Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

[mlees]

@Shodan

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 agree it was a dumb thing for the President to say, but was that the position actually taken or expressed by the duly appointed representative of the government in that court room?

[Chicagojeff]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

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?

Ohh please.. they gave up the concept of ‘checks and balances’ and an independent judiciary in Bush V Gore.. you can’t get back so quick after that load of crap..

[Chicagojeff]

@Shodan

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.

Regards,
Shodan

What.. jesus man.. Historically Presidents have made comment either praising or critiquing SC decisions.. as Andrew Jackson said to John Marshall.. “John Marshall has made his decision.. now let him enforce it..”.. FDR when his new deal leg was getting gutted at the court.. Eisenhower over his dragging his feet on Brown..
So… President Obama making a comment about and towards the Court.. Ohh the horror!!.. They are a political player.. no one is buying the nine justices calling ball and strikes bullshit anymore..

[Der_Trihs]

@mlees

I was wondering along these lines as well…

Is it common for a Judge to give a rats ass about what gets said by a third party, outside the court room, not under oath?

The Fifth Circuit Court is apparently known for being a bunch of bad tempered, obnoxious right wing partisans whose idea of proper judicial restraint is snarling “Shut up!” These are not very professional people.

[Fear_Itself]

So, what happens when Obama ignores the Court of Appeals?

[YogSothoth]

@Shodan

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.

He was politicking. The end. There is no story here except that the right wing hates it when the left defends themselves from their idiotic attacks. Obama has as much right to say what he said as you do. Only people care about his words

[Rysdad]

@Fear_Itself

So, what happens when Obama ignores the Court of Appeals?

He’s not going to. Attorney General Holder has already stated he will comply with the judge’s order.

[An_Arky]

I really don’t see a problem with being critical of unelected, lifelong-appointed people. It’s not like it affects their job security. Besides, the court, which is packed to the right, waaay out of proprortion to current political popular opinion, should get their balls busted at every opportunity, because they’re sitting there fucking the other 2/3s of America over with their their minority opinion zealotry. They disrespect the constitution more than Obama does, and they can suck it.

[Rigamarole]

I was surprised by Obama’s remarks and agree that he shouldn’t have said them, but I cut him some slack since I completely understand how frustrated he must be right now. These stupid fuckers are trying to rewind what little progress we’ve made on healthcare reform in the last several decades. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em in the ass with a rusty fork, and make them pay their hospital bills for it out of pocket.

[Czarcasm]

@Rysdad

He’s not going to. Attorney General Holder has already stated he will comply with the judge’s order.

I don’t think that that was what he said. I think he said that the Justice Department would respond “appropriately”.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

As others have correctly pointed out, this isn’t one cranky old judge, it’s a panel of three justices on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s fairly clear that a majority of the justices support this move. They’re one step below the SCOTUS.

Der trihs, you’re dead wrong in my opinion, and I just got my ass handed to me by them. It is a nice reminder to Obama about con law. I can’t wait to see what’s filed tomorrow…

[Isamu]

I too, am trying to piece this together in my head, so far I think it’s like this (but am willing to be corrected):

1. Court of Appeals can hear cases involving constitutional law, and have power to make ruling with regard to such issues.

2. If presiding judge or judges feel that one or another lawyer trying a case before them does not recognize the court as a proper authority to hear the case, the judges would have (handwaving) means to prevent the case from continuing.

3. Justice Department lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, works for Obama since Obama is the head of the Justice Department. Kaersvang represents the Justice Department in the Court of Appeals, and therefore one may infer that Kaersvang advocates the views expressed by Obama, with regard to the powers of the courts.

4. If a presiding judge asks you whether you believe the court has authority to hear the matter before them, you’d better answer, and put it in writing if they ask you to.

I was reminded a little of the scene in A Few Good Men:

Kaffee: Did you report Private Bell to the proper authorities?
Lt. Kendrick: I have two books at my bedside, Lieutenant, the Marine Corps Code of Conduct and the King James Bible. The only proper authorities I am aware of are my commanding officer Colonel Nathan R. Jessup and the Lord our God.
Kaffee: At your request, Lieutenant, I can have the record reflect your lack of acknowledgment of this court as a proper authority.
Kaffee: …

[The_Second_Stone]

@Oakminster

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.

Obama has the same political right to spout idiotic nonsense about the Supreme Court as any other American, and his ability to hire and fire the AG, with consent of the Senate in hiring, isn’t going to affect the Supreme Court Justices, each one of whom believes he or she is God’s gift to law and justice.

I’m more worried about the Commander in Chief declaring that Bradley Manning “broke the law” and some court martial officer thinks agreeing with the CinC is a good career move.

Obama did nothing inappropriate. Or is it only okay when Republican politicians criticize the judicial system?

[Oakminster]

@The_Second_Stone

Or is it only okay when Republican politicians criticize the judicial system?

:rolleyes:

Read my comments about Newt Gingrich in this thread which, incidentally, you posted in, so you should know better already. Then come back and apologize for falsely attributing to me a position I do not hold.

:rolleyes:

[howye]

@Shodan

Knock yourself out.

Regards,
Shodan

Back at ya, big fella. You will continue to be noted as a mental and rhetorical flyweight with nothing to add to the discussion other than name calling.

[Bricker]

@The_Second_Stone

Obama did nothing inappropriate.

well, he said something that was factually wrong. That ought to count for something.

But I agree that what he said falls into the category of politics, not sober constitutional law analysis, and that no reasonable person listening would assume he was speaking factually or signaling that the government would refuse to obey an order of the courts.

And I think the judge’s reaction is out of line, but not astonishingly so.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

well, he said something that was factually wrong. That ought to count for something.

But I agree that what he said falls into the category of politics, not sober constitutional law analysis, and that no reasonable person listening would assume he was speaking factually or signaling that the government would refuse to obey an order of the courts.

And I think the judge’s reaction is out of line, but not astonishingly so.

I agree with you totally on all of this. Since AG Holder has said that the Justice Department will respond “appropriately”, I’m wondering:

1. In what “appropriate” manner do you think the Justice department will respond, and
2. In what “appropriate” manner do you think they should respond?

[Count_Blucher]

@Diceman

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.

The Court is supposed to ignore or be above politics and decide cases (including this one) based on Law. Its why we don’t get to vote for the Justices. This is defacto speech making.

Politicians get to make speeches.

Justices Don’t.

I’m not sure just what slap-down the Appeals court deserves for grandstanding like they are running for office, but having each of the Justice’ chambers reassigned to a Restroom for 30 days sounds about right.
We’re Not a ‘Banana Republic’ until we Act and React like we are.

[twickster]

@howye

Back at ya, big fella. You will continue to be noted as a mental and rhetorical flyweight with nothing to add to the discussion other than name calling.

howye, returning the favor in the name-calling department like this is not appropriate in MPSIMS. I’m rapping your knuckles and not Shodan’s because he was calling someone off-board names; you’re insulting another poster. Don’t do that.

No warning issued.

Also, I think this discussion is better suited to Great Debates, so I’ll move it thither.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

[Lochdale]

It is not unconstitutional for Obama to make the comments on an ongoing case it is just very unusual. It also betrays an ignorance of 209 years of precedent. Now we know that Obama isn’t ignorant of constitutional law so his comments were political. And frankly they were stupid.

And those who say that conservatives should applaud an attack against judicial activism my response is that liberals can’t have it both ways. They’ve used the court to push their agenda before but now it may (or may not, the court will not overturn Obamacare IMHO) finally be used against them.

Obama is now distancing himself from his comments But he seems to be missing the pulse of the nation at the moment.