# Prez: Supreme Court oveturning a law passed by Congress would be "uprecedented, extraordinary step." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771 "2012-04-04T02:32:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/41 "2012-04-04T17:31:13Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Because of this strange tangent, a panel of the 5th Circuit has ordered the Justice Department to write a three page letter stating whether they believe courts have the power to make these decisions, before moving forward with the hearing. > > [Link.](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/) 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.) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/42 "2012-04-04T17:34:35Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > The [Rude Pundit](http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/) maee some interesting comments on April 4, RTFirefly. 🙂 Thanks for pointing that one out, **cp**. The Rude Pundit can definitely bring it. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/43 "2012-04-04T18:01:42Z")
I agree that it was probably intended as political hyperbole rather than a detailed legal argument. I also agree that it was pretty damn dumb, and that he should have known better. And I thirdly agree that the Fifth Circuit judge can get stuffed. I am in an agreeable mood today. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/44 "2012-04-04T18:29:56Z")
Yes it was bad phrasing, he shouldn’t have said it. We’ll put that up there with Santorum saying that 7-8 schools in the UC system have no American history classes, and Romney’s claim that Obama will eliminate Medicare and call it even. Only 99 pages to go to catch up with the pubs stupid quotes. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/45 "2012-04-04T18:33:40Z")
It might be a subject for another thread, but no, I don’t think misstatements and errors should be put on par with lies. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/46 "2012-04-04T19:40:05Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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.) I condemned it. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/47 "2012-04-04T20:01:34Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Yes it was bad phrasing, he shouldn’t have said it. We’ll put that up there with Santorum saying that 7-8 schools in the UC system have no American history classes, and Romney’s claim that Obama will eliminate Medicare and call it even. Only 99 pages to go to catch up with the pubs stupid quotes. Why can’t we (as a collective cause we’re all guilty of it at times) condemn this type of ‘reasoning’? Just cause someone else did something stupid does not relieve ‘your guy’ of his own stupidity. I think I learned that in like 3rd grade. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/48 "2012-04-04T20:03:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I can’t find the remarks you’re referring to, but regardless I’m not giving him a pass on this one. It’s not as though he said it off the cuff at a Denny’s or something. > > While the underlying basis of what he said may be valid (see **pravnik’s** post), there is no excuse for phrasing it so badly in a prepared speech. It was not a prepared speech – it was an answer at an unrelated press conference. And I’m on my phone, but I’m sure someone can link you to his elaboration yesterday. ETA: the people saying this shows Obama doesn’t believe in judicial review are outing themselves as deranged partisans, like the people who believe Obama doesn’t know there are 50 states. I’m sad to see that group includes three members of the Fifth Circuit. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/49 "2012-04-04T20:04:41Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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.) To my understanding the comments came from the 5th Circuit Justice during an alternate Affordable Care Act case that was being heard in his courtroom and were directed toward Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/50 "2012-04-04T20:10:51Z")
(a) Obama said something stupid. I don’t think he IS stupid, but he certainly said something stupid (b) that said, seeing conservative talking heads suddenly defending the sanctity of judicial review is fairly hilarious. So it IS only “judicial activism” when they’re taking positions you disagree with, glad to have it so clearly confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/51 "2012-04-04T20:21:30Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (a) Obama said something stupid. I don’t think he IS stupid, but he certainly said something stupid > (b) that said, seeing conservative talking heads suddenly defending the sanctity of judicial review is fairly hilarious. So it IS only “judicial activism” when they’re taking positions you disagree with, glad to have it so clearly confirmed. To their view, I think the distinction would be in this case the Justices are adhering to the Constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench which they still refer to as “judicial activism” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/52 "2012-04-04T20:30:43Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > To my understanding the comments came from the 5th Circuit Justice during an alternate Affordable Care Act case that was being heard in his courtroom and were directed toward Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang. True. And?? ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/53 "2012-04-04T20:32:03Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It was not a prepared speech – it was an answer at an unrelated press conference. As such, to me that makes it more psychologically interesting. I don’t think Obama is actively opposed to judicial review. It’s that he seems never to have considered the possibility that judicial review is a thing that applies to _his_ actions. In his mind, I’m sure the whole thing _is_ unprecedented, because it’s never happened to _him_ before. His political, legislative and now constitutional philosophy seems to be summed up by, “but now you have _me_.” ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/54 "2012-04-04T20:34:55Z")
I don’t see that he said that the Supreme Court could not overturn a law, but that it would be a dumb thing to overturn something voted on by a majority of Congress. I still like the Rude Pundit comments. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/55 "2012-04-04T20:35:18Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > It’s that he seems never to have considered the possibility that judicial review is a thing that applies to _his_ actions. That’s absurd, and not just because he’s been president for three years. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/56 "2012-04-04T20:39:21Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > “I am confident 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**.” –[President Barack Obama, April 2](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/02/obama_supreme_court_striking_down_obamacare_would_be_judicial_activism.html). > > Regarding the bolded part, is this statement true? I’m curious why the President would make this assertion. Because he’s a moron. SCOTUS does this all the time. It’s their job. Obama was supposedly a constitutional law professor. One has to wonder what the hell he was teaching in those classes, since he exhibits, on a regular basis, an abysmal lack of knowledge of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/57 "2012-04-04T20:40:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I need **Shayna** to come explain why President Obama’s statement was legally, morally, socially, economically, and medically perfectly accurate. If anyone can do it, she can. You forgot ethically, spiritually and physically. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/58 "2012-04-04T20:44:11Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > If I had to guess, he were referring to this law specifically, rather than any law. > > Also, [he didn’t really mean unprecedented](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/04/03/president-obama-talks-scotus-again/), just that the precedent had not been practiced for eighty years. Still, using that language left him open to deserved criticism. Just reposting this, since it’s clear that half of the people posting in the thread haven’t bothered to read it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/59 "2012-04-04T20:44:38Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > It’s that he seems never to have considered the possibility that judicial review is a thing that applies to _his_ actions. A bill passed by Congress is and signed by the president is under review by the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is your position that the case revolves around Obama singing it? Have you read or listened to the transcript? Because if not, you can take my word for it: there is nothing there about presidents signing bills that have passed through Congress. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771/60 "2012-04-04T20:46:48Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > True. And?? > [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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.) In your prior comment, you seemed to think Justice Smith’s comments just came out of the blue and he had no relation to the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prez-supreme-court-oveturning-a-law-passed-by-congress-would-be-uprecedented-extraordinary-step/617771.md?page=4)