20 thoughts on “Court of Appeals Demands Obama’s Lawyer Answer Whether Courts Have Power To Strike Down Federal Law Or Not”

  1. This is great – Harvard law grad, former con law prof gets a schoolin’ on the Constitution from the courts. Arrogant bastard.

  2. It’s not that Obama doesn’t know the courts can overturn laws, he just thinks we’re too dumb to know it and he has no problem lying to us.

    I’m trying to think of a public figure I hold in more contempt. Sure, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all more evil than him; but at least they were effective.

  3. To TwoDogs, Be careful, the phrase, “Arrogant bastard.” may be construed as flattery. I knew a high school drop out, working in Computer Scienece, who had people with doctorates in Computer Science as his assistants. Go figure.

    The term, “Harvard Law Grad, former con law professor”, means absolutely nothing to me. His actions always speak louder than his words. Don’t forget, many a man has dug his own credibility grave with his mouth or his pen.

  4. Obama was a Constitutional Lawyer like Milli Vanilli was a singing group. He moved his lips to somebody else’s words, and took credit for it.

    Obama was very foolish to have done this, and arrogance is the only explanation. There will be one of two answers to come back from the President’s lawyer.

    “No”, to which the Federal Appeals Court will cite the hundreds of cases where SCOTUS has indeed struck down Federal law, starting with Jim Crow, and Obama and his Administration will look like idiots, again.
    or,
    “Yes”, at which point Obama is left to answer why he insisted otherwise while his own lawyer disagrees with him, and the Obama Administration will look like idiots, again.

    This is a silver-platter gift for the Republicans. If this is NOT talked about, loudly and often, then they deserve to lose. This, Derrick Bell, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and his “deal” with Putin.

  5. (Dammit, the above was me. Stoopid client!)

    Obama was a Constitutional Lawyer like Milli Vanilli was a singing group. He moved his lips to somebody else’s words, and took credit for it.

    Obama was very foolish to have done this, and arrogance is the only explanation. There will be one of two answers to come back from the President’s lawyer.

    “No”, to which the Federal Appeals Court will cite the hundreds of cases where SCOTUS has indeed struck down Federal law, starting with Jim Crow, and Obama and his Administration will look like idiots, again.
    or,
    “Yes”, at which point Obama is left to answer why he insisted otherwise while his own lawyer disagrees with him, and the Obama Administration will look like idiots, again.

    This is a silver-platter gift for the Republicans. If this is NOT talked about, loudly and often, then they deserve to lose. This, Derrick Bell, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and his “deal” with Putin.

  6. The Supreme Court is always an activist hotbed to the loser and a model of judicial restraint and wisdom to the winner. I wonder how our President would’ve liked it if the Supreme Court hadn’t invalidated some laws passed by legislatures, including the one about separate but equal schools. Then again, maybe he actually hopes they won’t invalidate some laws, like DOMA, so then he won’t have to look like a gay rights supporte as well as radical socialist.

    1. Hey, I’m a gay rights supporter, in addition to being a reactionary conservative. Combine that with being an atheist, and you oughtta see how quickly I get banned from most conservative politics forums, no matter how many times I vote a straight Republican ticket.

  7. When I read this, I imagined a cold bucket of water hitting Holder in the face and POTUS’s head exploding off his shoulders…

    Rusty: It’s Ok, we love you even if you do hate God and are gay πŸ™‚

    1. I’m not gay, damnit! I just think they deserve the same rights as anyone else, that’s all.

    2. Only for you, Brad … only for you.

      *rolls eyes*

      Jesus. Some days it just doesn’t pay to get out of bed in the morning.

    1. It’s okay Byron – that’s just part of getting older, that’s all. πŸ™‚

  8. Just so we can set the record ‘straight’ – let it be known that I’m gay before you read my comment so I we can avoid homophobic/sophmoric slurs. πŸ™‚ Awesome!

    Why is this such outrage when Obama simply used the same rhetoric the GOP and conservatives used about judicial activism to great affect for decades? Karl Rove used the spectre of “judicial activism” to get anti-gay marriage amendments on ballots in swing states, altering the voter turn out in the 2004 election. Courts overrule DOMA – and the conservative blogosphere explodes with cries of judicial activism and judicial overreach.

    Or is conservative “smack” less offensive? It just seems this is applying a double standard. If GWB had made comments about the judiciary and a judge demanded a justification brief – would this have been applauded or be seen as the executive branch talking ‘smack’?

    I agree that Obama’s comments were disrespectful of the judiciary – but I also think the appeals judge reaction was over the top – and applied a double standard.

    1. If Bush had made the exact same comments … I’d have been screaming about it, that’s for sure, and I voted for him twice.

    2. Robert, good to see you here. And despite my teasing of LT Rusty, we’re not nearly as homophobic as you might think. We may take issue with the gay community political agenda, but not with gays themselves, for the most part.

      As to President Obama’s remarks, I think the difference is, I can’t recall a time when a President spoke in such a manner about a case the SCOTUS was actively considering. As you admit, the President’s remarks were disrespectful. Many of us on the political right see them as a rather brazen attempt to sway the vote of the court. Which, given our history of an independent judiciary, rankles us a bit.

      Having said that, many, many pundits, columnists, and bloggers on the left have made similar arguments against the court. The right doesn’t get into much of an uproar over that, as it is simply the free exercise of the 1st Amendment. We may counter (or even mock) their arguments, but it is a tad different than an attempt by the President to influence the court (or more likely, to delegitmize the public perception of the Court, should it rule against the PPACA).

      As for the right waving the bloody shirt of “judicial activism,” perhaps so. But how many times has the left waved the same shirt threatening that Republicans wish to overturn Roe v. Wade, or send gays to the re-education camps? It’s a tactic that both sides use. And to some extent, it IS a legitimate tactic. Both sides of the political spectrum seek for the courts to rule in their favor, and as the federal courts are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, those appointments inevitably become political selling points.

      As to the 5th Circuit directive to the DoJ, I think it was something of a wrist slap. The courts are indeed very jealous of their independence, and in this particular case, wanted to send a very public message. But while it was quite public, you’ll notice it also had very little in the way of penalty attached, other than a passing embarrassment to the administration.

      Further, I’ve heard from some conservative lawyers that such “homework” assignments aren’t as rare as this is made out to be. If the bench had (or has, I don’t know) assigned such a task to the GWB DoJ, any failure of the left to make hay from it is on the left. I don’t seem to recall them shying away from making political hay those times the federal judiciary did rule against the GWB administration.

      Stick around, Bob. We can always use another good commenter, especially one who makes us challenge our base assumptions. And every OH alum is always welcome here.

  9. And despite my teasing of LT Rusty, we’re not nearly as homophobic as you might think. We may take issue with the gay community political agenda, but not with gays themselves, for the most part.

    I should note, while I began my response with the regal “we” I switched to first person in the next paragraph. My views are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of my coauthors. I don’t think they’re on a homophobic rampage, but I don’t know, because I’ve never asked. They’re free to write whatever they wish here. Currently, I exercise no editorial control over their postings, unless they ask me for guidance.

  10. Brad, as you know, homophobia, as defined by the left, is anything they don’t like about what the right says on the subject. “Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron, but dissing it with richly deserved contempt, is homophobic for the left.

    Homosexuals have the same rights I do. What they don’t have the right to do is force the rest of us to view their mental illness as normal. A homosexual may bridle at the idea that homosexuality is not a mental illness, I have no sympathy for their position. On the other hand, while I find their lifestyle repugnant, and a threat to the good order and discipline of the military, they are no challenge to my masculinity.

    1. QM, I’m not going to argue your views on homosexuality or homophobia. But of Rob (or his brother Andy) show up, please treat them with the same respect you would accord me, or any other of our commenters. They’re, if not my friends, real life acquaintances of mine. And I probably owe them both an apology for my behavior as a youth.

  11. One thing to point out in this mess. Marbury vs Madison was regarded as a usurpation at the time. Alexander Hamilton had no trouble with it, but he was something of a whack job. His side won in the 1861-1865 tussle, and we have paid a very high price for it. Obama, and the rest of the left, is about to exact the final price. IMHO, Obama’s highest achievement will be the death of the US. I very seriously doubt the US will exist in 2020. A far more Jeffersonian US would, most likely, not be in the position it is in financially.

Comments are closed.