Skip to comments.Federal judge fires back after Obama health care comments
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 presidents 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 presidents history, noting the famous Marbury v. Madison case.
In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review, the Journals 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 presidents 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 ...
Roger that—the fact that he is being touted as a constitutional scholar shows how stupid most of the press is. Unfortunately we have a large segment of the population that will not pay attention to any of this, as they won't care what is legal or what is not as long as they get their 0bama dollars from the rich, who must pay their fair share after all. I forsee a long, violent Summer as this Communist gets outed for the fraud that he is, and a major upheaval in our society. If you don't have your concealed carry permit yet, get it now.
Keep me appraised of the answer. Amazes me a court would make such a move out of the blue with no apparent connections.
Federal judge fires back after Obama health care comments
Article, graphics, and # 35 , # 39 .
Then see link at # 45 entitled:
"No Joke: Newsweek calls for impeaching Supreme Court Justices if they overturn 0bamacare"
Look, I don’t think this is anywhere near a constitutional crises yet.
There is an update on the Hot Air site from a lawyer who says this is not uncommon in such litigation matters where the gov’t is a plaintiff and that other fed judges (dems and republicans) have recently asked for such statements esp. in the DOMA litigation.
Vote out Obama in November, things should begin to improve. Should we the people continue the foolishness of allowing the hard left hold the reins of power, ALL BETS ARE OFF.
Sounds like some judges are concerned that, if the SCOTUS overturns the Obamacare mandate, their decision would just be ignored. Many have posited that scenario happening - that it’s Obama’s Plan B should the mandate be overturned.
The 5th Circuit seems to be attempting to get the Obama DOJ on record as agreeing that SCOTUS DOES have the power to overturn federal law on Constitutional grounds. If the DOJ agrees in writing to this premise, the Plan B goes out the window.
Apparently another case being heard by the 5th circuit was underway and an assistant solicitor general representing Obamas position was being argued. Then out of the blue one of the appeals court judges ask if the president believed in the validity of judicial review, because from the recent obama comments it seemed clear that he (obama) the judge could not believe that obama did. The solicitor general quickly said that she did. The judge then quickly demanded a minimum of a three page response, single spaced, delivered no later than 12:00 noon ET on Thursday. He basically bitchslapped the administration. With the hubris and pride of obama it will be interesting how obama and justice will respond.
Obummers remarks concerning the SCOTUS and obamacare were so egregious in their stupidity that no self respecting judicial body can ignore the issue. The liberal media, of course, will ... but this slip by (57 states) Obummer has legs.
“Look, I dont think this is anywhere near a constitutional crises yet.”
Good, that is your opinion. When was the last time you can recall a sitting President directly calling out the SCOTUS?
Has any of our representatives in congress used a blowhorn and made any statements at all? They should be yelling and making a scene IMO....otherwise anything they might say will never get thru the Media Wall.
I think it is a crisis here and right now by plan. I think that this posturing by 0bama is all part of a plan—which the Zimmerman case plays into. I suggest we all be ready.
Just as a reminder some of what’s at stake:
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
** Page 50/section 152:
The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59:
The government will have ‘real-time access to an individual’s bank account’ and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164:
The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members,.. union retirees.. and for community organizations... (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15:
The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
** Page 241 and 253:
Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the ‘government will set all doctors’ fees’.
** Page 272. section 1145:
Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.
** Page 317 and 321:
The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12:
The government ‘mandates’ advance-care planning consultations..... Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
** Page 429, line 13-25:
The government will specify ‘which doctors’ can write an end-of-life order.
Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:
“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress....... Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs........ If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”
- Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas
They were asking an OB lawyer what the WH meant by his comment. ....they are about to make a ruling in a case in front of them.
Oh I do hope so! However, I hold not illusion. Only if the court takes on the very justice department they are part of and the administration. If they do, how will they enforce their rulings?
I do agree though we don't know from one day to the next when this will explode...it's moving that direction. Zimmermans Attorney, Crump, connected with A Hard left lineral Congresswoman, who very much votes for all the "freebies".... to get the 911 tapes released...she is instrumental in the Zimmerman case, behind the scene.... and has more than once been in trouble for using Gov. monies and or avoiding payments on her debts...and been investigated for these.
So the crooks are truly in the WhiteHouse and Congress. We are truly in serious trouble as a nation.
Got it !
He was the lowest level of adjunct instructor and was nowhere near being a professor of any kind.
Whoa! That’s HUGE! Hit me if I’ve missed this on FR ..but I never knew Bamster was just an adjunct prf. ant Univ. of Chicago. As a former adjunct prf., I know adjuncts are the lowest form of humanity in the collegiate systems!
The blame-stream media always refer to his creds as a “Constitutional Law Professor at Univ. of Chicago”
But they’d never give such creds to conservatives who teach classes at universities as adjunct prfs.
It’s like claiming that you’re a college basketball star when you just play a game every weekend in the local YMCA.
Someone call Rush, Sean, Levin...this is big!
That was only a part of his fabricated bio. Always remember that obama and "friends" are your enemy.
Not sure. Enlighten us please.
Is this the beginning of the showdown I hope for or is it just about power instead of principles?
Like I said to Lurker, is this about principles and the rule of law or just power?
That’s a good question.
Or, how about the last time a sitting President unilaterally declared that Congress was not in session when they were and acted as such?
“When was the last time you can recall a sitting President directly calling out the SCOTUS?”
I just don’t think what Obama says in some campaign speech carries any constitutional weight at all.
I think wolf’s example of the “recess” appointments is much more a crises than what Obama said about the Court’s possible action.
He’s very foolish if he thinks he can intimidate the Supreme Court.
This is just stunning for the World’s Smartest Law Professor and the world’s Greatest US President. The man is in over his head anytime he is not obeying the TOTUS
I'm amazed too. But the connection is that the defendant in the case is the U.S. government, represented by the Justice Department, and Obama picked the head of the Justice Department and has the authority to set its policy.
In effect, Obama is the defendant. If, for example, Obama didn't wish to defend this case, then it would not be defended.
The recent Nordyke hearing in the Ninth Circuit illustrates, perhaps, the reason for the Judge's action.
The Nordykes are in the twelfth year of litigation against the county of Alameda in California because the Alameda County Board of Supervisors outlawed gun shows at the county fairgrounds.
The case proceeded based upon a joint statement of undisputed facts. This is evidently a mechanism used by the courts to make certain that they are focussing on the disagreements between the parties.
In the middle of the hearing, the counsel for Alameda County stated that it would be permissible under Alameda's ordinance to hold a gun show if the guns were tethered to a table. Prior statements by the county indicated that gun shows could only be held if there were no guns present.
The Ninth Circuit Panel jumped on the opportunity to send the case back to the lower court without making a Second Amendment ruling. It remains to be seen whether the county "blinked" and decided that they didn't want a Second Amendment ruling against them, or whether the Nordykes counsel failed to recognize some change in the county's interpretation of their own ordinance at some time during the last twelve years.
The relevance to the Fifth Circuit request to the Justice Department is that the President has suggested that his Justice Department may disagree with the established concept of "judicial review". If so, then the matter should have been raised at the lower court.
The government, through Obama's statements, appears to be saying that any decision that the Fifth Circuit might make regarding "consitutionality" is irrelevant, that Obamacare may or may not be constitutional, but that Obamacare will remain the law of the land regardless of the Fifth Circuit's decision. This justifies the Fifth Circuit's attempt to clarify the dispute in the case before their court.
ping for later
he will ignore it....just like the time the moratorium on gulf drilling was invalidated.
he will ignore it....just like the time the moratorium on gulf drilling was invalidated.
This is great! A judge is giving the college Constitution instructor a lesson on the Constitution, including a homework assignment! Love it! The SCOTUS is one community Barry can’t seem to organize......
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.