Obama gets Bitch Slapped by 5th Circuit

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
It's On: 5th Circuit Dares Obama to Deny Power of Judicial Review

by Breitbart News3 hours ago229 post a comment

Jan Crawford of CBS reports that a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to "answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law."

The response is to be three pages long, single-spaced, according to an unnamed lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The court's response appears to be a direct challenge to President Barack Obama's attack yesterday on the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review, which federal courts have exercised for over 200 years.


:lol:
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Breitbart? :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

They think an appeals court can order Obama or the Justice Department to respond when neither of them is on trial?

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:


Those redneck judges will get no response at all.

Well......maybe Eric Holder will bottle up a bean burrito fart for them to sniff.:142smilie
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law

<CITE class="byline vcard">By JUAN A. LOZANO | Associated Press ? <ABBR class=updated title=2012-04-04T02:10:15Z>3 hrs ago</ABBR></CITE>





President Barack Obama gestures ?
  • President Barack Obama gestures ?
  • President Barack Obama gestures ?

<!-- yog-5u -->
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><ROOT></ROOT>HOUSTON (AP) ? A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.
The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.
During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.
"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.
On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress.
"I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.
A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.
However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.
"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements," Smith said.
The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities.
The Justice Department did not immediately return a telephone call late Tuesday seeking comment.
White House officials had no comment on Smith's statements, instead referring to comments Obama made earlier Tuesday at the annual meeting of The Associated Press in Washington.
At the meeting, Obama said the Supreme Court "is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. ... 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."
___
Associated Press writer Will Lester in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,937
738
113
50
TX
Obama wants to be Dictator :scared he is useless in my book

Romney wins in a landslide :0074
 

PRO ONE NINETY

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 19, 2012
324
9
0
63
Obama got smoked and cannot handle it, just like the lefty panzys in Wisconsin.
Krauthammer spells it out perfectly..


Krauthammer: Obama Trying To Bully The Supreme Court While Liberals Are In Shock

"Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening.

"It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel.

"Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't a broad of a majority that he implied," he added.

"On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't a broad of a majority that he implied," he added.

This is how the Democrats get away with it, they can LIE all day long and the Liberal News Media will not call them out on it.

:nono:
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,276
1,449
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
Breitbart? :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

They think an appeals court can order Obama or the Justice Department to respond when neither of them is on trial?

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:


Those redneck judges will get no response at all.

Well......maybe Eric Holder will bottle up a bean burrito fart for them to sniff.:142smilie

Wrong AGAIN Duff.

<!-- gd2-status-2 --><!-- SpaceID=2143684763 loc=NT1 noad --><SCRIPT language=javascript>if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['MtsWDUPDhEY-']='&U=12b8kjvd4%2fN%3dMtsWDUPDhEY-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dNT1%2fB%3d-1%2fV%3d0';</SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><!--QYZ ,;;NT1;2143684763;2;--><?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><ROOT></ROOT><?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><ROOT></ROOT><!-- END 24 --><!-- START 16_8 -->
<!-- -->
Jay Carney: Obama didn?t intend to challenge Supreme Court?s authority

<CITE class="byline vcard">
blogger-hartman-38_225236.jpg
blogger-hartman-38_225236.jpg
By Rachel Rose Hartman
Political Reporter




By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket ? <ABBR title=2012-04-04T20:33:26Z>17 hrs ago</ABBR></CITE>




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><ROOT></ROOT>
AP120404022036.jpg
Jay Carney. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, defended President Obama's stern comments on the Supreme Court, arguing Wednesday during a heated spat with reporters that the president did not intend to imply the court lacks the authority to overrule the law commonly known as Obamacare.
"He certainly was not contending?that the Supreme Court doesn't have as its right and responsibility the ability to overturn laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional," Carney said during Wednesday's White House briefing. "He was referring to 85 years of judicial precedent, of Supreme Court precedent, with regard to matters like the one under consideration. And it's maybe fun to pretend he meant otherwise, but everyone here knows that that's what he meant."
Carney later added that what the president said was "the reverse of intimidation."
<IFRAME height=324 src="http://d.yimg.com/nl/ynews/blog/player.html#vid=28837083&browseCarouselUI=hide" frameBorder=0 width=576></IFRAME>
Reporters pressed Carney to admit that the president did suggest a decision to overrule would be "unprecedented," but Carney would not relent, repeating that that was not the president's intent.
"He was a law professor," Carney reminded the press corps.
Obama, during a press conference Monday at the White House, compared the Supreme Court's rejection of his health care law to "judicial activism" and blasted a potential decision to overrule:
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. 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.
Those comments prompted critics to accuse the president of bullying the nation's highest court. One of those critics was 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith, who joined with two other judges on Tuesday to ask the Justice Department to issue a three-page, single-spaced letter affirming the federal court's authority to rule on the case.
d2e1d058282df0d2d61e20452905b702.jpeg
Following Smith's request, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly defended the president, saying during a press conference Wednesday that Obama's comments were "appropriate."
Holder said the Justice Department would "respond appropriately" to the 5th Circuit.
Republicans on Wednesday were highlighting a FactCheck.org report that the president is "absurdly wrong" to claim that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to strike down his health care law.
"There is ample precedent for the Supreme Court voiding laws passed by Congress. In fact, overturning unconstitutional laws has been part of the Supreme Court's job description for more than two centuries," wrote FactCheck.org.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top