Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge fires back after Obama health care comments
The Daily Caller ^

Posted on 04/03/2012 5:00:17 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

Federal judge fires back after Obama health care comments 5:53 PM 04/03/2012

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals escalated the increasingly public battle between President Barack Obama and the judiciary on Tuesday, ordering the Department of Justice to write and submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon on Thursday explaining whether the administration acknowledges that the courts have the right to overturn federal laws.

The order, CBS News reported, follows the president’s historically inaccurate claim Monday that a Supreme Court decision striking down the so-called “individual mandate” in his health care overhaul law “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress.” Obama suggested that because of this, the Supreme Court would opt not to overturn the law. (RELATED: Full coverage of Obamacare)

A Tuesday opinion essay in the Wall Street Journal corrected the president’s history, noting the famous Marbury v. Madison case.

“In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review,” the Journal’s editors wrote. “In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities.”

Noting that Obama “is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago,” the essay adds that the president’s remarks “suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last
Hero!
1 posted on 04/03/2012 5:00:22 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Somebody pinch me ...


2 posted on 04/03/2012 5:03:23 PM PDT by 11th_VA (Keep your laws OFF my light bulbs !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I find this hilarious and am awaiting the Presidents response - heh!


3 posted on 04/03/2012 5:03:55 PM PDT by Deagle (nOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This is what I’d call a big effin’ deal.


4 posted on 04/03/2012 5:04:34 PM PDT by Terry Mross ("It happened. And we let it happen." - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Taking Hitler to the woodshed!


5 posted on 04/03/2012 5:05:19 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Does anyone else see what’s coming?


6 posted on 04/03/2012 5:06:27 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Further proof Bammy’s law degree was due to affirmative action.

This guy is dumb as a rock.


7 posted on 04/03/2012 5:08:59 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (The Democrat Ku Klux Klan is alive and well as the New Black Panthers, CBC and the NAACP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Yeah. They aren’t going to be able to answer the question.

Seriously, other than just plain Trouble, what do you seen coming? A Constitutional Crisis?


8 posted on 04/03/2012 5:09:42 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
All of those laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities.”

The press is letting Obama get away with a lie. Obamacare barely squeaked through.

From Wiki:

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a party-line vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with one senator (Jim Bunning) not voting.

The House passed the bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.


9 posted on 04/03/2012 5:11:29 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Hahahahahahahahaha


10 posted on 04/03/2012 5:12:25 PM PDT by Gasshog (going to get what all those libs asked for, but its not what they expected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Suddenly, I think my opinions may actually “have standing”!

Wow, this is a big deal, and a very ballsy deal.


11 posted on 04/03/2012 5:14:47 PM PDT by Gator113 (** President Newt Gingrich-"Our beloved republic deserves nothing less." ~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

I predict that IF the law is overturned, obama will pull an Andrew Jackson. Then the question becomes will the people “obey” the marxist?

With that said, I’m not convinced the court will overturn it. Sotomayor and Sebilius were having dinner in the same restaurant friday evening according to the owner of the restaurant. It’s assumed they were dining together. That makes me believe the white house knows the interim vote count. I believe the thugs that run the government will go to any length to destroy this nation. And I mean ANY lengths. I just hope there are 5 brave MEN on that court and I pray God SAVES that honorable court.


12 posted on 04/03/2012 5:17:19 PM PDT by Terry Mross ("It happened. And we let it happen." - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

I’m just shocked that our side actually fired back. Maybe there’s hope afterall.


13 posted on 04/03/2012 5:17:42 PM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This COMMUNIST SON OF A WHORE has a cousin named FIDEL CASTRO ODINGA and went to Kenya in 2006 to campaign for his commie cousin Rail Odinga (FIDELS DADDY)who lost the election but set his supporters to murder the winners to the point that they agreed to share power.

He is using Chavez like tactics on the SCOTUS, and be prepared for him to go after the 5th Circuit Judges who are calling his skinny communist Kenyan ass out.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HIS PARTY ARE COMMUNIST MONSTERS.

Prepare accordingly.

A supporter of the presidential challenger Raila Odinga (OBAMAS FIRST COUSIN WHO HE CAMPAIGNED FOR) in Kibera, a sprawling slum near the capital, Nairobi.

14 posted on 04/03/2012 5:17:45 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Rick Santorum voted against Right toWork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
OBAMA TIDWELL, TIDWELL COLB
15 posted on 04/03/2012 5:20:34 PM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

God bless this 3-judge panel on the 5th circuit for having the balls to stand up for the rule of law.


16 posted on 04/03/2012 5:21:16 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

80 million mostly conservative armed folks plus military people with integrity aren’t going to let Obama disobey the ruling.


17 posted on 04/03/2012 5:23:05 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

First, I hope you’re right.

Second, I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Third, well, it may have to come to that to save this nation.


18 posted on 04/03/2012 5:25:17 PM PDT by Terry Mross ("It happened. And we let it happen." - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If there is a lawyer out there tell us what the proceedure is to involk a response from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Does a complaint need to be filed in district court and then on to the appellate level? Can the members of the court simply take up the issue de novo? How could an appeals court be employed on this issue so quickly after obama threatened the Supremes? Was a supreme court justice involved in the complaint which resulted in this court order to the justice department?


19 posted on 04/03/2012 5:26:43 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
It's about time someone got up in this b@#!#$@s face! Several pro-marriage laws were passed by large majorities and directly by the public themselves only to be overturned by some dictatorial judge at the state level. I wonder what the b@#!#$@ in Chief thinks of that?
20 posted on 04/03/2012 5:28:54 PM PDT by MachIV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If you notice Obama labeled Ryan’s budget a “trojan horse”. This is an effort marginalize/negate language. This was the criticism of Obamacare. In other words: I’m rubber, your glue, whatever you say... (you get the idea) These are the linguistic parlor games of the left targeted at his pea brained base.


21 posted on 04/03/2012 5:29:21 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

This is how it is done when it comes down to it.

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw&feature=player_embedded


22 posted on 04/03/2012 5:37:29 PM PDT by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

“Does anyone else see what’s coming?”

Hitlery.


23 posted on 04/03/2012 5:40:13 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

He was the lowest level of adjunct instructor and was nowhere near being a professor of any kind.


24 posted on 04/03/2012 5:41:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
the court was already considering another challenge to Obamacare and simply took notice and umbrage at Obama's very public remarks. Since they had DOJ lawyers in front of them, I believe they made use of the timeworn principle of carpe diem. Rock on, 5th Circuit!!!
25 posted on 04/03/2012 5:45:04 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Steyn: "If Greece has been knocking back the ouzo, we're face down in the vat.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All; Rome2000

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


26 posted on 04/03/2012 5:45:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

I totally agree and I think for everyone who is REALLY watching what this man and his admin is doing, the obvious disregard for the law, for the Constitution and the will of the People....it’s freakin’ scary....and can’t be allowed to go unchecked...or, yes, we really are LOST as a Constitutional Republic.


27 posted on 04/03/2012 5:45:29 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

that was my first reaction too


28 posted on 04/03/2012 5:45:55 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Steyn: "If Greece has been knocking back the ouzo, we're face down in the vat.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Personally I think he wants it to happen. I really do. The guy is just evil and lies. Incapable of telling the truth. The damage this man has caused the country. He’s on purpose put race relations back 50 years.


29 posted on 04/03/2012 5:52:31 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

I totally agree and I think for everyone who is REALLY watching what this man and his admin is doing, the obvious disregard for the law, for the Constitution and the will of the People....it’s freakin’ scary....and can’t be allowed to go unchecked...or, yes, we really are LOST as a Constitutional Republic.


30 posted on 04/03/2012 5:54:48 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Flanked by the leaders of two foreign countries, the American President throws out a flimsy "straw man" argument and flagrant misrepresentation of conservative thought, as well as an outright false history of Supreme Court rulings on laws already enacted, and some elected officials are hedging on calling him out for it?

Come on conservatives, if this is to be his "straw man" argument, then true conservatives need to expose, as these judges and writers on some threads here have, the fallacies of his premise.

For him to take conservative opposition to what they describe as "judicial activism" and attempt to turn it against the Court's appropriate role of interpreting the Constitution's limits on government power is the maneuver one might expect from him. Meanwhile, his own appointee knows exactly what conservatives have meant when they speak of "judicial activisim."

When conservatives complain about "judicial activism," they are describing the same kind of "activism" as his appointee to the Court, Sotomayor, described in her meeting at Duke University when she stated that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," and then added, "I know I shouldn't have said that, but . . . ."-- with a smile.

His open attempt at intimidating what he referred to as the "unelected" branch of government is a reminder of the wisdom of America's Founders in their making it just that: an "unelected" and, hopefully, an independent and objective group of individuals who would look to the approbation of future generations, and their liberty and freedom, rather than the railings or approval of a temporary and Partisan political tyrant of the moment.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us of such "artful" persons who, once elected to positions of temporary power, might attempt to subvert the Constitution's limits on their power.

Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, concluded with these words:

"The national constitution is our last, and our only security. United we stand; divided we fall.
§ 1907. If these Commentaries shall but inspire in the rising generation a more ardent love of their country, an unquenchable thirst for liberty, and a profound reverence for the constitution and the Union, then they will have accomplished all, that their author ought to desire. Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capable, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of fife, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defences are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may justly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, THE PEOPLE. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

And, as far as Judge Napolitano's bringing up the name of Andrew Jackson, the following words from Jackson indicate a far different message about the Constitution than those heard so far from this Preeident:

From Page xv of "Our Ageless Constitution,", here excerpted words from President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation of December 10, 1832:

"We have received it [the Constitution] as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution . . .? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault. . . . No, we did not err! . . . The sages . . . have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent* Constitutional compact. . . . The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace: it shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity. . . ."

*Underlining added for emphasis

And, it was Thomas Jefferson who used another metaphor with reference to the Constitution when he indicated that "the People" must "bind them (government) by the chains of the Constitution." In another instance, he declared: "It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers. . . ."

One of the "talking head" defenders of the President being interviewed on Fox this morning challenged Tantaros about her criticisms of his remarks by saying, "He is a constitutional scholar." If that is the line to be used here, then some proof of specific courses, outstanding professors who taught him, and dissertations or papers written by him which indicate such an elevated titla should be provided.

One thing is clear: this president does not wish to be "bound down by the chains of the Constitution," nor to be "lace(d) up straitly within the enumerated powers . . . ."

31 posted on 04/03/2012 5:58:03 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matginzac
I totally agree and I think for everyone who is REALLY watching what this man and his admin is doing, the obvious disregard for the law, for the Constitution and the will of the People....it’s freakin’ scary....and can’t be allowed to go unchecked...or, yes, we really are LOST as a Constitutional Republic.

...and if we DO try to keep him in check he'll go to the UN and/or Russia for help.

32 posted on 04/03/2012 6:01:04 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

He Taught Rules for Radicals... Not the Constitution. They meant to say Anti-Constitutional instructor.


33 posted on 04/03/2012 6:02:32 PM PDT by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; pieces of time; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


34 posted on 04/03/2012 6:03:24 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; pieces of 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.”


35 posted on 04/03/2012 6:03:39 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“Ah! But the strawberries.... That’s where I had them.”


36 posted on 04/03/2012 6:05:51 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Does anyone else see what’s coming?

The Great Pretender wants the Court to overturn this POS bill as soon as possible and definitely before November so that it ceases to be a huge campaign issue for the Republicans. This latest insult all but guarantees they will kill it just on Separation of Powers principles. He can then go to his liberal wacko base and blame it all on the Court. What the Court should do is procrastinate until the first Monday in November and then declare it unconstitutional (shades of the hostage release timing in the Carter/Reagan election). That way he has to justify it during the entire campaign, has no legitimate party to blame for its demise until the last minute, and doesn't get any sympathy from the libs. Just one man's opinion.

37 posted on 04/03/2012 6:08:43 PM PDT by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

I recently worked at a major law university in the south. My job was keeping the books for the school’s Law Review. Our Editor in Chief of a few years ago earned top honors of his class that year as one would expect of an EIC of the Law Review. However, this guy was as dumb as a rock when it came to editing the Review. He insisted that the state of Louisiana be abbreviated as L.A., as in Los Angeles, not LA. The book went out that way. There were many more instances like this. That year’s volume was the worst the school’s Law Review ever produced. I’m sure he will be appointed by some far left president to the Supreme Court in the future.


38 posted on 04/03/2012 6:09:10 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Ladies and Gentlemen, what we are witnessing from Obama is street agitation. This is what he does. This is all he has ever known. The whole idea is to confront the “system”....to “stand up” against conventional norms and use unchallenged hyperbole to create strawmen he can rail against.

I’ll give him this...the strategy is a brillant one. He has the bully pulpit. The media won’t challenge him. This kind of behavior is more often found in places like Cuba, Venezuela, or most any dictatorship on the African continent.

I agree with some of the others on this site who believes Obama wants this fight. In fact, he is egging it on. Just like his mentor William Ayers taught.

We need to be prepared to stop him.....or else.


39 posted on 04/03/2012 6:09:13 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

I recently worked at a major law university in the south. My job was keeping the books for the school’s Law Review. Our Editor in Chief of a few years ago earned top honors of his class that year as one would expect of an EIC of the Law Review. However, this guy was as dumb as a rock when it came to editing the Review. He insisted that the state of Louisiana be abbreviated as L.A., as in Los Angeles, not LA. The book went out that way. There were many more instances like this. That year’s volume was the worst the school’s Law Review ever produced. I’m sure he will be appointed by some far left president to the Supreme Court in the future.


40 posted on 04/03/2012 6:09:20 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Judges just jumped up a ways on my credibility and respect scales. There may be hope for this country after all.


41 posted on 04/03/2012 6:09:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (It's time to WEAN the government off of our money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Sorry SA Man, that will never happen.

The best you can hope for is for a few contiguous states (hopefully Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana) banding together and seceding. Then those of us willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor can move there and restart the Founders dream of a nation of the people, by the people and for the people.

42 posted on 04/03/2012 6:10:37 PM PDT by cashless (Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER than a TEA BAGGEE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MachIV

“Several pro-marriage laws were passed by large majorities and directly by the public themselves only to be overturned by some dictatorial judge at the state level.”

That is the absolute best post of the day, sir!!!!

Bravo!!!!!


43 posted on 04/03/2012 6:11:24 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Ouch!!! ..... I hope that left a mark!


44 posted on 04/03/2012 6:14:24 PM PDT by parthian shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; LucyT; Nachum; ExSoldier; blackie; azishot; SJackson; MestaMachine
No Joke: Newsweek calls for impeaching Supreme Court Justtices if they overturn Obamacare

Snip: The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country to the Gilded Age. [...]

45 posted on 04/03/2012 6:14:54 PM PDT by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
0bama has got to be the dumbest
Affirmative Action law student at harvard.

Any Non-AA first year law student knows
about Marbury v. Madison


46 posted on 04/03/2012 6:15:59 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

The demand letter from the US Court of Appeals.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/03/this-is-blistering-the-appellate-judges-letter-to-the-justice-dept-about-president-obamas-comments


47 posted on 04/03/2012 6:18:02 PM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?”

A hand gun is not any good against an Army...One Hundred Million hand guns...well that’s a different story.

As long as there is our “Constitution” and “We The People” continue to defend it, there will always be enough guns to defeat an Army.

Great article at that link BTW...thanks!


48 posted on 04/03/2012 6:20:41 PM PDT by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

Note that Obama named his first born. Mailia Ann Obama.

Note the intials. MAO.


49 posted on 04/03/2012 6:22:12 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Jerry Edwin Smith (born 1946, Del Rio, Texas) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on June 2, 1987 and confirmed by the Senate on December 19, 1987. Smith received his commission for the seat, which was created by 98 Stat. 333, two days later.[1]Why am I not surprised?
50 posted on 04/03/2012 6:30:45 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson