Posted on 04/03/2012 3:26:28 PM PDT by tobyhill
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Liberal lawyers (most of the law profession) are re-educated to be filled with empty socialist slogans and revised history. Socialists have totally woven Marxist poitical activism with the law. They are anti-constitution and ignorant.
This is where the liberal gets mugged for hanging out with Marxists. The constitution is the only reason we have courtrooms, lawyers, judges, etc. Marxists do not respect the constitution’s division of power between three branches of government and they don’t respect the rule of law. The Congress and the Courts are out. The dear reader and his comrades reign supreme.
The Courts should have realized what was coming with Dear Reader told the Congress after the Dems lost the last election, that he would do what he wants in ruling over this country without the power and authority of the Congress.
That's correct.
The skinny little POS Ubama was basically a guest lecturer who was little more than a substitute teacher for the real professors.
Here is an interesting post from another freeper:
4 posted on Monday, April 02, 2012 8:27:56 PM by AnAmericanMother
"He was an "adjunct professor" = a non-tenure-track resume-enhancer for local lawyers to 'give back' to their alma mater. It's also a way for the law school to keep in touch with local law firms or (in Obama's case) do a favor for some influential local politician.
"I was an "adjunct professor" for years at my law school, but I was never under any illusions as to the importance of it or that it meant that I was a particularly learned person or great lawyer. I was helping out my school and getting something nice and public-spirited to put on my resume, nothing more.
"-- this sort of position I suppose is technically speaking a "professor" because it's in the title, but it is either unpaid or carries a very small honorarium. IIRC, I got the whopping sum of $200 for a whole semester's work. Didn't even pay for my outlay in gas and paper, never mind my time."
This is a bona-fide constitutional crisis. This is the beginning of the end.
UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith’s order to DOJ, is available here - http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx.
In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president’s comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws “have troubled a number of people” and that the suggestion “is not a small matter.”
The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss “judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation.”
“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday — that’s about 48 hours from now — 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,” Smith said. “What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?”
Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: “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 replies yes, and Smith continues: “I’m referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed ‘unelected’ judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring to, of course, Obamacare — to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.”
In asking for the letter, Smith said: “I want to be sure you’re 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.”
I think Obama has a good handle on the 5 branches of government
that is the only description for voting for Romney that makes any sense.
I think those justices just gave the admin. a shot across the bow. They are paying attention as they should.
Why are Obama’s students so quiet if he was “a professor”...I don’t believe he was, if I remember right when this issue was raised before....I understood he was never a professor or even and adjunct professor, he was ‘a guest lecturer’. So which is it?
This reminds me of when I was in school and we got in trouble for something being made to write an essay of so many words. I used to write some very long sentences with as many extra words as I could muster.
He doesn't appear to have anye concern about what others might think about him. Tyrants are generally that way. Even Putin treats the American people with more respect than Mambo does.....and he's ready to pounce at any time in the near future.
Oh, I don’t know. He may be a Contitutional scholar. The question is of which country’s constitution is he a scholar?
Exactly. Perhaps they should have told him to write on the blackboard 100 times: “I went to Harvard Law School, but I don’t know anything about Constitutional law.”
I do believe he's not as smart as he's been projected to be...though his team certainly might drill him on his talking points etc. I think he's completely in the dark without those around him informing him.....basically he's a fraud IMO....with no history we can actually confirm or check out.
The court has a case in front of them... They were asking an OB lawyer what the WH meant by his comment.... They have a right to ask that question as they are about to make a ruling in a case in front of them.
It would seem rather odd for them to be doing so while at the same time the highest law enforcement official in the country is telling them that courts do not have the power to over rule things. Pretty clear case that the judges had a right to ask.
The court has a case in front of them... They were asking an OB lawyer what the WH meant by his comment.... They have a right to ask that question as they are about to make a ruling in a case in front of them.
It would seem rather odd for them to be doing so while at the same time the highest law enforcement official in the country is telling them that courts do not have the power to over rule things. Pretty clear case that the judges had a right to ask.
What will be interesting is if the Whitehouse even responds....
“”Has the other two Constitutional selected departments of our government decided to go rouge?”
As long as they don’t go mascara I think we’ll be OK. “
Rouge = Red. It may not be a typo after all.
As long as we use it in the old context of Red = Communist.
Yes, but Romney hasn't yet been allowed in the door of the White House, now, has he.
And, I wouldn't be hasty in disputing the "far worse" charge, either. The Democrats only detest us; a GOP insider could precipitate conditions that would sink the party.
We have entered what I would call "The Carthaginian Phase" of our national existence wherein the internal struggles between the major political parties have risen to a level where that is what consumes more and more of their bandwidth; the country itself be damned. We've seen the DNC on this track for fifty years, and we've watched with angst as the GOP follows the DNC's leftward drift, but witness more recent growth in GOP indifference to the voices of actual Conservative voters. Witness how the Romney campaign has been the catalyst for the appearance of a growing body of evidence of size of the rift between Conservative America, and establishment GOP leaders and pundits. See how the "go along to get along" wing of the GOP has now drawn a bright line of contrast between itself and Constitutional Conservatism as a governing philosophy, spurring the rise of a moniker that is an epithet to many, "establishment Republican."
Clearly, the GOP leadership are no longer interested in the input of anyone who's bent on building any real degree of resistance to the leftward drift of this country. They're happy to keep debating the left, and to stay to the right of them, and to maintain a measure of difference between themselves and the left, they just aren't going to debate TOO strongly, nor stay TOO far right, nor differentiate themselves TOO much; that would be too radical for their refined, Blue Blood, country club tastes. Besides, it might really make the Democrats angry, and they might yell at them, and use strong language, and call them nasty names.
Conservatives have read The Constitution, driven an iron spike into the bedrock, tied off to it, and said, "I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me."
In response, the GOP has increased its distance from Conservatives, made multiple attempts at redefining "conservative" further to the left, and generally indicated a willingness to consider making a complete break with its Conservative wing (and roots) should that become politically expedient at any future point, which they further intimate believing to be an inevitability.
Now comes Mitt Romney, standing on the poop deck of the good ship GOP, and — as it churns its way left — bids Conservatives abandon their Rock and throw in their lot with him. No doubt with Romney we'll be able to enjoy an Old Fashioned with ice scraped fresh from a passing berg. My what fun Conservatives will miss for having stayed rooted to their principles back there on the quay.
And we don’t have the representation to remove him either. Holder should not be there after F&F. Spineless bastards these Republicans.
“The Democrats only detest us; a GOP insider could precipitate conditions that would sink the party.”
Obama detests the U.S. and is clearly precipitating conditions that will sink the country, and it will get exponentially worse if he has another 4 years to shred the Constitution and our freedoms. I am a Newt supporter, but I will not cast a protest vote (or refrain from voting) in the general election and thus help ensure an Obama victory.
>> Article: referring directly to Obama’s latest comments about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care case.
Why is the judiciary challenging political speech?
That’s a sane position, but until the nominee is cast in stone, I don’t want to see the other contenders throw in the towel. If the nominee is gonna be Romney, I for sure want him to have a materially significant grasp of the reality that he was in NO WAY a shoo-in for the job; that there is a HUGE Conservative stripe through the heart of the GOP that WILL hold his feet VERY close to the fire; but that isn’t going to happen unless at least one of the other two top candidates FORCES Romney to take this Primary all the way down to the mattresses, and that’s what I want to see happen. I want this Primary to be a philosophical brawl over positions and issues all the way to the wire.
When it’s over, and we’ve got a nominee, I want to see whoever that is get up off the canvas, hitch up his belt, spit on his hands, look Obama square in the eye and say, “Alright you raggedy interloping commie bastard; you’re next!”
THAT’S who I want to vote for; somebody who’ll kick Obama’s corrupt, Chi-town thug ass to frickin’ Alpha Centauri.
WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!
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.