Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
Today, Federal Judge Jerry Smith, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, giving an order to a Justice Department attorney:
"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?"
[DoJ attorney replies "yes"]
"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, what is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"
"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."
Amazing, absolutely amazing.
Under what context was this order given?
ReplyDeleteIt would make sense to me if it were given by the Supreme Court that the President seems to have forgotten is part of the system of Checks and Balances (I have an extra copy of Schoolhouse Rock if he needs a quick refresher on that one), but why is a random judge on the 5th Circuit giving this order and how does it relate to what the judge is doing?
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great idea. And, quite frankly, I think someone needs to call the president on it IN PUBLIC. On the record, in an interview (which won't happen, of course).
I'd just like to know how this came under this particular judge's purview.
Hiya AFW, the judge is hearing another Obamacare case that encompasses a different controversy than that before the S Ct.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely amazing. Open warfare between the branches, with the DoJ and AG being ordered to go on record stating the President was wrong.
But that isn't really the most disturbing thing. I think one has to assume that Barack Obama, Harvard JD, knows what powers the S Ct has and why. Which means, he knowingly made that statement with the clear purpose of putting open political pressure on the S Ct. Willing to lie, about a key feature of the Const, which he took an oath to uphold, to put some kind of Kenyan third-world pressure on the gosh darn Supreme Court of the United States of America.
He should be impeached.
a-HA! That makes sense, then!
DeleteThe ridiculousness of the President's statement was only eclipsed by the large swathe of American public whose school experiences were so lacking in civic education that they don't understand checks and balances in the first place.
Truly, though, I haven't seen it brought up much. Levi Johnston's weenie and his newest soon-to-be baby momma seem to have eclipsed the coverage.
I suppose I can't count on anyone in the media to ask him about this. Which means he'll act like it never happened and then say it again in front of people who will howl in righteous anger that "the will of the people" is not being done.
Funny, we can't have unelected members of the Supreme Court make ruling about the Constitution -- when it is what the Constitution put them there to do, but we can have unelected tsars and bureaucrats -- of whom there is no mention in the Constitution --tell the American people how they should live their lives.
ReplyDeleteAnd molesting us at airports.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDid you see that video a week or two ago of a TSA giving a *thorough* patdown to a 3 year-old in a wheelchair? The dad wanted to hold the child to comfort him but the agent wouldn't let him.
DeleteYes. Ridiculous. They gave my 95 year old grandmother a world of shit when she went through the line last month. They took every single thing out of her carry-on bag and laid it out (which is humiliating for someone that age, given some of the items that have to be carried around) and patted her down because she has to use a wheelchair. She can walk, but not for long distances.
DeleteAnyway, my mother was furious.
I'm still waiting for Napolitano and Pistole to start off every morning with a naked picture and molestation in various airports around the country to show their dedication to the pornographic molestation program they have introduced.
Oh, wait? Lead by example? No! Being hand-raped is for the little people!
Hand-raped - I think that's the perfect description for what they are doing, afw.
DeleteHere is the latest thug behavior from TSA
Here's a link (via Drudge) to the story which Jourdan references: link.
ReplyDeleteObama has clarified his remarks - which, on a strict parsing, contained two lies.
The first is the "strong majority" - lol. Next.
The second hinges on "unprecedented". Obama has clarified that; his intent was to refer to recent Supreme Court decisions to limit federal power consistent with the Commerce Clause. Specifically, the relative lack of these decisions.
If his intent was to menace the court it was an epic fail. But...
His substantive point, if I understand him, is something like this:
"You conservatives fail to read the Commerce Clause as limiting Federal power when it suits your politics... and so you expect me to respect the legitimacy of the Court when you're striking down my political program based on the Commerce Clause? Really?"
And I have to say, I think he has a point.
Some conservative justices seem to thing federal power is AWESOMESAUCE when applied to their political preferences, and the Commerce Clause is nothing a little {Jesuitical, Talmudic - take your pick} rationalization can't get around. (Scalia, I'm looking at you.)
Now Randy Barnett and others have done some serious scholarship and advanced arguments on how Obamacare might be struck down in a manner consistent with the principles advanced by previous SC decisions.
But I'm not really qualified to know what to make of those arguments - and that's the point - it's not a "no brainer". I'd say reasonable people may differ and AFAIK Obama's point isn't unreasonable.
My own point is that "conservative" as a label is overrated - I don't see a movement or a party truly dedicated to respecting the limits on federal power and generally leaving you the f*** alone except for the (non crazy wing of the) libertarians.
Your explanation of his explanation does make sense. But I have no legal training, and so what I heard sounded pretty bad for the President to say.
DeleteNow, with the backtrack, I can see his point. But on the other hand, that's *exactly* why he appointed HIS judges. Ahem. So, pot/kettle and thin skin and all that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the "conservatives". I have never considered myself conservative. Nor is a conservative/liberal divide what I want. But it is what we've got, and so the President (who is supposed to be the leader of the free world)'s statement sounds suspiciously like when my children yell, "MOM! He hit me back!"
^^^ Might sound more angry than I intended. I blame George Bush.
DeleteHeck, let's blame it on Millard Fillmore.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I think Martin VanBuren might be to blame. He didn't even grow up speaking English.
Delete:P
Well, if he grew up not speaking English then the problem is that the racists forced him to abandon his native tongue and forced him to speak English. Therefore it can't be his fault.
DeletePrecisely. We are on the same page, I see.
DeleteFinally. Someone is taking a stand against the agitprop of this administration.
ReplyDeleteI think Holder will ignore it.
" I don't see a movement or a party truly dedicated to respecting the limits on federal power"
The Tea Party.
Holder is very good at ignoring things that don't fit with the narrative which he believes the peons should hold.
DeleteTalk about unelected megalomaniacs...
Nope, Holder submitted his almost-not quite 3 page response on time (barely) today. You might want to download the document to read more easily. It is a master piece of dance & dodge that scarcely responds to the specific question(s) the 5th Circuit judge required.
DeleteIn short, they went through the motions, but still stew in the cowardice of silence.
Aridog - thanks for linking this. I hadn't realized it was released and I do very much want to read through it.
DeleteAlthough I'm a little afraid to do so...
Not much there AFW, beyond what a 1st year law student couldn't write direct from a text book. It is well salted with "yeah, buts..." after each acknowledgement, thus nullifying it. They would almost have done better by not answering at all....but at least they dodged a contempt of court citation.
DeleteThese truly are simple minded people in the Jug Eared Messiah's administration, none smart enough to come in out of the rain without directions. None of them know when they've stepped in shit ... they blame the stink on everyone else.
The DoJ's response is actually quite good, very clear, very forthright, straightforward. You're right, it's a 1L assignment, but it is done well.
DeleteIt's nice to see them forced to acknowledge that their boss is full of shit, in writing. It may not seem like that is what is happening here, but in the legal world this was the exchange.
Da Juudg: I hear that weasel who leads yo posse be badmouthin me un sheeit. That ain't good.
Upgrayyd: No, no, no, man, it's cool.
Da Juudg: Really? It don't look cool ta me. Maybe you better bring his ass in here hisself and he can tell me he ain't gots no problems with me.
Upgrayyd: Yeah, yeah man, no problem.
MyPeeps: Hey, Juudg, man, we're cool. I don't know what you was hearing but we''re square, like we always have been.
Da Juudg: Don't you forget it. And I'm glad y'all were here to see MyPeeps know where he stand.
Fo shizzle ma honkizzle, gnome sayin?
Delete(Although it's not a true organized party)
ReplyDeleteI was so happy to hear this Texas judge ask for clarification. We'll see if they come up with "at least 3 pages, single-spaced and specific".
Arghh, I've been too busy to do more than just skim the newspaper headlines. This is a very enlightening conversation!
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that every time Obama opens his trap lately, he's making someone or some group nail-spitting angry. I hope he keeps it up.