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.
The 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.”
Overturning 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. 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.
========================================
This is about as close to “What the fuck did you think you were saying?” as the appeals court could possibly get, I think.
Good. Obama should know better. He used to teach constitutional law. His remarks were entirely inappropriate, as was his scolding of SCOTUS during his State of the Union a couple of years back.
If Obama can still separate himself from the politician, I’m sure the constitutional law professor still knows damn well what he said about the SCOTUS was totally inappropriate.
I’d love to hear the old constitutional law professor’s honest assessment of Obama Care and the Constitution. But Obama the politician will never make those kinds of analytical comments again.
So a whiny-wuss judge got mad at the television, and the worst response he can think of is asking someone to write an essay as punishment? What’s next, making someone from the DOJ copy lines on a blackboard?
When it is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, speaking about a case currently under review, I suspect the appeals court wants to remind our current POTUS of what the phrase “checks and balances” is supposed to mean.
I love this - the judicial equivalent of making him stay after school and write a hundred times “I will not be a dumbass”. Only thing that would be better was if President Barack O-dumb-a had to write it himself.
When the court is considering your star piece of legislation, and you make comments dismissing the court’s authority, then yes, the court will usually care.
If this was some third-world bananna republic, comments like Obama’s could easily be a signal that he was about to have the army arrest the justices for treason. Even if nobody expects that sort of thing here, those comments were totally inappropriete.
Don’t you mean “President Barack O-poo-poo-pee-pee-pants-booger-nose-stinky-breath-cootie-carrier-smelly-farty-dumbo-stinko-fartso-yucky-britches-bama?”
I think that’s how the kindergarteners at Fox News are referring to him these days.
That judge needs to have his diaper changed, I think he’s cranky.
Obama’s not suppose to say something in response to the courts deciding his signature piece of legislation? Does that judge know what politics are, and that this is an election year?
Hell, when I first read that, I gave a whoop of happiness because Obama rarely is so forceful. He’s politicking, which is fine, because he’s a politician. Words like “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” are basically weasel words that sound forceful but convey no concrete fact.
Maybe this judge would like to speak out on all the attacks on Obama and how those remarks are actually factually wrong
Along the lines of “checks and balances,” by what authority does the judge make this demand? If the judge can demand this from the Justice Department, what can’t the judicial branch demand?
As I said in a related thread, here’s hoping the Justice Department tells the Fifth Circuit to take their silly-ass homework assignment, and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
In polite language, of course, but with the underlying message intact.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over Federal district courts with jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Where they get the idea that they have original jurisdiction over Presidential remarks spoken elsewhere is beyond me.
I would think that this would constitute “judicial activism” of an unprecedented nature, and conservatives always say they’re against judicial activism. So I’m looking forward to their universal condemnation of the Fifth Circuit’s actions here. (And I’m looking forward to getting a flying car with an equal degree of expectation.)
Obama is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, as mentioned. He is therefore the boss over the boss of the Justice Department, who is a party to the suit.
I’m sure someone who understands the Constitution better than me, or Obama, can explain it better.
Obama is, or used to be, a lawyer and a teacher of Constitutional law. He should know better than to shoot his mouth off like this.
This is a little too broad a question to answer. This case would tend to show that, if you are the President, and you are going to challenge the Supreme Court’s authority to overturn laws that are un-Constitutional, expect to be publicly humiliated. And rightly so.
Of the ability of the SCOTS to rule a law as unconstitutional is not spelled out in the constitution.
The President is just making a speech. If EVERYONE in the country would STFU about it until the decision came down that would make me happy.
I thought it was petty and disrespectful when those I agreed with called the President names and did little to enhance the debate.
I find it as much so when those I disagree with do it. Your comments allow me to pigeonhole you into that group of people who have no original thoughts in their heads.
A good deal of what the President does is making speeches, so I don’t think it is practical to expect him to STFU. It is practical to expect him not to make speeches that reveal a gross ignorance of how the country works.