Quantcast

Attorney General Holder Agrees with the Fifth Circuit: Supreme Court Has the Right to Overturn Obamacare - Do you believe him?

Quietman ~PWCM~JLA 2012/04/05 19:27:59
You!
Add Photos & Videos
"Earlier this week, as you may know, Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asked Attorney General Eric Holder to explain whether or not he agrees with the President that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that had been duly passed by Congress. Holder has responded, with a three-page, single-spaced letter, as Smith requested. I’ve posted the full letter here. Here is Holder’s introduction.

Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick:

This Court’s letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-40631. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Department of Justice regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.

The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.

The government’s brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plantiffs’ constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs’ constitutional claims if the Court were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

Holder goes on to review the relevant case law, and notes that “the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress.” Holder concludes by stating that “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”

Your move, Judge Smith."

Read More: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/05/attorn...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Mickey 2012/04/07 03:38:16
    No
    Mickey
    coverin his butt, he's a dbag
  • Pat 2012/04/06 04:24:06 (edited)
    Undecided
    Pat
    Almost all laws are subject to interpretation. All that matters is which opinion wins out. I would hate to see this bill overturned. It will leave millions of people without health insurance.
  • KoAm 2012/04/06 00:42:34
    No
    KoAm
    +1
    I think this entire administration is simply in damage-control mode right now, after what Obama said a few days ago.

    Some example of leadership, huh?
  • Catnip 2012/04/05 22:12:25
    No
    Catnip
    +2
    I don't believe anything that comes out that tool's mouth. Even though the Supreme does have that authority, Eric Holder's comments are useless....just like him.
  • Barfly 2012/04/05 20:32:19
    Undecided
    Barfly
    +1
    Doesn't matter what he thinks!!!
  • dubbie 2012/04/05 20:26:25
    Undecided
    dubbie
    +1
    Agree that the SC has the right , But no as far as believing anything Holder has to say. The only reason he came out is because he knows he`s walking a thin line anyway with the fast and furious case and hoping it will fade a little further out of everyones mind
  • relic 2012/04/05 20:13:12
    No
    relic
    +2
    His back is against the wall. What do you expect the little weasel to say?
  • Seonag 2012/04/05 20:12:36
    Undecided
    Seonag
    Politically expedient to 'agree' that the Supreme Court has the right to overturn law based on constitutionality, whether he agrees with it or not. Does he really believe that? I don't know. If he disagreed, he'd do too much damage to Obama and only reinforce what many believe is that Obama DID speak as he felt on Monday and only dialed it back because of the public and media outrage.
  • ProudProgressive 2012/04/05 20:03:37
    Yes
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    Of course the Supreme Court has the power to strike down the Health Care Reform Law. They have no grounds to do so, but as they demonstrated in Citizens United (and Heller, and Bush v. Gore), a lack of any legal basis to reach a decision doesn't stop them. It would be unprecedented to strike down this law because other laws with similar issues have always been upheld, but it would not exceed their authority.
  • Quietma... ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:17:15
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    Wow PP, so now you're a constitutional scholar too eh! Why don't you just be quiet and stop proving you're a dumba$$ fool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
  • ProudPr... Quietma... 2012/04/05 20:28:19
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    If you're not interested in reality, that's your loss. I do consider myself something of a constitutional scholar, but it doesn't take an expert to grasp the issues in this case. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The American Health Insurance industry is an industry of interstate commerce. Therefore Congress has the power to regulate it.
  • Quietma... ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:38:26
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    No they don't. Just because FDR bullied a prior Supreme Court into voting his way and overturning precedent doesn't change the fact the commerce clause has nothing to do with allowing congress to force ppl to buy a product, period!
  • ProudPr... Quietma... 2012/04/05 20:42:41 (edited)
    ProudProgressive
    EDIT: You know, blocking someone because they've given you simple facts simply illustrates that you have no interest in reality at all. Enjoy your ignorance.

    Tell that to George Washington, who signed the second Militia Act in 1792, or to John Adams, who signed the Act for the Relief of Seamen in 1798. And you ALREADY are "forced" to buy a product - it's called Social Security, and its constitutionality has been upheld numerous times. Social Security is a system in which you are REQUIRED to pay into a system that provides retirement income to anyone who needs it.

    And FDR didn't bully anyone. Then as now the Court was in the grip of an activist conservative minority that didn't want the government to help poor people improve their lives, and that didn't change until two of the four retired (one may have died, I'd have to check) and the Court returned to upholding the Constitution. Once that happened the United States embarked on our most prosperous era ever, which lasted until 1981 when Ronald Reagan began to dismantle the American economy.
  • Quietma... ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:46:16 (edited)
  • Zachary... Quietma... 2012/04/05 20:30:31
    Zachary Smith
    Because what he said is essentially correct.
  • Quietma... Zachary... 2012/04/05 20:39:56
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    And you and he are completely WRONG!! Try studying unrevised history!!
  • Zachary... Quietma... 2012/04/05 20:42:32 (edited)
    Zachary Smith
    You first!
  • Quietma... Zachary... 2012/04/05 20:48:17
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    I do. That's why I know you and PP are full of sh!t!!
  • darcie ... ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:54:20
    darcie lamar
    +1
    Do you know about this info? This is the way to opt out. Amish anyone? Americans don't want to be forced to purchase a product they do not want or perhaps don't need. Competition across state lines would reduce the cost of HC for everyone.

    "If you are a mainstream Christian or a Jew, you need not apply to Opt Out of ObamaCare; that exemption is reserved for Muslims, Scientologists, Amish, Christian Scientists and Native American Indians who have a “conscientious objection” to insurance. A conscientious objection to theft committed by rogue politicians under the color of law with the threat of violence for non-compliance isn’t sufficient in America today to exempt average Americans from the stranglehold of government.

    Believe it or not, if you are a Muslim you may claim a special religious exemption to Obama-Care that is denied to main-stream Christians and Jews. Or if you prefer a New-Age religion to Islam, you may become a Scientologist and Opt Out of ObamaCare’s mandatory pur-chase of health insurance. Or, if you happen to be of Native American Indian extraction you too can opt out of the insurance laws by which everyone else in America must abide".

    “There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insura...&

    Do you know about this info? This is the way to opt out. Amish anyone? Americans don't want to be forced to purchase a product they do not want or perhaps don't need. Competition across state lines would reduce the cost of HC for everyone.

    "If you are a mainstream Christian or a Jew, you need not apply to Opt Out of ObamaCare; that exemption is reserved for Muslims, Scientologists, Amish, Christian Scientists and Native American Indians who have a “conscientious objection” to insurance. A conscientious objection to theft committed by rogue politicians under the color of law with the threat of violence for non-compliance isn’t sufficient in America today to exempt average Americans from the stranglehold of government.

    Believe it or not, if you are a Muslim you may claim a special religious exemption to Obama-Care that is denied to main-stream Christians and Jews. Or if you prefer a New-Age religion to Islam, you may become a Scientologist and Opt Out of ObamaCare’s mandatory pur-chase of health insurance. Or, if you happen to be of Native American Indian extraction you too can opt out of the insurance laws by which everyone else in America must abide".

    “There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is ‘haraam,’ or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.” Quote from Liberty & Pride Blog

    DEMAND an Individual Opt-Out AMENDMENT!
    (more)
  • Quietma... darcie ... 2012/04/05 21:06:35
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Darcie,

    You can post facts and the truth to PP until your fingers bleed and he will never acknowledge that you are right. All he knows how to do his post his cut & paste BS replies. He still whines about Gore losing to Bush. Talk about not being able to deal with reality and getting over things!
  • darcie ... Quietma... 2012/04/05 21:40:51
    darcie lamar
    +1
    True, I hope others will become aware of this information about Obamacare. You know the thousands of pages no one read???
  • Max 2012/04/05 19:56:35
    Yes
    Max
    If that's what he said, I believe he's right.
  • Zachary Smith 2012/04/05 19:54:50 (edited)
    Undecided
    Zachary Smith
    +1
    Medicare & VA Style Health Care for all! Regulate the price of drugs!

    French / Canadian Style Health Care!

    Attorney General Holder should enforce commodities laws and end speculation driven, artificial price hikes in oil / gas!

    Attorney General Holder is a pussy! The Justice Department is not doing its job!
  • ProudPr... Zachary... 2012/04/05 20:04:46
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    The Attorney General doesn't have the authority to stop speculation driven artificial price hikes. That would require legislation.
  • Zachary... ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:09:06 (edited)
    Zachary Smith
    +2
    The laws are in place, the Justice Department is not enforcing them. Not Obama's fault, it is not his job, it is the Justice Department's job.

    America is a political, legal mess.

    "High Oil Prices Must be Subject of Criminal Investigation"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  • ProudPr... Zachary... 2012/04/05 20:29:25
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    I do agree that there are a lot of things the Justice Department could be doing that they're not to try to rein in the greed of the Wall Street Oligarchs.
  • Zachary... ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:56:07 (edited)
    Zachary Smith
    The Justice Department and Holder need a fire lit under them.
  • Herb 2012/04/05 19:52:25
    No
    Herb
    holder is the scapegoat and will get stepped on.
  • Mr Wayne 2012/04/05 19:50:14
    Undecided
    Mr Wayne
    +1
    I believe him as long as he's within eye sight.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2012/04/05 19:46:39
    Yes
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +2
    It would be unprecedented in the past 80 years and Obama said that except he used the name of the case Lochner. This conservative activist Justices have rule 5 - 4 all the time, making law from the bench.
  • Herb ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2012/04/05 19:51:18 (edited)
    Herb
    and it will be again isn't it wonderful the whole bill will get struck down. the had a sepration clause in the first two drafts but took it out in the final so now mit will fail.
    what about the liberal activist judges over the years. looks like 8 cases were 5-4 one was bush vs gore.
  • ProudPr... Herb 2012/04/05 20:06:24
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    Bush v. Gore was THE single most activist decision in the history of the Supreme Court. The Court ignored the Constitutional requirement that State Electors be determined by the States, not the Federal government, and also decided that the long established principle of one man one vote was no longer applicable. They invalidated the votes of 120 million Americans in order to appoint George Bush President.
  • Herb ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:09:29
    Herb
    +1
    no they said they good use all the votes just could not interpet votes gore still lost on every recount.
  • ProudPr... Herb 2012/04/05 20:31:36 (edited)
    ProudProgressive
    Edit: Herb, I won't be able to reply to you since, as cowards are so often wont to do, I've been blocked for the crime of presenting facts. I'm sure we'll have the opportunity for more civil conversations on other threads. Take care.

    Gore won every full recount. That's not even debatable. And that doesn't even take into account the 8,000 people Katharine Harris illegally deprived of their right to vote because they had similar names to convicted felons in Texas, and it doesn't take into account the voters who were conned into voting for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore by an illegal ballot. It also doesn't take into account the conservative robocalls telling people that "due to high turnout, Republicans will be voting on Tuesday and Democrats will be voting on Wednesday,"
  • Quietma... ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:42:28
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    You're such an f****** liar. Don't go away mad, even though you are mad (insane), JUST GO AWAY!!
  • Herb ProudPr... 2012/04/05 20:51:19
    Herb
    would you like me to find against
    This was from a USA Today story in May 2001

    By Dan Keating and Dan Balz
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Monday, November 12, 2001; Page A01

    In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

    www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11... Similarto Bush v. Gore: The Disputed Election Fades Into History

    Nov 8, 2010 ... Bush v. Gore Alas, America has endured these past ten years her most .... the overseas vote thrown out, AND that Bush won every recount. the ...


    George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida’s disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 “undervote” ballots that were at the center of Florida’s disputed presidential election.

    And then came a NY Time...



















































    would you like me to find against
    This was from a USA Today story in May 2001

    By Dan Keating and Dan Balz
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Monday, November 12, 2001; Page A01

    In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

    www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11... Similarto Bush v. Gore: The Disputed Election Fades Into History

    Nov 8, 2010 ... Bush v. Gore Alas, America has endured these past ten years her most .... the overseas vote thrown out, AND that Bush won every recount. the ...


    George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida’s disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 “undervote” ballots that were at the center of Florida’s disputed presidential election.

    And then came a NY Times analysis, which I wrote about , along with some other media projections.

    Fun and games. Bottom line is that the butterfly ballott threw the election. But you can’t quantify how many people who voted for Pat Buchannan would have voted for Gore, making it a moot point. You can only could the ballots as cast.

    Here is what I wrote back then. ..

    At last The New York Times finally has weighed in on the disputed presidential election.

    The Times apparently spent six months on an exhaustive investigation designed to show that George W. Bush might have won because election officials in Florida counted illegal overseas military ballots.



    And after sending reporters out around the nation, and researching thousands of documents, the Times uncovered the alarming fact that it wasted a lot of money.There was no great conspiracy to toss the election to George W.The Democrats simply got out-slimed, outwitted and out-lawyered by the Republicans.

    That’s the way we’ve always elected presidents.

    As for the gist of the story, the Times found 680 overseas military ballots with problems such as no postmarks and no witness signatures. But even if these were tossed out, Bush still would have won.

    I did my own math to discover that 90 percent of the illegal ballots would have had to go to Bush to have made a difference in the election.

    The military may vote Republican, but not by a 9-1 margin.

    You would think the Times could have mentioned these numbers somewhere amid the four pages it spent on the project. Instead, it waited well into the story before quoting a Harvard expert as saying he doubted the ballots affected the election.

    The Times added that this is “impossible to know.”

    Sure it is, sure it is.

    After spending only six hours on my own exhaustive investigation, I will reveal the true winner of the election: As you may recall, the official tally had Bush winning Florida by 537 votes.

    I will toss out the illegal military ballots found by the Times, which brings Bush’s lead down to an estimated 245 votes.

    But then there are those 5,600 illegal ballots cast by former felons that also were counted, according to a story in The Palm Beach Post. It said former felons tend to vote Democratic, a safe bet given the Republican position on minimum sentencing.

    So if I assume 70 percent of the felon vote went to Al Gore, and we toss it, Bush’s lead goes to 2,485.

    But the Post also reported that Gore would have gained 784 votes in Palm Beach if all those punch-card ballots with hanging chads, pinholes, dings and dimples were counted.

    This cuts Bush’s lead to 1,701.

    Gore gains another 696 votes after an analysis of votes by the Sentinel and other newspapers in Lake, Orange and 15 other counties. Bush’s lead is now 1,005.

    Now for the intangibles: The Florida Highway Patrol set up a checkpoint near Tallahassee on Election Day that Democrats claim was used to intimidate black voters. But I’ll call that a wash when put up against the networks calling the Florida results early, costing Bush Panhandle votes.

    The butterfly ballot, however, puts Gore over the top. As many as 3,000 elderly Palm Beach voters may have picked Pat Buchanan instead of Gore. I’ll give Gore half those, handing him the election by 495 votes. I think. . .

    This doesn’t include a Miami Herald report that said if all the dangling chads in all the counties were counted, Bush would have won the election by 407 votes. But if dimpled chads were included with the danglers, then Gore wins by 332 votes.

    And then there is The Washington Post, which says its analysis found an additional 30,000 votes for Gore.

    Of course, this number may include the voting felons.

    Don’t you love us?
    (more)
  • Will Advocate of PHAET 2012/04/05 19:39:27
    Undecided
    Will Advocate of  PHAET
    +5
    I don't know if he actually agrees or not, but he doesn't have a choice. The law on this is pretty clear.
  • ordman 2012/04/05 19:39:16
    No
    ordman
    +3
    Obama pulls out his crank and tells the SCOTUS mine bigger than yours and Holder has to lay his out to get step on. Thank you sir may I have another.
  • Will Ad... ordman 2012/04/05 19:40:09
    Will Advocate of  PHAET
    +2
    Ha Ha!!
  • carolynb ordman 2012/04/05 20:34:03
    carolynb
    We all know where your mind is. lol

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/16 22:18:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals