Our disingenuous, obfuscating, lying president: "It would be 'unprecedented' for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare." Really???
Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Updated 6:55 p.m. ET
(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.
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." ["Strong majority?" This guy just can't help himself - his lying must be congenital!! Obamacare barely passed in the House and only passed in the Senate on a bare majority after the "Louisiana Purchase" and another 'special deal' for Nebraska were given to the senators of those two states to purchase their votes. And even then, it was passed only with the 'reconciliation' process which is normally used only for budget bills, in order to avoid a filibuster!]
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. [Much more than "implied" - "baldly stated" would be more accurate.] 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.
then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear
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.
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."
Judge upset by Obama's comments on health law
HOUSTON -- A federal appeals
court judge seems to have taken offense at comments President Barack
Obama made 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 rule later this year on the overhaul's fate.
During oral arguments Tuesday in Houston in a separate challenge to
the health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith
said Obama's comments troubled people who have read them as a challenge
to federal courts' authority.
While judicial review of laws has long been established, Smith
ordered a federal attorney to submit a letter by Thursday stating the
government's position on this issue in light of the Obama's comments.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/04/03/20120403texas-judge-upset-by-obamas-comments-health-law.html#ixzz1r29aUZqa
Here we have a president who has nothing but disdain for the
Constitution and its system of checks and balances on presidential
power, also having called it a "seriously flawed" document because it
doesn't allow for "redistributive justice." Now he has attacked the
very authority of the courts to strike down laws passed by congress as
unconstitutional, and falsely stated that it would be "unprecedented" if
the Supreme Court were to strike down "Obamacare." Unprecedented?
Since the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, over 180 laws passed by
congress and signed by the president have been declared
unconstitutional! If we don't have a system of "checks and balances",
three branches - legislative, executive and judicial - that are able to
check the power of one-another, we will end up as a tyranny! Which side
is our president on?
See Votes by State
News & Politics