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

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Thomas Jefferson didn't believe the Supreme Court should have the exclusive power to dictate what is Constitutional or not. He led the effort to the only impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice in United States history. The Supreme Court ultimately gave this power to themselves.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4-4-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
"opinion of the leader of the free world"


He he, you said "free world." That is funny. Is this the same leader of the same free world who is making laws telling people what they have to buy? That one?

He he.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Fox news reports that Judge Smith stated,” referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith ordered a response from the department. 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. “
www.foxnews.com...
Judge Smith does not sound pleased with Berry's disrespect to the Constitution, nor Judicial Branch.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
If they were thinking of ruling in Barry's favor they sure as hell are thinking twice now.
Obama is his own worst enemy.


I don't know how the Justices think. Some may be OK with the POTUS bullying them around.
Time will tell.


You don't know many judges do you.

On the big ego scale, "Judge" is right above the Trump family and just below Steven Seagal. For the top judges in the country, it gets worse not better.

Federal judges are notoriously full of themselves. Probably because they made some crooked deal with the FBI to frame someone they were after.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bakatono

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
"opinion of the leader of the free world"


He he, you said "free world." That is funny. Is this the same leader of the same free world who is making laws telling people what they have to buy? That one?

He he.


Exactly Bakatono... the world should be free... we' ve paid enough for it... lol ... and yea, whoever is POTUS I guess assumes the position of LFW... regardless of abilities...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
Fox news reports that Judge Smith stated,” referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith ordered a response from the department. 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. “
www.foxnews.com...
Judge Smith does not sound pleased with Berry's disrespect to the Constitution, nor Judicial Branch.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)


LMAO... and the POTUS and his minion got the message too... Holder showed up this morning on his knees to apologize...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 

Today is the deadline for the DOJ to present a 3 page report on what the Obama Administration believes what the Justice Department can and cannot do.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


I believe it was completed and turned in -

Holder: Justice Department will respond to Texas judge appropriately; courts have ‘final say’


CHICAGO — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department will respond “appropriately” to a federal appellate judge in Texas who demanded a letter recognizing the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress.


Click link for rest of article..



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Holder hasn't replied yet.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Found it.
abcnews.go.com... "Here’s Holder’s full letter to Justice Smith, provided by the Justice Department:

“Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick:

This Court’s letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-4063 1. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Depar1ment of Justice regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.

The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.

The government’s brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs’ constitutional claims if the Court were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

1. The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute. See generally, e.g. , Free Ente1prise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130 S. Ct. 3138 (20 10); FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993). The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803). In that case, the Court held that ” t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177.

The Supreme Court has further explained that this power may only be exercised in appropriate cases. “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.” DaimlerChrysler C01p. v. Cuno , 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006); see, e.g., Weinberger v. Sa/fi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-766 (1975) (addressing a statutory bar to jurisdiction). In the case before this Court – Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, o. 11-40631 -we have argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 15-38. Where a plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of a court and presents a justiciable challenge, there is no dispute that courts properly review the constitutionality of Acts of Congress.



2. In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Com1 has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S . 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-22i, 346 U.S. at 449.

In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15.



3. While duly recognizing the courts’ authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. See, e.g. , Nature ‘s Daily. v. Glickman, 1999 WL 158 1396, at *6; State University of New York v. Anderson, 1999 WL 680463, at *6; Rojas v. Fitch, 1998 WL 457203, at *7; United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 75i v. Bro·wn Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6.

The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches’ policy choices and judgments. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) (explaining that, in granting relief, the courts ‘·try not to nul lify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary” because they recognize that’” [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people’” (alteration in the original) (quoting Regan v. Time, inc. , 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion))); Turner Broadcasting System, inc. , 512 U.S. at 665-66. The “Court accords ‘ great weight to the decisions of Congress”‘ in part because “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,64 (1981) (quoting Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102 (1973)). These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The com1s accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends. See, e.g. , NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. , 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937); McCulloch v. Matyland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 408 (1819). See also Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 566 (6th Cir. 20 11) (Opinion of Sutton, J.); Seven Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 18-19 (D.C. Cir. 201 1) (Opinion of Silberman, J .)

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.

[Filed and served via ECF]

Sincerely,

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General”



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Perhaps the reason for Berry's harsh words, is that he knows he's going to lose his pet project. This loss will prove that he has been a worthless POTUS.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
Perhaps the reason for Berry's harsh words, is that he knows he's going to lose his pet project. This loss will prove that he has been a worthless POTUS.


Obama used to be a law professor... Apparently he was absent the day they taught law at law school.

I fail to understand how the Presidents remarks and the AG's letter to the court are consistent. The AG's letter cleary underminds the Presidents position, and rightfully so.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join