Skip to comments.Judges order Justice Department to clarify following Obama remarks on health law case
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 ...
Here’s to him getting slapped down and off his pedestal. Enough is enough of him telling the court what to do. Just like he gave the finger to the last judge by not bothering to even show up. Who is he to tell them anyting?
BTW: Obamacare ONLY passed the House 219-212 and the Senate 60-40 ...
FIRST, Levin related to the audience that he has it on good authority that Obama is going to ask the Court to strike down the DOMA Act [as unconstitutional] in the near future.
BTW: DOMA passed 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate - WAY MUCH MORE MAJORITY than Obamacare ...
THEN, Levin played tape of Obama's remarks from Monday where Obama cited that Obamacare passed with bi-partisan support and with a substantial majority in Congress [which is an OBVIOUS lie] ...
LASTLY, Levin asked Obama that IF overturning Obamacare would be UNPRECEDENTED - then WHY would Obama asking the Court to declare DOMA unconstitutional NOT be UNPRECEDENTED ???
OBAMA = NUKED !!!
Yuppers, the Judge has asked the DOJ to pick sides, 0bama or the Constitution.
Then, the Judges will push back against 0bama, and if necessary the DOJ
Remember most all judges are pulled from the ranks of the DOJ. (this is not good btw)
So these DOJ lawyers with judicial aspirations need to think long and hard.
You got that right.
Obama revealed his hidden agenda in Russia on the open mic; He didnt say "after the election, or after the next election. He said: This is my last election" ....... reassuring the Ruskis that he'll then have "more flexibility after the election....
Clearly his certainty WRT staying in offce is not based on his approval ratings or massive opposition to his cockamamie polices----mandated healthcare, trilllion dollar stimulus, using aborted babies' brains in lab experiments, giving himself massive power over Americans, co-opting religious beliefs, high gas prices......to name a few.
No. Ohaha's certainty stems from his knowledge that he will stay in office---not by the will of the people---but by buying the election, using massive vote fraud.
You’re bad. Very, very bad.
This is one of the ways Ohaha intends to hold onto the WH.
REFERENCE Pew study: 1 in 8 voter records flawed
By Gregory Korte, USA Today, 2/ 14/12
WASHINGTON More than 24 million voter-registration records in the United States about one in eight are inaccurate, out-of-date or duplicates. Nearly 2.8 million people are registered in two or more states, and perhaps 1.8 million registered voters are dead. Those estimates, from a report published today by the non-partisan Pew Center on the States, portray a largely paper-based system that is outmoded, expensive and error-prone.”We have a ramshackle registration system in the U.S.
It’s a mess. It’s expensive. There isn’t central control over the process,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for
Justice at New York University. Experts say there’s no evidence that the errors lead to fraud on Election Day. “The perception of the possibility of fraud drives hyper-partisan policymaking,” said David Becker, director of Pew’s election initiatives. But inactive voters do cost money. Inaccurate lists mean wasted money on mailings and extra paper ballots.
In Wood County, Ohio, home of Bowling Green State University, there are 106% as many registered voters as there were people in the 2010 Census. “We can’t explain it, but obviously having a major university here creates challenges to having our voter-registration list cleaned up,” elections director Deborah Hazard said.
Nearly 2.8 million people are registered to vote in more than one state.
Number of people registered in:
Two states 2,688,046
Three states 68,725
More than three states 1,807
Source: Pew Center on the States
The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as the “motor voter” law, made it easier for people to register to vote by, for example, allowing them to register when they get a state driver’s license.
That same law also made it more difficult to remove someone from the voting rolls. Unless officials have a death certificate or written confirmation from the voter that they’ve moved, a voter must miss two presidential elections that’s eight years before they can be removed.
The problem is particularly bad in swing states, where parties, campaigns and others canvass the state registering voters, even if they’re already registered, and often collecting inaccurate information, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said. “Everybody’s registering you here,” he said. “We don’t really have control of that.”
Husted is asking the U.S. Justice Department for guidance on how to clean up the rolls before the presidential election without violating motor voter. “It undermines voter confidence and creates the potential for voter fraud where people could act and vote on their behalf,” he said. Pew’s solution: create a multistate data center to give officials voter registrations, motor vehicle records and death certificates from other states, allowing them to spot records that could be removed. That effort is starting this year with Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington.
“This gives election officials more control over their lists,” Becker said. Even so, the motor voter law still
applies: “Nothing happens automatically, and even more importantly, it requires something affirmative from the voter.” Hazard said Ohio has a similar system to catch voters who die in Ohio, or move within the state. But if a voter moves or dies elsewhere, they can remain on the rolls for years.
© 2012 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
"A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obamas remarks, pointing out that Obamas title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."
Recently, Hillary Clintons campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:
"Singer (March 27):(e.m.) Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as a constitutional law professor out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, youll find that there is youll get quite an emotional response."
Only the MSM refers to Barack Obama as a "Constitutional Scholar or Professor" none of which is remotely true. Obama is not even close to being a Scholar let along a Constitutional one.