PDA

View Full Version : Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case



Hawkgirl
04-03-2012, 06:01 PM
(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."

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

:popcorn:
Obama, how do you like them apples?

Rockntractor
04-03-2012, 06:19 PM
Which means that far more educated people than I, also think there is a chance Obama may try to thumb his nose at the Supreme Court.

Kay
04-03-2012, 07:43 PM
I find this to be hilarious!
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when Barry was given this news.
Don't you know he was highly insulted that another court dare question him.
Silly justices, don't they know Barry is above the law? NOT!

Elspeth
04-03-2012, 07:48 PM
I find this to be hilarious!
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when Barry was given this news.
Don't you know he was highly insulted that another court dare question him.
Silly justices, don't they know Barry is above the law? NOT!

Actually, the unitary executive concept may, in fact, allow Barry to be above the law. I think Congress has already been declawed. If they could let Barry coerce them into passing a law allowing him unconstitutional powers (to imprison or kill American citizens without due process--NDAA), then Congress is toast.

I am seriously concerned about this. I think Barry does have something up his sleeve here.

Kay
04-03-2012, 07:49 PM
And this is exactly what our very wise Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up our government with 3 distinct branches to create a system of checks and balances on each other. It is good to see it actually working.

Rockntractor
04-03-2012, 07:54 PM
I am seriously concerned about this. I think Barry does have something up his sleeve here.

I think there is a possibility he could do it, but if he did it I think most Democrats know the American people aren't ready and would never except it, it would be the death of his party

Kay
04-03-2012, 07:58 PM
Actually, the unitary executive concept may, in fact, allow Barry to be above the law. I think Congress has already been declawed. If they could let Barry coerce them into passing a law allowing him unconstitutional powers (to imprison or kill American citizens without due process--NDAA), then Congress is toast.

I am seriously concerned about this. I think Barry does have something up his sleeve here.

I feel like he's pushed about as far as he's going to get away with.
He's already so far out of bounds, as you say because this idiot
worst congress ever has enabled him to go there. I still like to
think and hope that there are still enough real Americans left in
our government and judicial system who will keep the madness
in check till we get him out of office in November.

Novaheart
04-03-2012, 08:00 PM
How can one simultaneously maintain that President Obama is an ineffectual idiot and that he's a powerful criminal mastermind?

President Obama has the guaranteed vote of about 95% of 12.6% of the population and 1% of the other 87%. Everything else is in play: unless of course the GOP runs Romney. Then I'd say that Obama is a slam dunk.

SaintLouieWoman
04-03-2012, 09:53 PM
I think there is a possibility he could do it, but if he did it I think most Democrats know the American people aren't ready and would never except it, it would be the death of his party

Bubba Clinton and Barry O have one thing in commone---they both valued themselves over party. They'd each do about anything to become re-elected despite the damage to their party. They are both narcissists.

I hope this backfires on him big time. Those judges are like gods. When I first started selling office equipment to the feds, I made a terrible mistake. I accidentally parked in a judge's parking spot. It wasn't clearly marked. I observed how upset the underlings got, apologized profusely, moved my car and begged forgiveness for a long time.

Also those judges get whatever they want (as far as office equipment, which is what I saw). Many times they got things way beyond what their usage would justify. Their purchasing clerks made certain that they weren't annoyed or unhappy.

Now the pres calls them "unelected"? Doesn't he comprehend they don't run for election like some low ranking municipal judges? He's challenged them, insulted them, etc. They won't forget. Good luck with some of the other cases he will have coming up.

Starbuck
04-03-2012, 10:12 PM
How can one simultaneously maintain that President Obama is an ineffectual idiot and that he's a powerful criminal mastermind? .............
Easy. We're saying that he is an incompetent criminal mastermind.

Starbuck
04-03-2012, 10:13 PM
......Now the pres calls them "unelected"?.....
Try telling that to Judge Bork.

Hawkgirl
04-04-2012, 12:42 AM
How can one simultaneously maintain that President Obama is an ineffectual idiot and that he's a powerful criminal mastermind?

President Obama has the guaranteed vote of about 95% of 12.6% of the population and 1% of the other 87%. Everything else is in play: unless of course the GOP runs Romney. Then I'd say that Obama is a slam dunk.

The only idiot calling him a criminal mastermind is you.

Hawkgirl
04-04-2012, 12:43 AM
Easy. We're saying that he is an incompetent criminal.

Fixed it for you.

m00
04-04-2012, 12:55 AM
Wait, no this is fantastic. You guys are missing the bigger picture. I remember being in an argument years ago on this message board (I think it was with Adam?), and basically it came down to whether Marbury v Madison was correctly decided. I argued it was decided incorrectly, and the response was a derisive "sure, but good luck convincing anyone that should be overturned. That would invalidate 200 years of case law."

Well, who's laughing now?!

(I've actually always disagreed with Marbury :smile-new:)

Kay
04-04-2012, 01:10 AM
A good editorial opinion by Judge Napolitano:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/03/when-it-comes-to-constitution-obama-cannot-lay-glove-on-supreme-court/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/03/when-it-comes-to-constitution-obama-cannot-lay-glove-on-supreme-court/)

txradioguy
04-04-2012, 02:09 AM
He's not incompetent...he knows exactly what he's doing. And he doesn't care whether it violates the law or the Constitution.

Two other things I noticed...gotta love how the CBS story points out that the three judge panel were all Republicans and one was a "Reagan appointee". Had this been a judge rebuking something President Bush had said...the political affiliation of the President who appointed them would never get mentioned.

Second...this whole myth of a "majority" passing this law. Nice how they omit that they only way this travesty got passed was because there was a super majority of democrats in each chamber. And that it barely passed the house and no Republicans voted for it. It's also well doccumented the bribes and cloakroom deals that had to be done in the Senate to get it passed.

Arroyo_Doble
04-04-2012, 08:16 AM
So the Executive intimates that striking down the law would be an exercise in judicial activism by a partisan Judicial branch and three Republican appointed judges get tetchy and help prove him right.

Damn funny.

Bailey
04-04-2012, 08:44 AM
So the Executive intimates that striking down the law would be an exercise in judicial activism by a partisan Judicial branch and three Republican appointed judges get tetchy and help prove him right.

Damn funny.

Wow its amazing that you looked at this situation and got it 100% completely wrong, you are an artist my friend.

Arroyo_Doble
04-04-2012, 08:50 AM
Wow its amazing that you looked at this situation and got it 100% completely wrong, you are an artist my friend.

Art is certainly fun. But you can't beat the side show contortionists twisting themselves around on the issue of "judicial activism."

Bailey
04-04-2012, 09:07 AM
Art is certainly fun. But you can't beat the side show contortionists twisting themselves around on the issue of "judicial activism."

Its not "judical activism" when you strike down bad laws, its activism when you make up new rights out of thin air i.e. Roe v wade.

Arroyo_Doble
04-04-2012, 09:19 AM
Its not "judical activism" when you strike down bad laws, its activism when you make up new rights out of thin air i.e. Roe v wade.

Bend it like Beckham.

Rockntractor
04-04-2012, 10:00 AM
Art is certainly fun. But you can't beat the side show contortionists twisting themselves around on the issue of "judicial activism."
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/tumblr_ljj8zl5cLs1qc6xeao1_250.gif

Zeus
04-04-2012, 10:49 AM
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, well known as the most conservative of the appellate courts also maintains the best record of least overturned decisions rendered.

Just some food for thought.

Starbuck
04-04-2012, 11:15 AM
So the Executive intimates that striking down the law would be an exercise in judicial activism by a partisan Judicial branch and three Republican appointed judges get tetchy and help prove him right.

Damn funny.
That would be three conservative judges. You don't know that they are Republican.

They were appointed by Republicans, but Republican presidents have appointed numerous liberal justices to the U.S. Supreme Court including Earl Warren (Eisenhower), William Brennan (Eisenhower), Harry Blackmun (Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Ford), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan), Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan), and David Souter (Bush I).

Starbuck
04-04-2012, 11:16 AM
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, well known as the most conservative of the appellate courts also maintains the best record of least overturned decisions rendered.

Just some food for thought.

And fine tasting food it is.:adoration:

Arroyo_Doble
04-04-2012, 11:19 AM
That would be three conservative judges. You don't know that they are Republican.

No. One used the Republican epithet, "Obamacare" instead of the name of the law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

He, at least, is a Republican.

linda22003
04-04-2012, 12:49 PM
No. One used the Republican epithet, "Obamacare" instead of the name of the law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

He, at least, is a Republican.

Even Obama is calling it that now, in the belief that what he thinks will be a stunning success will then be identified with him.

obx
04-04-2012, 12:53 PM
It should be called Obamadoesn'tcare. A terrible law named after a terrible President.

txradioguy
04-04-2012, 02:41 PM
Bend it like Beckham.

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/3766/223037-brick.jpg

"I LOVE LAMP!!!!"

Gentleman Pirate
04-04-2012, 02:42 PM
http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/3766/223037-brick.jpg

"I LOVE LAMP!!!!"

you used that one before..

Just sayin....

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?48361-Is-This-REALLY-What-You-All-Want&p=495201&viewfull=1#post495201

Starbuck
04-04-2012, 04:24 PM
No. One used the Republican epithet, "Obamacare" instead of the name of the law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

He, at least, is a Republican.

Heh, heh....try to pay attention, Now, Doble:

.....Democrats decided to take ownership of a word they once seemed to avoid at all costs.

The shift has been occurring for weeks if not months. But it became particularly noticeable around the law's second anniversary on March 23. On that day, for instance, the Obama campaign sent out this email from top Obama political strategist David Axelrod:

"I like Obamacare.
"I'm proud of it and you should be, too.
"Here's why: Because it works.
"So if you're with me, say it: 'I like Obamacare...' "

Shirts, buttons, bumper stickers and other campaign paraphernalia followed.........
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/03/29/149621814/democrats-seembrace-obamacare

Elspeth
04-04-2012, 11:52 PM
According to Reuters, White House is doing damage control:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/usa-court-obama-idUSL2E8F4B8N20120404

The White House was forced on the defensive on Wednesday as it sought to explain controversial remarks President Barack Obama made earlier in the week about the Supreme Court's review of his signature healthcare reform law.

"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney told reporters during a White House briefing dominated by the topic...

...During robust questioning when Carney was told at one point that he had mischaracterized what the president had said, the press secretary was forced to repeatedly defend the remarks of his boss as an observation of fact.

"Since the 1930s the Supreme Court has without exception deferred to Congress when it comes to Congress's authority to pass legislation to regulate matters of national economic importance such as health care, 80 years," Carney said.

"He did not mean and did not suggest that ... it would be unprecedented for the court to rule that a law was unconstitutional. That's what the Supreme Court is there to do," Carney said....

Rockntractor
04-04-2012, 11:55 PM
According to Reuters, White House is doing damage control:

I don't know, there is always a plan behind his madness.