Judge wants written clarification on Justice's view of President's remarks

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It seems that the Judiciary is up in arms over Obama's remarks on the current Obamacare cases and how "unelected judges" are making "unprecedented" decisions on laws passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

One has ordered a Justice Department lawyer to submit to the court a written response from the department within 48 hours detailing their explanation on how the department views these remarks. The submission is to be "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

There is an AUDIO LINK to the exchange at the bottom of the article.

SOURCE

Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case

Published April 03, 2012 | FoxNews.com

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.

One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care case.

The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.

"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?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.

A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "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 has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Smith 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.

The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though, told Fox News that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws.

"Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional," Carney said Tuesday.

However, he said the president was specifically referring to "the precedent under the Commerce Clause" regarding a legislature's ability to address "challenges to our national economy."

The most significant Supreme Court case hinges on the question of whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause. The administration argues it does not.

Though Carney said the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.

"I'm 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," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."

Carney said that Obama was expressing the point that on national economic challenges, "there should be due deference paid as a matter of precedent to our democratically elected officials."

Click here for audio of the Appeals Court hearing on Tuesday. The exchange on the president's comments starts at roughly the 18-minute mark.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting parallel to the money discussion. Most courts today are 'commerce courts', with the Supreme court being one of the few not operating under Commerce law. I'm very surprised to see them let the cat out of the bag like this.
 
gee, there's some mildly strong language from obama toward those he strongly disagrees with and some attempt to be persuasive. shit, never heard er seen nothin' like that be-fore.

"I'm 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," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

wow.

next thing we know, blue helmets will be busting our skulls for opposing a shitty health care scheme.

shit, here he is doing the secret freemason handshake.

obama-freemason-handshake-02.png


guess i better get my mark on my palm or forehead so i can get my soap, vittles, and approved entertainment materials.
 
soap???
nobody said anything about soap.

"Git back in that field! Assholes and elbows! GIT!"
 
oh no dude, you need to get with the contemporary pimping. sophisticated, discerning dandies like me need really good personal care products if we're going to stand idly by while satan, laughing, spreads his wings. soap IS part of my deal. fancy soap. french shit.

mario1.jpg
 
hah. good point. i don't think they are very familiar with it in the british isles either. perhaps i should just start making my own.

strangely enough i have a big bunch of lye and some rather large plastic tubs...

breaking-bad-acid-tub.jpg
 
2minkey said:
... what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress
Click to expand...

I guess he never heard of the unprecedented overturning of the "law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" in Lopez vs U.S. Oh, my. That was a commerce clause case, wasn't it?

Ya even notice how often this guy uses the word "unprecedented?" That's his "big" word.

SOURCE

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ, JR.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 93-1260.

Argued November 8, 1994
Decided April 26, 1995

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Held:

The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite Page II nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 2-19.

2 F.3d 1342, affirmed.

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., and SOUTER, J., filed dissenting opinions. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. [ UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 1]

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Click to expand...
 
And I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Liberals are simply blinded by their ideology.

SOURCE

Obama’s unprecedented definition of ‘unprecedented’

4:03 pm April 2, 2012, by Kyle Wingfield

“I am confident 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.”

That was President Obama earlier today, talking about the legal challenge to Obamacare the court heard last week — and demonstrating once again he doesn’t have a very firm grasp on the meaning of “unprecedented.”

After all, the Supreme Court has been overturning laws — which necessarily have been passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress — since 1803’s Marbury v. Madison decision. By this count citing the Government Printing Office, the court declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional between 1789 and 2002, which works out to one about every 16 months. Which strikes me as “precedented.”

Or perhaps the operative word in Obama’s was “strong,” and only laws passed by “weak” majorities are worthy of being overturned? I would not grant that the size of the congressional majority necessarily speaks to a law’s constitutionality. But even if that were so, Obamacare hardly passes “unprecedented” muster. It passed in the House by a vote of 219-212 — that’s 50.8 percent of votes cast in favor to 49.2 percent against — and in the Senate by a more comfortable 60-39 (although the votes on the controversial reconciliation bill that enabled the two chambers to come together on a common text passed only 220-211 and 56-43, respectively).

Now, let’s look at a relevant law the Supreme Court previously overturned — the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, voided in the United States v. Lopez decision in 1995 (which also concerned the Commerce Clause and which was cited by the plaintiffs in their challenge to Obamacare). That act was part of the broader Crime Control Act of 1990, which was so strongly supported that it passed the Senate by a voice vote and the House by a vote of 313-1.

Again, “precedented.” Let’s not even get into “extraordinary.”

In case you’ve forgotten: This man once taught constitutional law at an elite university. Yet, when it suits him better, he chooses to ignore some of the most basic elements of the three-branch system of government said Constitution established.

As for one of the other main elements of his statement today:

I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.​

I would respectfully submit that the president has either not heard or not understood the actual criticisms leveled by these “conservative commentators.” I wonder: Can our commenters, regardless of ideological leaning, do any better in identifying what “the biggest problem on the bench” was said to be?

– By Kyle Wingfield
Click to expand...
 
2minkey said:
andrew napolitano is a miserable creature. his political views are undoubtedly a result of his hideousness and a lifetime of social rejection.

of course, if i looked like an ewok crossed with some kind of ground rodent, i'd be upset too.
Click to expand...

You are just jealous of his hair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top