Obama scorn of SCOTUS at State of Union

[VMI77]

It's much worse than that.....this "Constitutional Scholar" is attempting to subvert the fundamental principles of the Constitution. He's basically saying that a majority vote trumps the Constitution --and note even a majority vote, really, since given the percentage of voters, a majority is essentially just a plurality. Furthermore, he's not even talking about a vote of the people, but a vote of those bought-and-paid-for criminals in Congress masquerading as "representatives" of the "people." By his logic, a majority in Congress could then abrogate anything in the Constitution without any judicial review. Of course, this is the same Criminal-in-Chief whose Attorney General claims that having BO make a unilateral decision is the same "due process" as a trial by jury. It's pure demagoguery --he is by far the most irresponsible and dangerous president to ever hold office in this country.

[hi-power]

We also must not forget the crap-weasel who gave Obama the 60th vote in the Senate...Arlen Specter.

He was the lone Republican to vote for the massive Obama stimulus and was then shunned by the other Repubs. After 44 years as a Republican he switched to the Democrat party as either payback against Republicans or he actually believed the Dems would welcome him with open arms. They did until after he provided them a super-majority and the Healthcare monstrosity passed the Senate. In the next election cycle, the Dems dumped him and backed another Dem who lost to a Republican. At least the Pennsylvania voters put an end to that whole mess.

Today Specter's hawking a book that I hope no one buys. I believe he's earned a special place in purgatory.

[AEA]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04 ... eme-court/

[MeMelYup]

"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,"

Is he saying that only the democratically elected people in congress count? Not the Republicans or Independents.

[AEA]

You should have heard him talking live........
You could tell he was WANTING to say "bipartisan" in that quote soooooooo bad, but he new he couldn't! So what you quoted is what came out.......

He was really stammering and stuttering when he said that. That does not come out in the printed wording.......

[RoyGBiv]

Holy moley.... Is there a precedent for this??

Judges order Justice Department to clarify following 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.

A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News.

A letter from the court instructs the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04 ... on-health/

[AEA]

ALRIGHT!
Bout time the Republicans got on the soapbox too!
Unfortunately, demanding anything from Holder is just like talking to your TV!

I bet The Factor tonight will be nothing but this from all angles.

[WildBill]

ALRIGHT!
Bout time the Republicans got on the soapbox too!
Unfortunately, demanding anything from Holder is just like talking to your TV!

I bet The Factor tonight will be nothing but this from all angles.

I have never heard of the supreme court doing anything like this.

[RoyGBiv]

ALRIGHT!
Bout time the Republicans got on the soapbox too!
Unfortunately, demanding anything from Holder is just like talking to your TV!

I bet The Factor tonight will be nothing but this from all angles.

I have never heard of the supreme court doing anything like this.

It was the 5th Circuit... They were holding hearings about a portion of the Healthcare law unrelated to the SCOTUS cases and apparently one of the Judges got a bee in his bonnet and demanded that the attorney from Justice arguing before him bring back a statement from her boss (Holder) explaining the administrations position as to whether the courts have the authority to strike down unconstitutional laws..

"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.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04 ... on-health/

[Dave2]

ALRIGHT!
Bout time the Republicans got on the soapbox too!
Unfortunately, demanding anything from Holder is just like talking to your TV!

I bet The Factor tonight will be nothing but this from all angles.

I have never heard of the supreme court doing anything like this.

It was the 5th Circuit... They were holding hearings about a portion of the Healthcare law unrelated to the SCOTUS cases and apparently one of the Judges got a bee in his bonnet and demanded that the attorney from Justice arguing before him bring back a statement from her boss (Holder) explaining the administrations position as to whether the courts have the authority to strike down unconstitutional laws..

We can only hope that a similar statement won't be made again when the SCOTUS hears their part.

[Dave2]

Thankfully Holder says that the courts have the final say. No clue why he's so confident the law will be upheld, though.

[Bart]

Thankfully Holder says that the courts have the final say. No clue why he's so confident the law will be upheld, though.

Extortion and blackmail?

There's no logical reason it would be upheld so if any sane justice votes to uphold it, it has to be under duress.

[MeMelYup]

What’s Holder going to say, “The president mis-spoke”?

[Slowplay]

Holder's letter tries to soften Obama's comments, since there's no real defense for what Obama said on Monday. Obama wasn't even right about the "democratically elected congress" that voted for "Obamacare.". The 60th vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") on Christmas eve 2009 was Paul Kirk, appointed by Deval Patrick (before MA elected Scott Brown for the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy).

Holder basically says the laws passed by congress are presumptively constitutional - well yeah, they do take an oath to uphold the Constitution...

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.”

There is also a presumption of innocence, so big deal...doesn't stop courts from doing their jobs.

[smoothoperator]

Holder's letter tries to soften Obama's comments, since there's no real defense for what Obama said on Monday. Obama wasn't even right about the "democratically elected congress" that voted for "Obamacare.". The 60th vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") on Christmas eve 2009 was Paul Kirk, appointed by Deval Patrick (before MA elected Scott Brown for the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy).

When conservatives complain about activist judges they are upset because the judges' rulings are created out of thin air, based on things that are nowhere in the text of the constitution.

Obama is upset a majority of SCOTUS justices might base their ruling on the actual text of the constitution.

There is a world of difference between the two.