My it's getting testy in Washington

[DaveE 178]

Appeals court pissed?

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

comments

By Jan Crawford Topics Supreme Court .

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would 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."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. 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 panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

He is SUCH a baffoon.

"Separation of Powers" is even covered in the citizenship test. Jeezum.

[DaveE 178]

What makes me laugh is that they assigned a term paper to the Justice Dept. Three page, single spaced paper. I wonder if they require APA format?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What makes me laugh is that they assigned a term paper to the Justice Dept. Three page, single spaced paper. I wonder if they require APA format?

That IS funny

[one...two...tree 2,762]

link to the OP?

[natty bumppo 297]

Appeals court pissed?

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

comments .....

link to the OP?

ummm ... first three words .... check the hyperlink ...

Edited April 3, 2012 by natty bumppo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

ummm ... first sentence .... check the hyperlink ...

i thought marijuana was good for glaucoma...

[xebec 195]

His link is at the top of the post.

Looks like the "constitutional scholar" stepped off in it with his big socialist clown shoes....

[natty bumppo 297]

i thought marijuana was good for glaucoma...

maybe the braille feature is broken on his monitor ...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

link to the OP?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

For those who believe in global warming and what the media says about Trayvon Martin...here

Obamacare is dead, you know that right? Obama does

[one...two...tree 2,762]

UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."

Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.

"Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.c...alth-care-case/

......

Obama brought up judicial activism - a term used often by those on the Right, toward judges who overturn lower court rulings. Gingrich has even gone as far as proposing that activist judges be arrested. Now does Obama really adhere to the term 'judicial activism'? Probably not. He was merely pointing out the double standard by those on the Right who call it that when the ruling doesn't go their way. The reality is that laws are subject to interpretation and whether such interpretation does not directly conflict with our constitution. Taking a rather broad and somewhat ambiguous document as the U.S. Constitution and striking down a law formed by the Legislative Branch by Judicial Branch is no small matter.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

http://www.cbsnews.c...alth-care-case/

......

Obama brought up judicial activism - a term used often by those on the Right, toward judges who overturn lower court rulings. Gingrich has even gone as far as proposing that activist judges be arrested. Now does Obama really adhere to the term 'judicial activism'? Probably not. He was merely pointing out the double standard by those on the Right who call it that when the ruling doesn't go their way. The reality is that laws are subject to interpretation and whether such interpretation does not directly conflict with our constitution. Taking a rather broad and somewhat ambiguous document as the U.S. Constitution and striking down a law formed by the Legislative Branch by Judicial Branch is no small matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-police-report-reveals-crime-scene-details-175656087.html

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

http://www.cbsnews.c...alth-care-case/

......

Obama brought up judicial activism - a term used often by those on the Right, toward judges who overturn lower court rulings. Gingrich has even gone as far as proposing that activist judges be arrested. Now does Obama really adhere to the term 'judicial activism'? Probably not. He was merely pointing out the double standard by those on the Right who call it that when the ruling doesn't go their way. The reality is that laws are subject to interpretation and whether such interpretation does not directly conflict with our constitution. Taking a rather broad and somewhat ambiguous document as the U.S. Constitution and striking down a law formed by the Legislative Branch by Judicial Branch is no small matter.

And we all know how you feel about judicial procedure vs. lynching. Who needs courts at all when we have internet sources for criminal trials and scientific data?

[Ban Hammer 13,550]

if it's not on the teleprompter of the united states, does it exist?

[DaveE 178]

http://www.cbsnews.c...alth-care-case/

......

Obama brought up judicial activism - a term used often by those on the Right, toward judges who overturn lower court rulings. Gingrich has even gone as far as proposing that activist judges be arrested. Now does Obama really adhere to the term 'judicial activism'? Probably not. He was merely pointing out the double standard by those on the Right who call it that when the ruling doesn't go their way. The reality is that laws are subject to interpretation and whether such interpretation does not directly conflict with our constitution. Taking a rather broad and somewhat ambiguous document as the U.S. Constitution and striking down a law formed by the Legislative Branch by Judicial Branch is no small matter.

So he gets bit'ch slapped verbally by the 5th Circuit, and now has to modify/clarify the perfectly clear words he used a couple of days ago. I want to read the term paper DOJ now has to write as a direct result of his comments. He said what he said, got called on it, and is now tap dancing. BTW - Who inserted Gingrich into this post?