It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case Published April 03, 201

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is going to be very interesting to say the least....

As if the DOJ doesn't have enough on their plate...I hope they send another team of lawyers to say Obama is the almighty Prez, he doesn't have to respond to you.


A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law

Read more: www.foxnews.com...
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

edit on 3-4-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)


I knew he was going to make some Judges angry....


One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care case.

The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.



Obama has 48 hours to respond, 3 full pages, in writing....


Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

edit on 3-4-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



+1 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


wow. Looks like mr constitution expert is getting Schooled.

This is not something I was expecting to see. I agree with the judges.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


What a dumbass.. this tool has absolutely no right to warn the Supreme Court on anything. Its almost borderline treason to threaten the Supreme Court like that, I'm glad the 5th circuit is demanding a 3 page single spaced explanation for the administrations idiocy.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 



All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.


Obama should ignore them.

Partisan judges should be removed from the bench.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 

Well...he almost came out and said that the Supreme Court Judicial system was an outdated system. What did he expect after publically challenging them yesterday. His public announcement on a high profile case they are hearing, was totally inappropriate.

Obama brought this upon himself. he can't blame this on Bush....


Des


+14 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I really don't see this as a partisan issue. Unless you are insinuating that Democrats don't believe the Executive and Legislative Branches need to answer to the Judicial Branch when it comes to determining the constitutionality of laws?

The President threatened the Supreme Court because it's questioning his fascist master piece. Nothing partisan about that... unless again, you believe Democrats don't want the Supreme Court to exist?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


We've got to have the checks and balances. If he ignores them, he will be impeached. Prosecuted? I don't know, but impeached for sure.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Wait...when did the president 'threaten' the supreme court? He gave his opinion that overturning the entire law would be unprecedented for the court, as it was enacted by a large majority of a duly elected congress and signed, legally, by the president.

It's not like he's pulling an FDR by trying to add extra justices that will side with him.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Destinyone
 



All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.


Obama should ignore them.

Partisan judges should be removed from the bench.


Just like other dictators ignore whatever they don't like.

America...ain't She Great.....She won't be ignored....


Des



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Sounded like a threat to me. Otherwise what was the purpose of publicly opening your mouth like that?

Exactly.. no purpose..

Except to add tension to the situation .. a threat.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncents
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


We've got to have the checks and balances. If he ignores them, he will be impeached. Prosecuted? I don't know, but impeached for sure.


Welcome to the thread Nocents...good to see you again.

I'm glad they know him well enough to give him a time limit to respond. This could be an election game changer.

But, knowing Obama, he doesn't take even this seriously.

Des



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Destinyone
 



All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.


Obama should ignore them.

Partisan judges should be removed from the bench.


Every judge on the Supreme Court was appointed by someone. If you think all Republican appointed Judges should be removed, then are you also in favor of removing all Democrat appointed Judges as well? If you your answer is yes, I must ask who you would fill the Supreme Court with after removing every single Judge?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I really don't see this as a partisan issue. Unless you are insinuating that Democrats don't believe the Executive and Legislative Branches need to answer to the Judicial Branch when it comes to determining the constitutionality of laws?

The President threatened the Supreme Court because it's questioning his fascist master piece. Nothing partisan about that... unless again, you believe Democrats don't want the Supreme Court to exist?


It's a partisan issue because Obama stated his opinion.

He didn't "threaten" or "warn" the Supreme Court...he stated his opinion...and reminded Conservatives about what they used to complain about.

Here is what he said.


www.reuters.com...

"Ultimately, I am 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,"
...
And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.



Of course Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are saying he "threatened" the Supreme Court and called them an "unelected group"...except he never said anything like that.

But people don't think for themselves or verify facts...they just let Fox News do that for them.



If you honestly think that Obama gave a threat to the SCOTUS....what exactly was that "threat"....what is he going to do to the SCOTUS if they strike down the bill???
edit on 3-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncents
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


We've got to have the checks and balances. If he ignores them, he will be impeached. Prosecuted? I don't know, but impeached for sure.




He won't be impeached for ignoring an appellete court filled with Republican judges.


Hilarious.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Destinyone
 



All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.


Obama should ignore them.

Partisan judges should be removed from the bench.


Just like other dictators ignore whatever they don't like.

America...ain't She Great.....She won't be ignored....


Des


A court has no authority to ask anyone to "explain themselves" for comments made in public.

Obama can tell them to stuff it and they can't do a damn thing about it.

This is just election year antics...and look at all of the people falling for it



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by links234
 


Sounded like a threat to me. Otherwise what was the purpose of publicly opening your mouth like that?

Exactly.. no purpose..

Except to add tension to the situation .. a threat.


What was the threat?

What consequence will the SCOTUS suffer if they strike down the bill???

You do know what a "threat" is...right?

Let me refresh your memory.

dictionary.reference.com...


threat
noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.

2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.

3. a person or thing that threatens.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 



This could be an election game changer.


Hook.

Line.

Sinker.

You are falling for exactly what they are trying to do...election year antics.

Do you honestly think a low federal court can order anyone, even the President, to explain comments they made in public.
edit on 3-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I wasn't referencing the Supreme court.

Read the article.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Nice catch on this one. I would have entirely missed this with everything else going on!

This should be interesting to watch and I sure will be closely. He blew off Georgia's court case by not even bothering to send a Paralegal, let alone a lawyer. It won't shock me to see it done here...but it will make me wonder a bit.

Lets drop Obama's name from this entirely for just a second...since his very name seems to bring partisan combat that never seems to end well here recenty. (and what happens here...now...WILL define the power of a future President people may *NOT* like as much)

This could apply to Bush, Nixon and Reagan among others equally well since they each had major issues come before the courts on their personal decisions and judgement as well. So this is absolutely not a partisan thing in my mind.

It is a matter of law though... The U.S. President hasn't got the authority or power from *ANY* source whatsoever to thumb his/her nose at the Judicial Branch. I'll be fascinated to see how a Federal Court of Appeals handles contempt if he decides they aren't important enough to even acknowledge again.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join