Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

CBSNews ^ | April 3, 2012 3:42 PM | Jan Crawford

[MyronCopacetic]

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.

[PMAS]

*

[Founding Father]

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.

[katiedidit1]

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

[katiedidit1]

I saw that too! shocking there are so many supporting Obommie the commie. Lot’s of leftwing comments attacking the republican candidates and party.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[boatbums]

And how is Øbama's brazen attack on the Court's legitimacy not a frontal assault on the very basis of the Republic itself ? ?

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!