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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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”
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.”
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.
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.
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.