Holder says 'courts have final say' in response to furor over Obama's health law comments

Holder says 'courts have final say' in response to furor over Obama's health law comments
Published April 04, 2012
FoxNews.com


Holder has in deed acknowledged that the courts have the final say.

He also has affirmed that the Obama Administration Will
explain whether or not judges have the power to overturn Federal laws !!!

Holder says the "Justice Department" will author a formal response !!

I guess Obama is in damage control mode.

Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged Wednesday that the "courts have final say," and said his department would respond formally to an appeals court order to explain whether the Obama administration believes judges in fact have the power to overturn federal laws.

The attorney general, at a brief press conference in Chicago, made clear the administration thinks they do.

"We respect the decisions made by the courts since Marbury v. Madison," Holder said Wednesday, referring to the landmark 1803 case that established the precedent of judicial review. "Courts have final say."

A bit of the hair of the dog that bit me, as they say !!

He is just kissing their ass.
He knows he is going to be having a date with the judges and trying to suck up to them as much as he can before they light a fire under his ass too.

Hang on Eric, your turn is on the way.

Well gee whiz... It's mighty nice to hear the Attorney General of the United States recognizes the Courts as the ultimate decider of what is Constitutional and what isn't. I took that understanding for granted until his Boss started mking statements about warning the Supreme Court about anything at all.

If Holder actually has some common sense here and this isn't a butt kissing ploy, then I suggest he sit down and have a 'come to Jesus' meeting with his Boss. Nixon had similatr contempt for the Courts as this one.....and he died in disgrace with a legacy that SHOULD NOT have been that bad really......except that he just couldn't grasp the fact his power had limits.

I have a question please:

This is what came from Careny in an official statement

"Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility, the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional," Carney said.

However, he said, the president was specifically referring to "the precedent under the Commerce Clause" regarding a legislature's ability to address "challenges to our national economy."

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Yet in these comments from Obama:


"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," Obama said on Monday.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've 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. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."

Read more: www.foxnews.com...


So where in comments was Obama talking about the precedent concerning the Commerce Clause? I am confused where he was specifically talking about this clause....On either Monday or Tuesday... I am trying to figure out what I am not understanding or what I missed in all this...

reply to post by Jameela


Most naturally the White House is going to say THAT Now after the fact !

If the 5th Circuit Court had not "intervened", the White House would either say nothing,
or would actually "enhance" Obama's comments with more arrogance.

The only thing they can say now is to refer to the Commerce Clause.

We are dealing with professional psychopaths, not normal people !

Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."

This was the classic "testing 1 - 2 - 3" phrase.
They had responses ready for all reactions.

"This is the planet Earth calling Obama ..... come in Obama..." ... [repeat]
"This is the planet Earth calling Obama ..... come in Obama..."
[followed by static]


(S). . . (O) _ _ _ (S). . .


We are witnessing big time damage control in action !!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oops how did that get there ?
Sorry..

It’s NOT about how hard you fall,
It’s all about how eloquently you stand back up.
~Joseph Kennedy

(A lot a good that did for His family !)

reply to post by xuenchen


Very good thank you, for answering me... I was thinking that was the dumbest come back in history or I had missed something

Now I know I did not miss anything...

Originally posted by Jameela
I have a question please:

This is what came from Careny in an official statement

"Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility, the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional," Carney said.

However, he said, the president was specifically referring to "the precedent under the Commerce Clause" regarding a legislature's ability to address "challenges to our national economy."

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Yet in these comments from Obama:


"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," Obama said on Monday.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've 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. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."

Read more: www.foxnews.com...


So where in comments was Obama talking about the precedent concerning the Commerce Clause? I am confused where he was specifically talking about this clause....On either Monday or Tuesday... I am trying to figure out what I am not understanding or what I missed in all this...

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

I think that clip will go down in the history books as the most outrageous statement

ever made by a president of the United States.

---------
-- 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. --

This should be taught in universities. - Outrageous Presidential Behavior 101 -

Where to begin? -- unprecedented ??? --

Obama is talking like a college dropout. He must have slept through his classes.
--------
-- strong majority ??? --

It passed by 7 votes! The liar in chief strikes again!