View Full Version : Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
BMT (RIP)
04-02-2012, 14:12
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/
BMT
Badger52
04-02-2012, 14:26
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/
BMTRemembering the State of the Union awhile back this could be one of those "teachable moments" for Chief Justice Roberts. Mentoring in what it means to have differing roles and separation of powers, dontcha know.
:cool:
Is it just me, but is calling zero a constitutional scholar like calling me a scholar of communist theory or radical islamic terrorists......... He studies the document, not for figuring out how to implement it and follow it, but more for looking at ways to make it irrelevant.....
judicial activism is only allowed when it favors a liberal policy agenda...
Remembering the State of the Union awhile back this could be one of those "teachable moments" for Chief Justice Roberts. Mentoring in what it means to have differing roles and separation of powers, dontcha know.
:cool:The president's comments towards Chief Justice Roberts were at least as intolerable as Joe Wilson yelling out "liar."
As much as anything, this country needs the three branches of the government to do some brawling along institutional lines. Is it just me, but is calling zero a constitutional scholar like calling me a scholar of communist theory or radical islamic terrorists......... He studies the document, not for figuring out how to implement it and follow it, but more for looking at ways to make it irrelevant.....MOO, scholars and policy makers would both serve the national interest better if they realized that there's a difference between theory and practice.
Yes, there should be an ongoing dialogue between the eggheads and the wonks but the blurring of lines is changing a dynamic of cross pollination to unhealthy stagnation.
My $0.02.
The president's comments towards Chief Justice Roberts were at least as intolerable as Joe Wilson yelling out "liar."
As much as anything, this country needs the three branches of the government to do some brawling along institutional lines. MOO, scholars and policy makers would both serve the national interest better if they realized that there's a difference between theory and practice.
Yes, there should be an ongoing dialogue between the eggheads and the wonks but the blurring of lines is changing a dynamic of cross pollination to unhealthy stagnation.
My $0.02.
I found what Wilson did to be extremely tolerable.
Ditching the un-Constitutional Obamacare BS prolly wouldn't even be an issue if Kagan had done the honorable thing and recused herself from the case.
Isn't a Supreme Court Justice vetted by our elected officials? If so that would make them for the people, by the people once removed.
I can live with that.
What do I think about when I think about an unelected official?.............How about a Czar? Weren't those appointed by the current President? Not just one or two but, many. There seems to be a Czar for just about everything. I think there may be a Czar to regulate how I wipe my arse.
Let's not forget the (well timed) people appointed while congress is not is session. Those get an un-vetted pass to their appointed positions as well.
I really hope America gets a wake up call this June (with the Supreme Court Decision) that lasts thru November.
Just my $0.02
sf
MOO, scholars and policy makers would both serve the national interest better if they realized that there's a difference between theory and practice.
"There's a difference between theory and practice..."
:lifter
The Reaper
04-02-2012, 18:40
It's just politics, Obama is trying to save face. The Left is saying that it is judicial activism by the conservatives on the Court, and the Left (and Obama now) pointing out how this is something the Right is always arguing against. But the Right argues against judicial activism in the sense of the SCOTUS finding things in the Constitution that aren't there, basically interpreting the Constitution to mean what they think it should mean as opposed to what it actually says. In this case, it's the opposite: the government finding the Constitution to say something it likely does not, and the Court serving as the correction. As for the claims about it passing by a solid majority, that's nonsense (they had to ram it through, and came close to using that "deem-and-pass" method), and then implying that it being passed by Congress means that it should not be struck down, well by that standard no legislation would be struck down, as all legislation passes via Congress.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I fail to see the inconsistency of the right's position in this matter.
TR
The CBS Evening News offered the president's viewpoint without analysis.
The editors may as well have just let the man speak entirely for himself.
On the plus side, Two Broke Girls will air on the west coast after the NCAA championship game--for those looking for something to cushion the blow of the game's outcome, smooth out any misgivings about CBS's reporting of the president's comments, or simply smother themselves in half an hour of comedy fun.
As usual he looked presidential but certainly did not sound presidential, if he said uh once he said it 100 times. He would have been better off to not have commented at all. We really do not deserve him.
He would have been better off to not have commented at all.Alternately, he could have expressed a quiet confidence about his team's performance in squaring the legislation with the constitution from its drafting to Donald Verrilli's appearance before the court, and he could have given an indication of respect for those Americans who question its propriety, and expressed faith in the judiciary to sort things out.
Instead, he reached into his pocket, pulled out his asshat, and put it on.
I really really really really really like that guy. And not just a little.
The Reaper
04-02-2012, 20:44
A trained eye sees things that others do not.
Is it possible that we have sunk to the point where the majority of the voters in this country think he is a nice guy who is watching out for them, and is in fact, Presidential looking, even after the monumental assaults on our liberties over the past three years?
All the magician needs is to divert the eye for a monent.
Fifty percent of the electorate, plus one is all he needs to fool.
If you think the past 38 months have been a continual assault on our liberties, as free citizens, you wait till he no longer has to worry about another election, or the SCOTUS.
We may very well get to choose between dying on our feet, or living on our knees.
Panem et circenses, indeed.
TR
craigepo
04-02-2012, 21:00
I have not determined whether this president is either so dense that he doesn't understand the Constitution, or has so much disdain for this country that he purposely tries to subvert it. Either way, the end result is the same.
That this presidential election could even be close, after watching this train wreck of an administration the last three years, scares the hell out of me. We have a lot of people voting in this country who don't give a damn about the country.
I read a quote last week from a writer who noted that this was the first nation in history formed by thought, not by a sword, his point being that the Founding Fathers thought our country through at its inception. How the hell did we have such outstanding Founders over two centuries ago, and today we elect Obama?
mark46th
04-02-2012, 21:55
He does have disdain for this country. He feels he is above the law. This reminds me of the scene in "Amistad" When the young queen of Spain is bouncing on a bed and says,"What is the use of having a court if it won't do what you want?"
The Right, while not always, far more often adhere to the view that the Democrats mean well, but are just very misguided and naive. Is paternalism a sustainable approach to political discourse in America?
I am leaning thinking the latter more and more. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. If this guy was an idiot he would do SOMETHING right at some point by accident.
Nailed it.
Why can't people extrapolate the probable future from his actions so far?
Maybe, if they could find a non-libkook producer/director, they should do a movie not unlike the spate of W movies that were puked out of Tinsel Town. Base it on his actual childhood, student and political life, not the one that's been fabricated.
Start with his childhood in Jakarta and when his dregs-of-the-street uncle gave him pointers. Go through his student and grooming years, when Alinsky became his mentor and the Ayers his trainers. Then, show how JWright fired his ass up to detest the Country, blah. His political blunders, e.g. the bowing and scraping, the failures of his policies, his gaffes-the whole schlemiel.
Then project what would happen if he gets re-elected in film.
This Country's so blind, even a movie wouldn't wake the majority of beige-livered "centrists" who are mistakenly allowed to vote.
Badger52
04-03-2012, 06:49
I read a quote last week from a writer who noted that this was the first nation in history formed by thought, not by a sword,..."If he gets re-elected it may take one to keep it, though.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/03/29/irs-already-gearing-up-for-health-care-crackdown/
The rest of the country may be waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, but the Internal Revenue Service is wasting no time.
It wants to add new agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend $303.5 million building a system to oversee the effects of the health law even though its future is unclear.
As for the new IRS workers, the Government Accountability Office said the total will be about 4,500, with nearly 4,000 (3,997) slated for enforcement.
On the $303.5 million for health care, the GAO said the IRS will “continue the development of new systems and modifications of existing systems required to support new tax credits,” as well as other IRS enforcement systems for health reform.
And that’s where the health reform law gets really tricky for taxpayers.
IRS WATCHDOG: HEALTH REFORM RAISES PRIVACY ISSUES
Nina E. Olson, who runs the Taxpayer Advocate Office {TAO}, a federal IRS overseer, has warned the new health law may require more IRS intrusions on taxpayer privacy, to determine whether individuals got appropriate health coverage, and whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage, all of which is defined by the government.
That’s because the health-reform law’s individual mandate requires almost all legal residents of the United States to have “adequate” health-care coverage, as determined by the federal government. And it requires businesses of all sizes to provide “affordable” coverage as defined by the federal government.
Health reform’s insurance mandate says if you do not have “adequate” insurance, you’ll have to pay a fine as part of your tax return. If your business doesn’t provide “affordable” coverage, you’ll have to pay a fine to the IRS, too, as part of your tax return filing.
The IRS must collect these mandate penalties, as well as determine whether individuals buy “adequate” health coverage, and whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage to workers under the new law.
WHAT YOU NOW MUST TELL THE IRS UNDER THE HEALTH LAW
The TAO has noted Americans must now tell the IRS under the new law, according to a report obtained by FOX News analyst James Farrell:
*Insurance plan information, including who is covered under the plan and the dates of coverage;
*The costs of your family’s health insurance plans;
*Whether a taxpayer had an offer of employer-sponsored health insurance;
*The cost of employer-sponsored insurance;
*Whether a taxpayer received a premium tax credit; and
*Whether a taxpayer has an exemption from the individual responsibility requirement.
The TAO has warned: “This is different from the type of information the IRS typically deals with, and some taxpayers may feel uncomfortable about sharing it with the IRS.”
Olson added: “As a result, some taxpayers could be tempted to not file a tax return or file a return with incorrect or incomplete information, creating problems for both the taxpayer and the IRS."
WITH WHOM THE IRS GETS TO SHARE YOUR INFO
In the TAO report obtained by Farrell, the TAO has also reported that “obtaining this new information will also require the IRS to communicate with entities and government agencies that it may not deal with now,” including:
Snip
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/03/29/irs-already-gearing-up-for-health-care-crackdown/#ixzz1qz50U5mY
Iraqgunz
04-03-2012, 08:02
The President and other so-called politicians need to remember that they work for us, not the other way around. For too many years we have continued to give away our rights, freedoms and individuality in the name security or the better good. It's time we stop. Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule the right way and put Obama back in his place.
Maybe then we can remind the other politicians in this country that for too many years they have disregarded the Constitution and made laws that they have no business making.
Most recently I remember seeing something on FoxNews where a politician openly admitted that they pass legislation all the time that is out of their scope or conflicts with the Constitution. That says alot......
Something worth thinking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-reason-scotus-could-save-potus/2012/04/02/gIQAfWytqS_story.html
The real reason SCOTUS could save POTUS
By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: April 2
Obamacare may be President Obama’s proudest legislative achievement, but the fact is it has been a political disaster for Democrats. The unpopular law has galvanized Obama’s conservative opponents, driven away moderates and independents, and hung like an albatross around the neck of the U.S. economy. A decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the law in its entirety could be the best thing that ever happened to Obama’s prospects for reelection.
If the Supreme Court were to lift the weight of Obamacare from the economy, we might see a spurt of job creation and capital coming off the sidelines that could be extremely helpful to the president come November. As Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) recently put it, “If [Obamacare] is thrown out, you’re going to see the economy bump up, just simply because [of] all the people who are not hiring with the anticipation of what it’s going to cost and the mandates associated with it. I think you’re going to see a big bump in the economy if it gets thrown out.”
Coburn is right. A recent Gallup survey found that 48 percent of small businesses said the potential costs of Obamacare were holding them back from hiring new workers. As one small business owner told “PBS News Hour” late last year, “when we bring on a new employee, we don’t know what that employee truly is going to cost us in 2014,. And we’re not in the practice of hiring people to then lay them off.”
Indeed, analysts at UBS Investment Research have called Obamacare “arguably the biggest impediment to hiring” in our economy (which is saying a lot considering the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the massive regulations Obama has proposed for the energy sector). One reason is that businesses with more than 50 fulltime employees face large annual penalties if even one of their employees qualifies for subsidies from health exchanges. The effect, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, is to “encourage businesses to downsize, to lay off employees, to shift from full-timers to part-timers, and to avoid hiring individuals who are likely to obtain subsidies and trigger penalties on the employer.” A Supreme Court decision to overturn Obamacare would eliminate these perverse incentives against hiring overnight.
Just look at the new medical device tax that is slated to take effect in January 2013. This tax is already causing medical technology companies to lay off workers. Stryker Corp. — an orthopedic device giant — announced in 2011 that it was laying off 5 percent of its workforce as a direct result of this new tax, which it says will cost the company $150 million. Other device makers have also announced layoffs and plans to move production of their devices offshore. Invalidating the entire bill would eliminate this tax before it can take effect.
Not only could a decision to overturn Obamacare give our anemic recovery a jolt just in time for the November elections, it would also transform the partisan landscape. If the law survives, conservatives know their last hope for stopping Obamacare would be legislative repeal. They would thus be more energized than ever to defeat Obama and take control of the Senate as well as the House in November. But if the law is overturned, one of the central rallying points for conservatives going into the fall campaign is removed.
Supreme Court rejection also helps Obama with moderates and independents. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 70 percent of independents want the Supreme Court to strike down the individual mandate or Obamacare entirely. Many of these independent voters dislike Obamacare, but do not necessarily dislike Obama. If the law is thrown out, and the economy is improving, they might take another look at the president come November.
Many on the left are hoping that if the court does overturn the individual mandate, it will stop short of invalidating the entire law. The irony is that a partial rejection would be the worst possible outcome for the president. Partial rejection would not remove the uncertainty that is preventing employers from hiring new workers — meaning Obama would get no economic bump. And with most of the law still on the books, conservatives would still be energized to “finish the job” at the polls in November. Obama would suffer the same humiliation as full rejection, but without any of the political or economic benefits.
No doubt a finding that Obamacare is unconstitutional would be a personal rebuke to the constitutional law professor in the Oval Office. It would certainly be a massive blow to the larger progressive dream of government-funded universal health care. But it might be Obama’s best shot at a two-term presidency.
© The Washington Post Company
Something worth thinking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-reason-scotus-could-save-potus/2012/04/02/gIQAfWytqS_story.html
The real reason SCOTUS could save POTUS
By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: April 2
If the Supreme Court were to lift the weight of Obamacare from the economy, we might see a spurt of job creation and capital coming off the sidelines that could be extremely helpful to the president come November. © The Washington Post Company
lol That article is the most thoughtfully-articulated example of wishful thinking I've ever read. This guy is clicking the heels of his ruby loafers.
... A decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the law in its entirety could be the best thing that ever happened to Obama’s prospects for reelection.
No doubt a finding that Obamacare is unconstitutional would be a personal rebuke to the constitutional law professor in the Oval Office.
Interesting article - I'll take my chances with a correct judicial decision and a fair election this November.
IMO, the American people need to see a government that respects the Constitution - respects the separation of powers, respects the checks and balances put in place by the founders.
If the economy improves because this health care monstrosity is ruled unconstitutional - rock on.
The real reason SCOTUS could save POTUS
By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: April 2
Obamacare may be President Obama’s proudest legislative achievement, but the fact is it has been a political disaster for Democrats. The unpopular law has galvanized Obama’s conservative opponents, driven away moderates and independents, and hung like an albatross around the neck of the U.S. economy. A decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the law in its entirety could be the best thing that ever happened to Obama’s prospects for reelection.
If SCOTUS does kill Obama-care, BHO will use it to the max..
His version will have ALL welfare, food stamps, & free school lunches ALSO deleted
His version will have the Republican candidate the person responsible for the disaster.
His version will make taxes go up to cover the lost revenue.
His version will cause ALL green card Democrats to lost their jobs..
His version will take any improvement in the market and/or economy as a sign the real Democrats are investing in America..
His version will call for SCOTUS appointments to serve at POTUS discretion.
My $00.0002 :mad:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/03/29/irs-already-gearing-up-for-health-care-crackdown
That’s because the health-reform law’s individual mandate requires almost all legal residents of the United States to have “adequate” health-care coverage, as determined by the federal government. And it requires businesses of all sizes to provide “affordable” coverage as defined by the federal government.
That' it. Where do I apply for my immigrant status?
Mr. Obama,
You will now write on the blackboard 100 times.... "I will not p*ss off the Federal Courts."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/
...should point out LOUDLY that this shows just how much of a horrible drag on the American economy OBAMA IS !!
Fixed it for ya. :D
So.....
What if the DOJ letter returned to the judge tells the courts to "pound sand, we'll do what we want"?
So.....
What if the DOJ letter returned to the judge tells the courts to "pound sand, we'll do what we want"?
Like in the Fast & Furious investigation? :D
This president is playing with fire...in a d*+k measuring contest between SCOTUS and the president - my money is on Justice Kagan.
Like in the Fast & Furious investigation? :D
This president is playing with fire...in a d*+k measuring contest between SCOTUS and the president - my money is on Justice Kagan.
You lost me. Kagan worships the man and everything he stands for.
You lost me. Kagan worships the man and everything he stands for.
IMO, Kagan is a mere tool of long term liberal ideology.
LOL, Obama...Kagan...measurements...didn't really think pink at the moment - but I see how it would have helped, bro. My bad.
Ret10Echo
04-04-2012, 05:36
Now I'm watching the sideshow over at the 5th Circuit... Justice Smith gave DOJ their writing assignment yesterday....tic-toc...
Here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/)
The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
The "power" is based upon Justice Smith's question:
"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?"
Of course, any student or professor of Constitutional law would be able to answer this question....Right??
Of course, any student or professor of Constitutional law would be able to answer this question....Right??
Oh, that pesky Consitution...that is soooo old fashioned - haven't you heard that it takes a community agitator to divide a village ! It's like a big gift from the federal government, dude. I mean, I was like the solicitor general for The United States under Obama and the Dean of Haaaarrrrvvvaaad law school. What evaaaaa !!!!
KAGAN: "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: We’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s health care. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."
What the story about not counting eggs.....
Ret10Echo
04-04-2012, 08:13
What the story about not counting eggs.....
Is that a finsky in his hand???
ddoering
04-04-2012, 10:34
Oh, that pesky Consitution...that is soooo old fashioned - haven't you heard that it takes a community agitator to divide a village ! It's like a big gift from the federal government, dude. I mean, I was like the solicitor general for The United States under Obama and the Dean of Haaaarrrrvvvaaad law school. What evaaaaa !!!!
KAGAN: "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: We’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s health care. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."
Of course, she doesn't care where that money comes from.... After all, its the government's money, right?
Team Sergeant
04-04-2012, 10:40
Now I'm watching the sideshow over at the 5th Circuit... Justice Smith gave DOJ their writing assignment yesterday....tic-toc...
Here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/)
The "power" is based upon Justice Smith's question:
Of course, any student or professor of Constitutional law would be able to answer this question....Right??
A judge with some balls........ Barack Hussein being made to answer...... made me smile all day.
Badger52
04-04-2012, 11:04
A judge with some balls........ Barack Hussein being made to answer...... made me smile all day.I'm betting they tell that circuit judge to pound sand or dissemble the whole thing because it's a lose/lose for them.
And if I'm wrong, for punishment I'll go back & re-read the Citrus Veloute' thread, get in the kitchen, and go to work.
;)
Stargazer
04-04-2012, 11:45
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/04/justice-department-under-deadline-to-answer-court-over-obamas-health-law/
Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged Wednesday that the "courts have final say," and said his department would respond formally to an appeals court order to explain whether the Obama administration believes judges in fact have the power to overturn federal laws. The attorney general, at a brief press conference in Chicago, made clear the administration thinks they do.
"We respect the decisions made by the courts since Marbury v. Madison," Holder said Wednesday, referring to the landmark 1803 case that established the precedent of judicial review. "Courts have final say."
Iraqgunz
04-04-2012, 11:52
I will really smile the next time Holder shows up in Arizona and Sheriff Joe has him arrested for conspiracy in the Fast and Furious scandal.
That would make some serious headlines.
alright4u
04-04-2012, 12:46
Never heard of any law school student or grad who did not understand judicial review. Hell, even journalists were taught about Marlbury V. Madison.
Obama has been caught in too many lies.
Badger52
04-04-2012, 13:15
I'm betting they tell that circuit judge to pound sand or dissemble the whole thing because it's a lose/lose for them.
And if I'm wrong, for punishment I'll go back & re-read the Citrus Veloute' thread, get in the kitchen, and go to work.
;)I might have to go shopping. (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31981)
Drat. :D
We had the pleasure of Holder's company this week, to congratulate Detroit on iti's reduction of youth crime. Even though the crime rate went UP our criminals are a year older than they were last year. :rolleyes:
It looks like Obama needs to take a lesson from the website that former SC Justice Sandra Day O'Connor started in 2009: http://www.icivics.org/
As to why she wanted to create such a site, Justice O'Connor had this to say, "After leaving the bench in 2006, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor grew concerned with the frequency and character of verbal attacks directed at the courts. O'Connor reasoned these attacks stemmed from a "fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judicial branch of government."
Ret10Echo
04-05-2012, 05:16
It looks like Obama needs to take a lesson from the website that former SC Justice Sandra Day O'Connor started in 2009: http://www.icivics.org/
As to why she wanted to create such a site, Justice O'Connor had this to say, "After leaving the bench in 2006, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor grew concerned with the frequency and character of verbal attacks directed at the courts. O'Connor reasoned these attacks stemmed from a "fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judicial branch of government."
Well apparently that "misunderstanding" extends to the legal experts...
University of Chicago:
"Judge Smith's response was, in my view, quite inappropriate,"
University of Virginia:
...I am surprised to see a request to the Justice Department asking them to explain their views on judicial review,"
But it is also mentioned that the current POTUS is taking the unprecendented step of attacking the Court prior to a ruling.... Must be that community activist coming out.
blog spot here (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/jerry-smith-obama-rebuke-questioned-legal-experts-213822371.html)
Ah - nothing like a little political theater to keep things lively in an election year. :p
SCOTUS v. POTUS: The Role of the Supreme Court, Historically
<snip>The voices of dissent from protesters and perhaps the president may well be louder this summer, when the Supreme Court rules in the health care case.
And we join some of these issues now with Louis Michael Seidman, author of the book "On Constitutional Disobedience." He's a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. And Randy Barnett, author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution," he represented the National Federation of Independent Businesses in its challenge to the health care law. And they're both professors at Georgetown Law School.<snip>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/scotus_04-04.html?print
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
We had the pleasure of Holder's company this week, to congratulate Detroit on iti's reduction of youth crime. Even though the crime rate went UP our criminals are a year older than they were last year. :rolleyes:
:D Hilarious. SOP, too.
Here's what I would like someone to explain to me:
If the "conservative" justices on the court rule the law to be unconsitutional, and that is seen as judicial activism, then how come the four "liberal" judges who will vote to uphold it are not being blasted being just as political? Oh never mind, the MSM would never bring that point to the forefront.
I will say that I don't always agree with the Court; the latest one being you can be strip searched if you are arrested, for any reason.
I read somewhere yesterday that Ginsberg is thinking about retiring before the election, in case Obama doesn't win, so that if Romney does he can't fill her seat with a conservative.
I might have to go shopping. Drat. :D
1:11 April 5, 2012
Eric Holder’s DOJ Response to 5th Circuit on Authority of the Supreme Court
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/05/text-read-eric-holders-doj-response-to-5th-circuit-on-authority-of-the-supreme-court/
Below is the full letter signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, requested by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals following comments made by President Obama calling the DOJ’s stance into question.
Judge Jerry E. Smith
Judge Emilio M. Garza
Judge Leslie H. Southwick
c/o Mr. Lyle W. Cayce
April 5, 2012
Clerk, United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
600 S. Maestri Place
ew Orleans, LA 70130
RE: Phvsician Hospitals o[America v. Sebelius. No.*11-40631
Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick:
This Court's letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-4063 1. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Department of Justice regarding*judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.
The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.
The government's brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plaintiffs' constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. ofthe United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs' constitutional claims if the Cour1 were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government's brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.
1. The power of the courts to review the constitutional ity of legislation is beyond dispute. See*generally, e.g. , Free Ente1prise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.*, 130 S. Ct. 3138 (20 10);*FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S.*307 (1993). The Supreme Court resolved this question inMarbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803). In that case, Case:*11-40631*Document:*00511812922*Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2012 the Court held that " [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”*Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177.
The Supreme Court has further explained that this power may only be exercised in appropriate cases. “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.”Daim/erChJys/er C01p. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332,*341 (2006); see, e.g.,*Weinberger v. Sa/fi, 422 U.S. 749,*763-766 (1975) (addressing a statutory bar to jurisdiction). In the case before this Court –*Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebe/ius, o.*11-40631*-we have argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 15-38.
Where a plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of a court and presents a justiciable challenge, there is no dispute that courts properly review the constitutionality of Acts of Congress.
2. In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,”*Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301,*1301 (1993), and the Supreme Court stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.”*United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,”*and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346*U.S. 441 ,*449 (1953); see, e.g.,*Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.”*Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221, 346*U.S. at 449. In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional.*See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 , 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”);*Beach Communications, Inc. ,508 U.S. at314-15.
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. Brown Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6. The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches’ policy choices and judgments.*See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320,*329 (2006) (explaining that, in granting relief, the courts ‘·try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary” because they recognize that’” [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people’”(alteration in the original) (quoting*Regan v. Time, inc. , 468 U.S. 641,*652 (1984) (plurality opinion)));*Turner Broadcasting System, inc., 512 U.S. at 665-66. The “Court accords ‘ great The “Court accords ‘ great weight to the decisions of Congress”‘ in part because “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”*Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,64 (1981) (quoting*Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94,*102 (1973)). These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The courts accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends.*See, e.g. , NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937); McCulloch v. Matyland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316,*408 (1819).*See also Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 566 (6th Cir. 20 11) (Opinion of Sutton, J.);*Seven Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 18-19 (D.C. Cir. 201 1) (Opinion of Silberman, J .)
The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
Case:*11-40631*Document:*00511812922*Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2012
The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
Case:*11-40631*Document:*00511812922*Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2012
Sure, they were. :rolleyes:
Please.
CloseDanger
04-05-2012, 14:14
Is anyone else feeling a light bit punchy yet?
Judicial activism? Meh. Anybody ever read History and heard of the Taney Court? :rolleyes:
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-court/history-of-the-court/the-taney-court-1836-1864/
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-usa-court-kagan-idUSBRE83410E20120405
(Reuters) - During three days of arguments over the Obama healthcare plan, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan put on a display of rhetorical firepower, reinforcing predictions that the newest liberal justice is best equipped to take on the conservative, five-man majority controlling the bench.
The strong views and persuasive tactics of the administration's former top lawyer could affect the fate of the healthcare overhaul, as well as decisions in other ideologically charged issues that will come before the court, such as same-sex marriage.
Kagan's sturdy advocacy was evident to law professors and to lawyers who practice before the court during her first term. But the healthcare debate has offered her a more prominent platform with bigger stakes. She pressed her argument as ardently as any lawyer who stepped to the lectern.
At the final session on the final day of arguments, attorney Paul Clement, representing 26 states challenging the healthcare law, had barely uttered three opening sentences when Kagan pounced.
What followed was one of the most aggressive exchanges of the entire three days. It centered on a provision expanding eligibility for Medicaid, the joint state-federal program that pays for poor people's healthcare. Kagan tried to puncture Clement's argument that bringing more people into the program would impinge on states' sovereignty and further strain their budgets, even though the government would pick up 90 percent of the cost.
The justice and the lawyer - Kagan a former solicitor general for Obama, Clement for George W. Bush - went at it for several minutes. When Clement eluded her, Kagan posed trickier scenarios to test the notion that states are trapped in a program that funnels hundreds of billions of dollars their way yet consumes significant state funds, too.
"Wow! Wow!" Kagan exclaimed in disbelief, as Clement rejected her hypothetical offers of huge sums of money, which she posited anyone would accept. The money would not be attractive, Clement responded, if it "came from my own bank account. And that's what's really going on here, in part."
GROUNDBREAKER, BUT IN A NEW ERA
The exchange illuminated how Kagan, President Barack Obama's second Supreme Court appointee, who joined the bench in August 2010, has energized the four-member liberal wing of the nine-member court. A keen strategist, she can also match wits with Chief Justice John Roberts and Antonin Scalia, the longest-serving conservative on today's bench.
Her role is distinct from that of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the conservative who is most likely to swing and occasionally permit the other side to prevail. Rather than casting a crucial vote, she lends a critical voice that could make the case for liberals within the court and beyond.
Her approach, seen in her early months and brought vividly to the fore during the healthcare case, suggests she may be adopting some of the liberal passion of her mentor, Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked. He also served as a solicitor general, during the Lyndon Johnson administration, before becoming the first African-American justice on the high court.
Marshall, whose tenure spanned 1967-1991, was, with the late Justice William Brennan, a standard-bearer for a liberalism that has all but disappeared from the federal bench. They opposed the death penalty in every case, consistently boosted defendants' rights and favored broad-scale solutions for past racial discrimination. They sought to give judges a strong hand in remedying social policy disputes.
Kagan is unlikely to embrace that activism of a bygone era. Yet her approach could lead her to oppose efforts by the conservative majority to reverse past rulings on race-based remedies, or break new ground on gay rights.
Snip/Read the whole article if you want to puke bile.
Here's one that was "unelected". Former Solicitor General Kagan
BANG! Right on target.
Stargazer
04-06-2012, 11:34
I tend to like the way Charles Krauthammer thinks -- I am onboard with the opinion piece below:
"Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question: If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? Without a limiting principle, the central premise of our constitutional system — a government of enumerated powers — evaporates. What, then, is the limiting principle?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obama-v-scotus/2012/04/05/gIQAZ41txS_story.html