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 ...
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.
“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.
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.
That's how Charles I of England saw things too. Where is our Cromwell?
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are heading into Banana Republic territory.
. . .
We’ve been there for a while. It’s just becoming more obvious.
Unfortunately most Generals are political animals so don’t look for it.
Most of our rights are being taken away by those we've given power.
Sad really.
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.
Yes. Yes, it is.
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.
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.
How ‘bout all those judges striking down the anti-gay marriage laws the people keep passing?
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.]
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.
“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?
Well... all libs want that.
"As long as we've got a voucher"
Or else ! What is else, exactly? Nobody can make Obama’s injustice department do this. They’re laughing as we type.
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.
wrong. Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of appeals is a Reagan appointee.
...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?
Great! Maybe there's hope our judges won't just let this pass.
It was bound to happen. Power corrupts and . . .you know the rest.
Hiya xs, hope all's well :-)
wow, a slap back at the President! Good for them.
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.)
>>existing thread
Not really. Different source - different headline, plus it was pulled!!
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!
hiya : )
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.
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.
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.
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?
Let me guess. The 3 members are not liberal,,,and obama will tell them to stuff it.
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.
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.
Okay, thank you for the info. I was just wondering....
Courts are closed in Good Friday.
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.