Eric Holder Completes 'Obamacare' Homework Assignment; Criticism of Obama Supreme Court Comments P

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Eric Holder Completes 'Obamacare' Homework Assignment; Criticism of Obama Supreme Court Comments Persists


abcnews.go.com

Attorney General Eric Holder has submitted to a federal appeals court judge three pages of single-spaced legal talk explaining President Obama’s recent statements about the Supreme Court’s authority to overturn laws.

Actually, Holder’s letter to Judge Jerry Smith is two-and-a-half pages, with about half of the first page accounting for letterhead and recipients. But it is single-spaced, as Smith, an appeals court judge for the federal 5th District, requested.

This week, Obama said at a news conference that the Supreme Court would be acting in an “unprecedented” way if it overturned his signature health care law, which both Republicans and the White House refer to as “Obamacare.” The White House has said that Obama was arguing that the high court should consider the economic implications of striking down such a massive law, and it has said Obama wasn’t trying to intimidate the court.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on Thu Apr 5 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: fixed quote




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Not only is this epic, this is history in the making. Never before has a POTUS, insulted the SCOTUS, but intimidate them as well. Judge Jerry Smith of the Federal 5th District demanded a response from the DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder. Here is that responce.
" “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.The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General”

As you notice no apologies.

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 5-4-2012 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)
Text BlackText Black
edit on 5-4-2012 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The next question could be:

Does the Court have authority to determine whether or not an
Executive Order is unconstitutional ?

Or even perhaps whether any decision by for example, the HHS involving their (the HHS)
interpretation and/or implementation of something within ObamaCare that is not specifically clear in the law itself ?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
This is really nothing but political BS. A conservative Supreme Court Justice flashing his cajones to a liberal President.

Big deal. Obama isn't the first President to criticize the Supreme Court and he won't be the last....and quite frankly...I didn't think what he said was all that bad anyway. If this were a liberal slanted court and a Republican President...i'm guessing many of the people picking sides now would be taking the opposite...because it's not really about Constitutionality of a bill...it's politics.

It's in IMO that the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare...regardless of the bickering happening now.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


You can file the Obama statement in the Rose Garden under - Political Stunt - or

- Election Year Crazy Antics -.

Team Obama have already received word from one of the SCOTUS justices.

(Probably Kagan) ObamaCare is dead. RIP

Now they need a new villain: The conservative judges that killed ObamaCare.

Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that line was

rehearsed many times before Obama said it in the Rose Garden.

Make sure to get all 3 words together.

- Unprecedented / Extraordinary / Strong Majority -


-----------
They didn't expect the homework assignment.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Obama was thinking he was is king , but he is not he is a POTUS not king , the SCOTUS is king of law, when the SCOTUS has words like NOT SO, and NOT TRUE" when the POUTS speaks you know we are in for a world of hurt



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I cant wait till the Supreme court smites this abomination. Seriously, hurry up... Anyways, I just love how obama threw a temper tantrum and the supreme court gave him HOMEWORK

it was punishment fitting the crime... oh cruel irony!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
I cant wait till the Supreme court smites this abomination. Seriously, hurry up... Anyways, I just love how obama threw a temper tantrum and the supreme court gave him HOMEWORK

it was punishment fitting the crime... oh cruel irony!



That's what he gets for attempting to teach the American people a lie.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I think some of you are confusing the 'homework' from a district court and the supreme court. Two seperate entities. Justice Scalia, made a comment about this recently, saying; "We don’t respond to criticism."

This letter was requested by a lower court, not by the supreme court. The letter seemd to lay it out pretty well:


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’”


What part of that don't you understand? The SCOTUS should not strike down the whole law. Why? Because it would be unprecedented for the court to strike down a law that has touched as many areas as the PPACA has. That's the unprecedented part.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
Obama was thinking he was is king , but he is not he is a POTUS not king , the SCOTUS is king of law, when the SCOTUS has words like NOT SO, and NOT TRUE" when the POUTS speaks you know we are in for a world of hurt


Exactly, here is the video. You can't here him but you certainly can see him say it.





posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Of course, the Supreme Court can decide that a federal law, or an executive order, violates the Constitution.


But what is interesting here is that, yes, it was a "homework assignment". A federal circuit court tried to make the President eat crow over some comments about a case pending in the Supreme Court in a press conference. I haven't seen anything like that done in .... well, ever. For example, back in the 1960s, when the Southern Governors (George & Lurleen Wallace, Lester Maddox, Ross Barnett) were talking up nullification and interposition and all that secessionist crap about court decisions and pending cases on desegregation and civil rights, I never saw a federal court tell any of them to write up an essay on the judicial branch's powers.





top topics
 
3

log in

join