Skip to comments.Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case
Posted on 04/03/2012 2:10:13 PM PDT by mwilli20
... 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 ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
it seems as though things are finally coming to a head..
BO really stepped in it this time. His childishness got the better of him. People are really beginning to question his intelligence and I have noticed more on FOX that everyone is truly beginning just to flat out say he lies about everything.
Sounds to me like he never went to class. Affirmative action dude got passed anyway. He clearly knows little about the Constitution and the USA. He’s as ignorant as they come.
One should assume the Federal Judges know full well where they stand with regard to the Constitution and do not take lightly any other Branch trying to usurp, regardless of their political persuasion.
They probably do with the exception of Kagen and the wise Latina.
Wow, everyone ought to listen to this audio file. The three judges aren’t particularly sympathetic to the plaintiffs but the one judge goes after Holder’s lawyer. Starts at 17:00 in. Judge starts in at just before 18 minutes. The DOJ lawyer is obviously stunned!
Events like this helps me restore faith that maybe this country isn’t on its deathbed. Kudo’s to the judge for challenging the arrogant and narcisist Obama.
Your observation is dead on! Center mass.
By the way, did you hear any of the oral arguments where the “wise latino” drop the WISE part in her street level questions and points of view? I always thought the Supreme Court Judges were at least intellectual and honest.
No, I didn’t hear her, but did hear Mark Levin say she was not impressive AT ALL. Republicans were stupid to let those two appointments get through so easily.
Just remember, M, that it was our friends and neighbors who elected this fraud...
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
There were a lot of dead people and people who never existed who pushed him over the top.
Just like the Game of Thrones ad: War is Coming.
But who wins?
To a large degree, “our” GOP Congress’ stance of Go along to get along, is what brought us to this situation we have today.
The Fifth Circuit is now my favorite U.S. Court of Appeals. Don’t back down!
Hey TraitØr ! . . . betcha this was Unexpected !
It’s only going to make him more brazen.
The bastard might crack. Somebody with some gonads had better be watching him.
He is simply a man of perdition.
That guy had a bad ending.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Some are predicting at least five justices may strike down Obama’s unconstitutional law. Does this mean the other four are political activists willing to circumvent our Constitution?
If so, what does this infer regarding the integrity of the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t this mean the Supreme Court has been compromised by political activism? Where maybe five are willing to adhere to the Constitution, and the other four are willing to proscribe the US Constitution as a condemned writ.
I think we have a right to expect the USSC to be politically blind. Yet, each POTUS election we hear many arguments how one will appoint conservative justices, and the other liberal justices. Justices should be neither conservative nor liberal. Justices should be politically blindfolded.
My interpretation of the USSC is that this entity is by law required to form it’s decisions based on the US Constitution. Which begs the question, what has led to this misalignment of the stars? How has political activism infiltrated the sanctity of the USSC? Where it is now predicted at least four members may vote the Obama(could really)Care(less) as Constitutional?
Nancy who routinely Peesonselfsi states Obama(could really)Care(less) is Constitutional since it follows the pursuit of happiness concept set forth in our US Constitution. How on earth could any reasonable Justice argue with her interpretation of our US Constitution? /s
Meanwhile, Obama declares the Supreme Court Justices as invalid since they are unelected officials.
Beam me up Scottie! Please hurry!
Dont be too shocked if the DOJ challenges the Judges authority to.........
If he’s re-elected, this judge might simply disappear or have an accident.
I was going to wonder if the Justices were really serious about the rule of law or just for Bush.
The law is arrogant as OBama, but, still, this guy is a joke.
Wise latina is another term for a latina getting her wisdom from doing a job as a whore on the sidewalk.
ping ... excellent post!
To tell you the truth, it does not matter. Obama has the media like Clinton did. All cover up and the left has the re-education so most of the public has not a clue about the constituional form of government.
With the GoP backing progressive Romney and staying silent as obama moves to communism, that is what is going to happen. We are kicking against the pricks; wasting our emotions and mental energy. It’s all b.s.
I'd guess the main reason she is basing her argument on the "pursuit of happiness" concept is because that is exactly where the Supremes found the "right to privacy" that lead them to the 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion. This ruling invalidated ALL of the laws of the 50 states on this subject and the companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, pretty much sewed up the right to kill your unborn child for ANY reason, at ANY time, ANY where (a doctor is found willing to do it). We see where THAT slippery slope has brought us. God help us if this administration is given carte blanche to tell us what will make us happy!
We both know his vision to transform America involves a spiral toward socialism/marxism. Yet from our electives in congress, and from those currently running for POTUS, when it comes to his stated intent, all I hear is **crickets**
I can’t help but wonder what it is, which keeps them silent? Is it fear? Is it ignorance? Or, are they all in on it? Since they all go about as if Obama is merely misguided. Yet, we know nothing could be further from the truth.
Obama is on mission. He is focused. Obama intends to do what his cousin Osama attempted to do...totally annihilate America, to the extent she resembles absolutely zero edifications her past glory. Obama intends to drive a stake through her heart. He has stated so from the beginning, when he said he intends to transform America.
Please ping me too if you find it. thx
Well I guess that explains that!
Interesting post. Thanks.
Newt has on numerous occasions called Obama extremely radical and dangerous.
He’s the one gasping for political air, however.
The deliberate mischaracterization of the Judicial branch as 'unelected' is a straw man fallacy of the first order being used by Øbama and his cømmunist sycophants to stampede the ignorant.
That it's duplicitous premise has not been fatally attacked here at FR surprises me, and I say that as a man many years removed from academia.
And the true evil of said premise lies not in it's attempt to hoodwink the uninformed re the Supreme Court, but in its brazen frontal assault on the essence of our republican form of government !
Nominees for direct elections for offices from dog catcher to Congress are decided upon by US citizens via a simple majority vote.
Henceforward, those elected are empowered to act on our behalf in their respective posts until such time as their term of office expires.
To wit: under our Constitution, the citizenry elects Senators from each state to represent us in the upper house for terms of six years.
Those Senators, under authority of Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, must either approve or reject - via a 2/3 majority - any nomination by the Executive for:
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
Nominations for the offices above under A2S2 must therefore, in fact, pass the muster of a 'super majority' (2/3) of our elected Senators to assume their respective posts.
How then is the latter not an example of the very basis of our Founders' desire that we be a Republic ? !
And how is Øbama's brazen attack on the Court's legitimacy not a frontal assault on the very basis of the Republic itself ? ?
Keep in mind it was Boehner who was "accidentally" recorded by 'Rat operatives when he was on his car phone "helping" the enormously effective Gingrich with a strategy to deal with Gingrich's "ethics charges". IMO Boehner is on Boehner's side.
OTOH Obama's thugs may have his grandchildren...
I never said that we shouldn’t go after Obama hard on this. I think it is perfectly appropriate for the political branches and politicians to blast Obama for his Supreme Court comment. I just don’t think it is appropriate for judges to do that because it feeds into the narrative he was trying to create.
Is it possible that our Republic would be saved by the Judicial branch, even while stacked with Clintoon/Zero appointees?
I kept wondering when the someone within the alphabet agencies would do something, leak info, take some action to protect us. Nothing visible has happened. Could it be that Roberts will exonerate himself after swearing in the impostor?
Someone should write a children’s book:
“The Little Dictator that Couldn’t”
What did you come up with. I cannot remember a similar event, but perhaps back in FDR's administration?
Audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):
The MSM has done there best to botch the context and bury the lead, even pave it over.
This is transcript in full context:
Justice Smith: 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: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Justice Smith: Im referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed he was referring, of course, to Obamacare what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And thats not a small matter. So I want to be sure that youre 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.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because theres no
Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday 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, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the presidents statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.
I talked to an attorney friend who works for an appellate court. Neither of us had ever heard of anything remotely like this.
(We also agreed that it was a serious abuse of discretion but I probably should not say that too loudly here).
FDR’s intimidation of the courts actually worked. I don’t recall any court really fighting back against him - at least not in such a blatantly political manner.
Where in the constitution does it say the USSC is the final determinate as to what is or is not constitutional? Nowhere. There is a reason early presidents told the USSC to pound sand. They were following the constitution.
Just checked out some of the comments on the article itself and was stunned at the Obama supporters! thank God for the sanity of free republic.
Obama is an arrogant POS
I saw that too! shocking there are so many supporting Obommie the commie. Lot’s of leftwing comments attacking the republican candidates and party.
Actually, it was taken as a given by the founding fathers as judicial review in the state courts, for their state constitutions, was used even before the US constitution, and no fewer than seven of the delegates to the constitutional convention had been state judges or lawyers directly involved in that type of constitutional review.
But that was further cemented by from both Article III and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, phrased in such a way as to make this an implied power of the SCOTUS, and such subordinate federal courts as congress created.
And it is entirely logical, as it means they have to explain their judgment. Were it not to determine constitutionality, court cases would be beauty contests just based on the personal opinions of justices.
Well, you are 100% correct about that. Obama knows good and well how our republic works and his idiotic "straw-man" fallacy was worded that way because he also knows the majority of those who support him are idiots and swallow whatever tea he brews for them. The same goes for his ubiquitous use of the word "unprecedented" - a word he has used to describe his own "audacious" (another favorite word) actions to bolster his elevated opinion of himself. Everything he has done has been called unprecedented and has always been intended to be taken as a positive. In this case, though, he either used the word mistakenly - since it is always on the tip of his tongue anyway - or he wanted to get a rise out of his syncophants about someone else, or something else, acting in the same way for a change, though, in this case, it was negatively.
Obama is not an idiot, even though he does and says some pretty idiotic things, so he knows very well that the court overruling a congressional law is very much in their job description as they determine the constitutionality of lawsuits brought before them every year. He knows very well that HE is elected and HE, as President, nominates Supreme Court justices and that the Senate, ALSO elected, approve or disapprove those nominees. He is playing word games and he knows it, we know it and he knows we know it, but he also knows he'll get away with it anyway. I despise this man more every day!