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

Skip to comments.

Obama administration heeds judges' health care order-with link to Holder letter
CNN ^ | April 5, 2012 | By Bill Mears

Posted on 04/05/2012 10:19:11 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 04/05/2012 10:50:42 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Eric Holder Response

(CNN) -- The Justice Department obeyed a federal appeals court's unusual order Thursday in a legal and political spat over the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

Administration lawyers met their deadline and filed a three-page, single-spaced letter -- following the specific instructions of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing a challenge to the health care law. The letter affirmed the government's stance that federal courts indeed have the authority to decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- and any other law Congress passes.

A dispute involving the court and the executive branch has elevated the political stakes over whether the law will survive various legal challenges, including a pending a Supreme Court decision. The high court's ruling, expected in June, would take precedence over any other courts hearing similar appeals.

Excerpt


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 5thcourtobamacare; bhofascism; democrats; dojreplyto5thcourt; failure; holder; obama; obamacare; obamathreatensscotus; scotus; socialism

1 posted on 04/05/2012 10:19:15 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous “unprecedented” remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.

What would they have done if he refused, spanked him?


2 posted on 04/05/2012 10:23:27 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“Referring to comments by Obama that set off the imbroglio, the letter concluded: “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”

No they were not! These people even lie in writing! I hope Judge Smith makes Holder rewrite his homework until he gets it correct!


3 posted on 04/05/2012 10:25:01 AM PDT by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Can’t wait to read it!


4 posted on 04/05/2012 10:26:57 AM PDT by Bulwinkle (Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This Judge may have done all of America a favor by ordering a written compliance from Obama’s justice Dept!


5 posted on 04/05/2012 10:27:48 AM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

The judge requested a letter of explanation, not an apology.


6 posted on 04/05/2012 10:29:16 AM PDT by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
I thought this was done in the context of some Obamacare proceedings going on in Texas. The judge in that case asked the lawyer in that case to explain the administration's views on judicial review to test their seriousness in that case.

If the Justice Department refused, the judge could have ruled against them in that case.

-PJ

7 posted on 04/05/2012 10:31:38 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
The court didn't ask for a letter of apology; the court required one of the parties before it to clarify an apparent challenge to its jurisdiction.

Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction. If the court doesn't have the authority to render the relief sought by the complaint, it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.

8 posted on 04/05/2012 10:31:59 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous “unprecedented” remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.

I think you missed the point.

The Executive Branch was saying the Judicial Branch was not an equal.

If Obama persisted, it could be considered an impeachable offense.

The Judicial Branch (and Legislative) have an obligation to ensure the other two branches do not exceed their authority.

This was a judge saying the executive was crossing a dangerous line.

9 posted on 04/05/2012 10:32:37 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

PDF Here: http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2012/04/Eric-Holder-response.pdf


10 posted on 04/05/2012 10:39:59 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Tnx for posting. What a snarky response. The order was with specific reference to Barky’s comments. Methinks the DOJ under Holder is going to have a tougher time in many Federal courts after this. ~snicker~


11 posted on 04/05/2012 10:46:58 AM PDT by eureka! (Bless Our Troops. D*mn the Left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

That letter is only 2& 1/4 pages long, not the 3 pages that were assigned. Judge Smith should write a big red “F”, correction he should write a big red “FU”, on it and kick it back to Holder to complete the assignment correctly!


12 posted on 04/05/2012 10:48:06 AM PDT by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
PDF Here: http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2012/04/Eric-Holder-response.pdf

That letter is only 2 and a half pages long, not 3 pages as ordered by the court !

This is Contempt of Court !

.

13 posted on 04/05/2012 10:50:20 AM PDT by repentant_pundit (Sammy's your uncle, but he behaves like a spoiled rotten kid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The next question is whether the administration will abide by the finding of the court.


14 posted on 04/05/2012 10:50:26 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ..
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.


15 posted on 04/05/2012 10:54:17 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“The next question is whether the administration will abide by the finding of the court.”

Yes, we will see how much respect he has for the Court after they overturn ObamaIdon’tcare and he tries to go around the ruling by issuing Executive Orders!


16 posted on 04/05/2012 10:55:49 AM PDT by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
[Filed and served via ECF]

Holder just "mailing it in"..go figure....

17 posted on 04/05/2012 10:59:20 AM PDT by IrishPennant (Are you behind a "Blade of Grass?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
3. While duly recognizing the courts' authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. See, e.g. , Nature 's Daily. v. Glickman, 1999 WL 158 1396, at *6; State University of New York v. Anderson, 1999 WL 680463, at *6; Rojas v. Fitch, 1998 WL 457203, at *7; United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 75i v. Bro·wn Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6.

Yes, Corruptocrat Holder, that is correct... all "urgings" by Bill Clinton. So what's your point?

18 posted on 04/05/2012 11:06:07 AM PDT by ScottinVA (A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The letter,
http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/04/05/justice-department-letter-to-5th-circuit-court-appeals/


19 posted on 04/05/2012 11:08:56 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; Carry_Okie
Just posted this from Drudge:

McConnell to Obama: Back off SCOTUS

20 posted on 04/05/2012 11:11:38 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming HOAX is about Global Governance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Judge Smith asked specifically for explaination and 'be specific'. I do not see any specifics in the letter. Holder seems indifferent to this demand by Judge Smith. Sort of a left handed FU.
21 posted on 04/05/2012 11:17:45 AM PDT by Texas Songwriter (Ia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

So basically Holder is saying, “The Judical branch does have the right of review, but not in the case of obamacare.”

This administration reminds me so much of the old coin toss joke. Heads, I win...Tails, you lose.


22 posted on 04/05/2012 11:18:31 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

As noted, it wasn’t an apology he ordered, more of a “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”


23 posted on 04/05/2012 11:40:37 AM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Read Holder’s letter. In legal-speake, it is the big FU you asked for.


24 posted on 04/05/2012 11:46:47 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I expect that the decision has already been taken, and that the time between now and June is for the Justices and their clarks to write their majority opinions and dissent.


25 posted on 04/05/2012 12:05:13 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Cheney/Rumsfeld 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

“As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous “unprecedented” remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.”

If you LOOK at and READ the letter, Holder on his behalf did exactly that for you, not to worry.


26 posted on 04/05/2012 12:20:51 PM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
At lunch today msnbc or some network had Obama’s puppet on (can't remember his name). He said that “everyone knows that the president was talking in short talk about the SCOTUS and that he knows constitutional law.” It's amazing how much these people lie, but during an election year they lie like crazy! It's insane how people believe this garbage.
27 posted on 04/05/2012 12:28:12 PM PDT by 3rdcoastislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

The problem was that the legality of judicial review was never an issue in the case. The judge raised it himself.

That’s the unprecedented part of this; a judge raising an issue that’s not before the judge.

I can’t even come up with a good analogy.

I guess it would be like a judge in a 2nd Amendment case demanding one party to clarify their position on the limitations of political speech or their view on illegal search and seizure.


28 posted on 04/05/2012 12:36:06 PM PDT by MyronCopacetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs; samtheman
I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.

I agree with samtheman that Justice Smith doesn't have a lot of authority to force the administration to do much here. But I have made remarks elsewhere that this is just an election year strategy by Barry to malign the conservative SCOTUS judges. Barry Knows that Obamacare was passed with a wafer-thin majority and that SCOTUS has every right to strike down unconstitutional laws. He was just fibbing to rile the base against the SCOTUS. And it was perhaps a bit ill-advised of Justice Smith to use the moniker 'Obamacare' and just fall into Zero's strategy of baiting conservative judges. Everyone at FR thinks we have won some big victory by making himself look like an idiot, I am just not so sure.
29 posted on 04/05/2012 12:36:17 PM PDT by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"1. The power of the courts to review the constitutional ity of legislation is beyond dispute.

Attorney General Holder - would you be so kind as to explain that to the President? Thank you, and have a nice day.

30 posted on 04/05/2012 12:39:24 PM PDT by In Maryland (Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
"Tnx for posting. What a snarky response. The order was with specific reference to Barky’s comments. Methinks the DOJ under Holder is going to have a tougher time in many Federal courts after this. ~snicker~

You never know - after this some court might find that someone DOES have standing to challenge Obama's eligibility to be President.

31 posted on 04/05/2012 12:41:34 PM PDT by In Maryland (Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: In Maryland

..otherwise the next thing we’ll ask you to do is write “I cannot overrule the Supreme Court” 100 times on Glen Beck’s chalkboard.


32 posted on 04/05/2012 12:54:12 PM PDT by Winstons Julia (Hello OWS? We don't need a revolution like China's; China needs a revolution like OURS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kroll

He’s “energized” his base, that’s for sure.

All the leftist freaks I know are REAL MAD at the Supreme Court.

Next, they’ll be demanding that their messiah ignore the Supreme Court, unless they get their jollies again by posting the justices’ addresses.


33 posted on 04/05/2012 12:58:38 PM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MyronCopacetic
The problem was that the legality of judicial review was never an issue in the case.

How can you say that, he was after all, a student of Zero.</sarcasm>

34 posted on 04/05/2012 1:18:43 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are most of my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Obama is no Jackson. In fact, Zero wouldn’t be fit to shine Jackson’s boots.


35 posted on 04/05/2012 1:29:23 PM PDT by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

I agree. Holder did not do what Judge Smith requested, which was to specifically address the substance of Obama’s statement. Listen here http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx?prid=257724 at 17:50 into the oral argument.


36 posted on 04/05/2012 1:54:24 PM PDT by AJFavish (www.allanfavish.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous “unprecedented” remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.

As others have pointed out, the judge asked for a clarification, not an apology.

That said, I think the Administration could have ignored it to little effect.

I think they looked at it as a way to "reposition their position" because Obama's little veiled threat provoked a much bigger backlash than they expected.

They put the letter together in a way that they can claim they were clarifying, while they were actually sending a big FU to the judge.

We've seen this juvenile M.O. before from The Fresh Prince of BillAyers.


37 posted on 04/05/2012 2:03:41 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant

Just for clarification, hardly anything gets mailed in the federal system. It’s all filed electronically. ECF is electronic case filing.


38 posted on 04/05/2012 2:21:13 PM PDT by Centaur (Never practice moderation to excess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Centaur
Just for clarification, hardly anything gets mailed in the federal system. It’s all filed electronically. ECF is electronic case filing.

I'm with ya...but that popped in my head immediately when I saw it...

39 posted on 04/05/2012 2:29:19 PM PDT by IrishPennant (Are you behind a "Blade of Grass?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 3rdcoastislander

Hey, a vote for the GOP is a vote for less reliable weather forecasts. How do I know this? The Kenyan said it!

How anyone can vote for this failed community organizer thug is beyond me.


40 posted on 04/05/2012 2:38:34 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: princess leah

I was thinking the same thimg-it was wise to make them put it in writing and on the record.


41 posted on 04/05/2012 2:52:36 PM PDT by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Batman11
No ...the government is practicing tuqyah.

They are telling us what they think we want to hear, they are not explaining what they meant.

42 posted on 04/05/2012 3:38:23 PM PDT by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EBH

obama looks soo bad. I wish we could win and put Judge Jerry Smith on the SC but Romney couldn’t beat his dog. Now they want to cram Haley whats her name down our throat as sarah light No sale. CYA!


43 posted on 04/05/2012 5:51:03 PM PDT by tpuskett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: samtheman; Fred Nerks; Beckwith; LucyT

What would they have done if he refused, spanked him?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Every federal DOJ lawyer appearing in ANY and ALL cases reviewing the constitutionality of any law would lack standing to appear.

Any federal court could refuse to allow DOJ lawyers to be heard because they would not in fact have acknowledged the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Their “Notices of Appearance” would in fact be fraudulently filed and would be struck from the records of any current case upon motion by the opposing attorneys.

Thats a MAJOR SPANK, and it is why Holder had to respond.

When any attorney files an Appearance, he is acknowledging the jurisdiction of the court in the cause in which he appears to represent a client. If the DOJ and the president does not acknowledge that jurisdiction of constitutional review, then they cannot appear.They become in fact incapable of appearing to represent anyone in any constitutional law case.

MAJOR SPANK INDEED.

Obama should not be usung the court system in his campaign. It actually opens up the issue of Contempt of Couirt as well, in which DOJ lawyers could be jailed for arguing before a federal court fraudulently, when in fact all they are doing is trying tio undermine the courts power of judicial review.

It would be wonderful to see Holder jailed for Contempt of Court. He is very close to that line on that issue.


44 posted on 04/06/2012 5:31:12 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascist info....http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AJFavish

“Holder did not do what Judge Smith requested, which was to specifically address the substance of Obama’s statement.”

He also said it needed to be at least 3 pages, single-spaced, no less. So Holder essentially said FU in both substance and form to this request.


45 posted on 04/06/2012 10:34:23 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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