Skip to comments.Again! WH warns of 'unprecedented' SCOTUS ruling
Posted on 04/04/2012 1:06:43 PM PDT by tellw
President Obama's spokesman reiterated that a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would be "unprecedented," but even when explaining why that claim should stand, he fumbled Supreme Court history.
"It would be unprecedented in the modern era of the Supreme Court, since the New Deal era, for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation passed by Congress designed to regulate and deal with a matter of national economic importance like our health care system," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today. "It has under the Commerce Clause deferred to Congress's authority in matters of national economic importance." Carney also said that Obama does not regret making the comment.
But Carney's history is incorrect. "Jay, that's not true," CBS's Norah O'Donnell countered. "There are two instances in the past 80 years where the president -- where the Supreme Court has overturned [laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause]: US vs Lopez and US vs Morrison."
The Lopez case, decided in 1995, involved Congress's authority to regulate schools under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress.
Lopez influenced the even more recent Morrison ruling in 2000, when the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Violence Against Women Act , on the basis that Congress had overstepped its authority under the Commerce Clause.
Carney was not convinced by O'Donnell's history. "What [Obama] made clear yesterday -- and he was a law professor, and he understands constitutional law and constitutional precedent and the role of the Supreme Court -- was a reference to the Supreme Court's history and it's rulings on matters under the Commerce Clause," he said.
he was a law professor,
No he was an assistant to the assistant to the lecturer.
Any normal human being wouldn't be able to tolerate the total incompetence when with the snap of his fingers he could turn the Earth into heaven if he didn't have so many bumbling fools with power stifling every move he makes to create Utopia.
It must be frustrating for him to say the least.
‘...and he was a law professor just like Sen. Kerry was a Vietnam War Hero!’
And just like Captain Kangaroo was a captain.
Actually, one “student” has feen found (go to Breitbart.com today) This fellow, an attorney, also clerked later for the Federal Judge in the other Obamacare case this week where he ordered the Justice Dept attorney to “provide 3 single-spaced pages (no less)” attesting to if the Justice Dept currently agrees that the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Legislation.
Remember all those people interviewed on TV after Obama’s election who were expecting free gas, free houses and Obama money?
I say a few in the Trayvon “hoodie” marches and I think we will see more of them this summer.
Yeah. Perhaps the worm has turned.
Carney was a terribly biased dumb reporter. I am just as happy for him to be the official flack as for him to pretend he is objective. But yes he is irritating.
“and he was a law professor”
He was a lecturer. He was never tenored in fact, even in Chicago they would have laughed at that suggestion.
Now, in the old time usage of the word Professor, he would probably qualify. That usage was a professor was the guy who played the piano in a whore house.
1000’s of lies.....
There is enough corruption and treason to fill many courts for many days. Leavenworth needs to get ready. Those who survive this unraveling will spend much time there. Everyone remember who these criminals are. They need to be brought to justice (through the legal processes, of course).
Any first year law student knows that the Supreme Court can and has overturned acts of Congress as unconstitutional before. I never even went to law school, and I know that. Mr. O has to have been a non-law professor just to know such a basic fact?
It’s a problem that he lies.
It’s an even bigger problem that 85% of Americans who hear those lies don’t have a single clue about how to find out if they are true or false.
The obvious SCOTUS retort:
We haven’t seen a law THIS BAD in 85 years!!
So, lets say the SCOTUS declares the entire Obamugabe Care Law unconstitutional and throws it out.
Obamugabe says, Fine, we will institute it anyway, SCOTUS be damned.
THEN what do you do?.......................
If that happened I think it would be time for the states involved to tell Obama to go pound sand and make him come enforce the “law.”
If the government is going to ignore admendments #1,9,&10. At the very least it might be time to reach for admendment #2 and stop it.
Please get on your local newspaper website comment sections and post about this farce. It’s not pretty posting on them, that’s where the progressives dwell - but that’s what the common ‘idiots’ are reading.
Fifth Circuit Court, audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):
Fifth Circuit Court, relevant transcript in full context:
Justice Smith: 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: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Justice Smith: Im referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect
that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed he was referring, of course, to Obamacare what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And thats not a small matter. So I want to be sure that youre 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.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because theres no
Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday 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, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the presidents statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.
Somebody needs to have Hussein pee into a cup.
Seriously...the guy needs to be drug tested!