Skip to comments.Obama administration heeds judges' health care order-with link to Holder letter
Posted on 04/05/2012 10:19:11 AM PDT by OldeconomybuyerEdited on 04/05/2012 10:50:42 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Eric Holder Response
(CNN) -- The Justice Department obeyed a federal appeals court's unusual order Thursday in a legal and political spat over the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.
Administration lawyers met their deadline and filed a three-page, single-spaced letter -- following the specific instructions of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing a challenge to the health care law. The letter affirmed the government's stance that federal courts indeed have the authority to decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- and any other law Congress passes.
A dispute involving the court and the executive branch has elevated the political stakes over whether the law will survive various legal challenges, including a pending a Supreme Court decision. The high court's ruling, expected in June, would take precedence over any other courts hearing similar appeals.
As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous “unprecedented” remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.
What would they have done if he refused, spanked him?
“Referring to comments by Obama that set off the imbroglio, the letter concluded: “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”
No they were not! These people even lie in writing! I hope Judge Smith makes Holder rewrite his homework until he gets it correct!
Can’t wait to read it!
This Judge may have done all of America a favor by ordering a written compliance from Obama’s justice Dept!
The judge requested a letter of explanation, not an apology.
If the Justice Department refused, the judge could have ruled against them in that case.
Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction. If the court doesn't have the authority to render the relief sought by the complaint, it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.
I think you missed the point.
The Executive Branch was saying the Judicial Branch was not an equal.
If Obama persisted, it could be considered an impeachable offense.
The Judicial Branch (and Legislative) have an obligation to ensure the other two branches do not exceed their authority.
This was a judge saying the executive was crossing a dangerous line.
Tnx for posting. What a snarky response. The order was with specific reference to Barky’s comments. Methinks the DOJ under Holder is going to have a tougher time in many Federal courts after this. ~snicker~
That letter is only 2& 1/4 pages long, not the 3 pages that were assigned. Judge Smith should write a big red “F”, correction he should write a big red “FU”, on it and kick it back to Holder to complete the assignment correctly!
That letter is only 2 and a half pages long, not 3 pages as ordered by the court !
This is Contempt of Court !
The next question is whether the administration will abide by the finding of the court.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“The next question is whether the administration will abide by the finding of the court.”
Yes, we will see how much respect he has for the Court after they overturn ObamaIdon’tcare and he tries to go around the ruling by issuing Executive Orders!
Holder just "mailing it in"..go figure....
Yes, Corruptocrat Holder, that is correct... all "urgings" by Bill Clinton. So what's your point?
So basically Holder is saying, “The Judical branch does have the right of review, but not in the case of obamacare.”
This administration reminds me so much of the old coin toss joke. Heads, I win...Tails, you lose.
As noted, it wasn’t an apology he ordered, more of a “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”
Read Holder’s letter. In legal-speake, it is the big FU you asked for.
I expect that the decision has already been taken, and that the time between now and June is for the Justices and their clarks to write their majority opinions and dissent.
“As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous unprecedented remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the courts request for a letter of apology.”
If you LOOK at and READ the letter, Holder on his behalf did exactly that for you, not to worry.
The problem was that the legality of judicial review was never an issue in the case. The judge raised it himself.
That’s the unprecedented part of this; a judge raising an issue that’s not before the judge.
I can’t even come up with a good analogy.
I guess it would be like a judge in a 2nd Amendment case demanding one party to clarify their position on the limitations of political speech or their view on illegal search and seizure.
Attorney General Holder - would you be so kind as to explain that to the President? Thank you, and have a nice day.
You never know - after this some court might find that someone DOES have standing to challenge Obama's eligibility to be President.
..otherwise the next thing we’ll ask you to do is write “I cannot overrule the Supreme Court” 100 times on Glen Beck’s chalkboard.
He’s “energized” his base, that’s for sure.
All the leftist freaks I know are REAL MAD at the Supreme Court.
Next, they’ll be demanding that their messiah ignore the Supreme Court, unless they get their jollies again by posting the justices’ addresses.
How can you say that, he was after all, a student of Zero.
Obama is no Jackson. In fact, Zero wouldn’t be fit to shine Jackson’s boots.
I agree. Holder did not do what Judge Smith requested, which was to specifically address the substance of Obamas statement. Listen here http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx?prid=257724 at 17:50 into the oral argument.
As others have pointed out, the judge asked for a clarification, not an apology.
That said, I think the Administration could have ignored it to little effect.
I think they looked at it as a way to "reposition their position" because Obama's little veiled threat provoked a much bigger backlash than they expected.
They put the letter together in a way that they can claim they were clarifying, while they were actually sending a big FU to the judge.
We've seen this juvenile M.O. before from The Fresh Prince of BillAyers.
Just for clarification, hardly anything gets mailed in the federal system. It’s all filed electronically. ECF is electronic case filing.
I'm with ya...but that popped in my head immediately when I saw it...
Hey, a vote for the GOP is a vote for less reliable weather forecasts. How do I know this? The Kenyan said it!
How anyone can vote for this failed community organizer thug is beyond me.
I was thinking the same thimg-it was wise to make them put it in writing and on the record.
They are telling us what they think we want to hear, they are not explaining what they meant.
obama looks soo bad. I wish we could win and put Judge Jerry Smith on the SC but Romney couldn’t beat his dog. Now they want to cram Haley whats her name down our throat as sarah light No sale. CYA!
What would they have done if he refused, spanked him?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every federal DOJ lawyer appearing in ANY and ALL cases reviewing the constitutionality of any law would lack standing to appear.
Any federal court could refuse to allow DOJ lawyers to be heard because they would not in fact have acknowledged the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Their “Notices of Appearance” would in fact be fraudulently filed and would be struck from the records of any current case upon motion by the opposing attorneys.
Thats a MAJOR SPANK, and it is why Holder had to respond.
When any attorney files an Appearance, he is acknowledging the jurisdiction of the court in the cause in which he appears to represent a client. If the DOJ and the president does not acknowledge that jurisdiction of constitutional review, then they cannot appear.They become in fact incapable of appearing to represent anyone in any constitutional law case.
MAJOR SPANK INDEED.
Obama should not be usung the court system in his campaign. It actually opens up the issue of Contempt of Couirt as well, in which DOJ lawyers could be jailed for arguing before a federal court fraudulently, when in fact all they are doing is trying tio undermine the courts power of judicial review.
It would be wonderful to see Holder jailed for Contempt of Court. He is very close to that line on that issue.
“Holder did not do what Judge Smith requested, which was to specifically address the substance of Obamas statement.”
He also said it needed to be at least 3 pages, single-spaced, no less. So Holder essentially said FU in both substance and form to this request.
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.