Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, April 5, 2012 15:19
VIEWED: 3220
PAGE 1 of 5
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News. The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate challenge to the health care law. It was apparent, however, that the justice who questioned the government attorney present was referring to Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's review of that law.
The source said the justice, Judge Jerry Smith, was pointed in his questioning of the government attorney, asking whether Attorney General Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.
Smith then ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-depart
ment-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1OZDwQx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The President risked disciplinary action from the Bar.
It's violates the Rules of Professional Responsibilty to question the integrity of the Courts in the way he did.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not only that, but he was factually wrong on every point he brought up in that bizarre statement.
There's been plenty of precedent of the SCOTUS over turning laws passed by Congress. It's happened hundreds, if not thousands of times. Any Const. Law teacher should know that, so why does Barack claim it's never happened before ?
Is he truly that clueless? Or does he just think his base are, and that's who he's talking to?
Not only was ObamaCare NOT passed by a " large majority ", it would not matter in the least, even if it had. The law is the law, no matter by what margin of vote, and if the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, then guess what... it is !
Absolutely unbelievable that Obama would DARE talk about this being an ' activist ' court, should it over turn the mandate. It's not making up an imaginary law, out of thin air , which is exactly what RvW did. No, this would be preserving the very foundation of freedom for which this country was based. The SCOTUS would be doing nothing but its basic, constitutional duty. Activism ? My ass!
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now that is funny coming from the right, the side that coined the phase activist judges.
This is also ridiculous because court is asking Holder to explain what President means. Nothing but saber rattling.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Now that is funny coming from the right, the side that coined the phase activist judges.
This is also ridiculous because court is asking Holder to explain what President means. Nothing but saber rattling.
Obama is the one who started rattling his own sabres.
Obama’s unsettling attack on the Supreme Court
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettli
ng-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html
There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”
To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.
That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.
And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.”
Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”
But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.
I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.
Worse, the president’s critique, and in particular the reference to “unelected” judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the peo
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”
Wow this is what has people up in arms? Shall I start posting what some noted conservatives have said about so called activist judges? It comes down to the fact that conservatives can't take their own medicine.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, it comes down to the fact that Obama can't take no for an answer. He's too arrogant and hopes his followers are so stupid, that they'll actually believe this would be ' unprecedented" for the court to rule a law unconstitutional.
And this guy TAUGHT constitutional law ???
Really? 
And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Show me where he said it would be unprecedented.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
It's violates the Rules of Professional Responsibilty to question the integrity of the Courts in the way he did.
Fuck. That. Noise.
It's about TIME someone questioned the Courts integrity, long past it in fact, and whatever excuse the Thin Black Line has for dodging accountability is no more valid with me than the bullshit excuses of the Thin Blue One.
Professional courtesy does NOT, SHOULD NOT, extend to unquestioning acceptance of something which conflicts with ones own personal morality, and to insinuate or even directly state that this should be the case is offensive to me.
The day we fail to question simply cause we're told not to, is the day we're lost completely.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The day we fail to question simply cause we're told not to, is the day we're lost completely.
-Frem
.
You can question anything you want, lawyers can not.
Lawyers have a legally recognized monopoly, as such we are held by the Courts to ethical standards of their choosing, but generally recommended by nonpartisan legal scholars. We agree to abide by these standards in exchange for the right to practice law. This recognizes both the unique relationship and responsibility we have to both our clients and the Courts and is a centuries old tradition.
The President did not get in trouble because he was critical of activist courts, although I note for the record that if not for such judicial activism he'd have been more likely to be cleaning the White House rather then living there.
He got in trouble for raising the issue of the Court's power to act and for language that was hostile to the Court's status as a co-equal branch...as if the unelected nature of their position was somehow illegitimate.
You can be critical of decisions, Judges, policies, etc, but he questioned the nature and foundtion of the judicial system and that is not allowed by lawyers. He did it in reference to and as a party to a pending action. It's not a disbarment offense, but I've seen good lawyers sanctioned for less.
If his position is, as it appears, that Courts lack the power to act on Constitutional issues, then he needs to explain it. That is what the Court is asking. Is the President questioning Marbury?
So now the President is rolling back the rhetoric. He knows that without Marbury, there is no Brown, no Gideon, no Roe...and no check on the power of Congress and the President to simply ignore the Constitution. He's not a fool, but he clearly got angry and carried away...which has always been a problem for him.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME