For the attorneys on the Dope, is there any significance that all of the cites supporting the third point in Czarcasm’s link are cites to unpublished opinions from 1995-1999? For one, I didn’t think you were allowed to cite unpublished opinions to the court—much less make them all of your cites—and two, I’d think they could have found published opinions to prove their point. It just struck me as weird, and I’m wondering if there’s some subtle reasoning that I’m missing.
Yes, but telling people to go search doesn’t answer the question. The rules here are odd, since you aren’t supposed to ask anything that can be answered in a Google search, yet you are also told not to tell people to go search rather than answer the question.
As for my opinion, I sure as heck am not going to read through the argumentative and often hostile posts in GD when I have a factual question. When people have complained about the tone in there before, they are told that they shouldn’t be in GD if they don’t like it. So this poster has chosen to take the up on this advice. They should not also have to put up with that same tone here.
Use the old grade school trick:
"We respect the jurisdiction of the Court very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, …(continue for 3 pages)… very, very, much.
Love, Eric Holder…"
Physician Hospitals of America v. Kathleen Sibelius. Hospitals are suing because they claim that the health care law discriminates against hospitals owned by doctors.
Even if Jerry Smith has no legal ground to stand on, he has made his point–that Obama stepped over the line on this one. I have to agree with the judge, and I’m an Obama groupie.
It’s a different case, in front of the US Circuit Court for Texas, so he does have jurisdiction.
Bricker’s point is good. One of the posters in one of the other threads made the point that in countries where the rule of law is shaky, comments like Obama’s, coming from the President, might be a sign that the government is going to ignore the decisions of the court. (Or even worse, punish the judges if they do something the government doesn’t like; Hugo Chavez has tossed a judge in the clink for daring to release one of Chavez’ political opponents on bail, according to law).
Now, no-one seriously thinks that’s what Obama was signalling here; personally, I think he made a political comment that was sloppy and could be taken as a legal comment; dumbass for someone so bright.
But, judges will jealously defend their judicial independence because it is what makes the courts work. When a litigant before the court makes an out-of-court statement that might be seen as challenging the court’s jurisdiction, the court will call the litigant’s lawyer to account. That’s why you always advise your clients to be very cautious in what they say to the press while their case is before the court.
Obama was specifically talking about the Supreme Court: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will 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.”
Hard to see how Judge Smith can claim that Obama was talking about any case, ongoing or otherwise, that was appearing before his court.
So Obama was saying that while the government would disregard the Supreme Court’s authority, it would zealously abide by the Fifth Circuit’s?
How do you get “I’m going to disregard the court’s authority” from “The court should rule in my favour”?
Either it was related to an active case before Judge Smith or it wasn’t. Judges are only supposed to rule on the issues before them. Obama explicitly stated he was talking about a different court so Judge Smith had no reason to make an official inquiry into Obama’s statement.
And Obama did not say he would disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling. Let me repeat his statement: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will 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.” The most you can say about his statment is that he is in error, either by saying such a ruling would be unprecedented or extraordinary or simply by making a prediction of a decision before it was announced.
The equivalent would be you stating, “I’m confident the American voters will not re-elect Barack Obama to a second term.” Would you want a judge in Virginia ruling that your statement is an admission that you would not recognize executive authority if Obama was re-elected? And ruling that, by analogy, the judicial branch the equivalent of the executive branhc and state government the equivalent of federal government? So please submit a written letter explaining if you recognize the authority of rulings by Virginia judges.
Well, Obama was explicitly talking about the law that’s in issue at the case before Judge Smith. So, I think based on the President’s comments, that Judge Smith isn’t unreasonble to assume that Obama is “confident that the Fifth Circuit will 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”, either. So, it’s sort of apropros.
One of the points at issue in the supreme case (not the 5th) IIRC is how much of the law to throw out if the personal mandate exceeeds the federal government’s jurisdiction. I believe that’s why Obama was suggesting “not overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”. He’s saying that even if SCOTUS rules against him, the rest of the law is constitutional and the whole (remainder of the) law, duly passed, should not be thrown out - don’t toss 2700 pages on one technicality in one clause.
I too have trouble finding anywhere in the text of Obama’s speech a suggestion that he would ignore a ruling; all he says is that he is confident his side will win their case.
A confident litigant? Off with his head!