. The DOJ atty is the respondent so she argues second.
42 posted on 04/04/2012 8:40:17 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

Generals are useless. I’d pay more attention to the Colonels who are typically the base commanders and are close enough to the troops to gain their support.


43 posted on 04/04/2012 8:55:14 AM PDT by MeganC (No way in Hell am I voting for Mitt Romney. Not now, not ever. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

So, what happens if the DOJ ignores this, like so many other things they have ignored?

The ONLY thing that will stop Obama, IMO, is being PHYSICALLY removed. I hear these ads and pleas to join a petition or call and/or contribute to some group, that’s going to write Obama a letter or give him the petition, to stop what he’s doing. That’s not going to matter. He’s going to ignore it and completely rip right through it, just like he has EVERYTHING else. The LAW doesn’t matter to this Marxist A-Hole.

I mean, shoot, the SUPREME COURT doesn’t matter to this Marxist A-Hole.....

So, what will?


44 posted on 04/04/2012 9:08:11 AM PDT by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Let me guess. The 3 members are not liberal,,,and obama will tell them to stuff it.


45 posted on 04/04/2012 9:18:44 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Why is the time for an answer set to Thursday?

Seems to me that instead of a 2-day response time, 4 or 5 minutes would be more appropriate. Actually, the time needed to say “1803” would be quite sufficient.


As the Constitutional expert he claims to be, he should have no problem going into great detail.


46 posted on 04/04/2012 9:21:41 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Do you mean drop the Obamacare case, or do you mean drop the question the judge demanded they answer, just as long as they answer it somehow?

Sorry, I meant the case they're hearing.

The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities

I was saying they could drop the case they're hearing if they accepted a response that judicial review was invalid on the issue of healthcare.

47 posted on 04/04/2012 10:05:10 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
The DOJ's response to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals request for an explanation of President Obama's remarks regarding the Supreme Court has been leaked. Photobucket
48 posted on 04/04/2012 11:05:24 AM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

Okay, thank you for the info. I was just wondering....


49 posted on 04/04/2012 11:33:38 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Pray for our republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Courts are closed in Good Friday.


50 posted on 04/04/2012 11:46:34 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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