Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain 'Obamacare' Statements

[rockin'robin]

In a remarkable, partisan exchange in a Texas courtroom Tuesday, a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law.

Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President - stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review," Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.

"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific," he added.

Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be "an unprecedented and extraordinary step" if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by "a democratically elected Congress."

"I would 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 - and passed law," Obama said. "Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama's argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure.

"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" he said.

"Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes," Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question.

Smith didn't back down explaining that Obama's statements had "troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that's not a small matter." He also referred to the law in question as "Obamacare," an informal reference that has been politically charged.

Kaersvang again reiterated the administration's deference to judicial review, but Smith was not satisfied, moving to demand an annotated explanation 48 hours from now.

Neither spokesmen for the White House nor Department of Justice would comment on the matter.

Speaking at an Associated Press luncheon today, Obama appeared to try and clarify his position, arguing that it's been decades since the Supreme Court struck down a law on an economic issue, such as health care.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it," he said, "but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress."

You can listen to full audio of the exchange HERE. It begins at 18:01 into the recording.

Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain 'Obamacare' Statements - Yahoo! News

 

[kokonut]

Yeah, that's the 2nd time he attacked the justices when the first time was at the State of Union Address while the justices were in their seats listening him. I'm pretty sure they haven't forgotten that. O just got spanked about "unelected justices" and his comment was a bullying one. What he said was a speech for election purposes rather than outright saying that justices do not have the authority to strike down laws. They do. We have three co-equal branches, the executive branch, legislative branch and the judicial branch, no one branch better than the other. What Obama said just diminished his own authority as a Constitutional scholar.

 

[Grayma]

James Taranto:

Scholar in Chief
President Obama made a statement today whose ignorance is all the more stunning for his once having been a part-time professor of constitutional law. National Journal has the report:

Obama said he was confident Monday that the healthcare reform law will be upheld by the Supreme Court because it is constitutional.​

"Ultimately 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," he told reporters in the Rose Garden.​

Unprecedented? Even Linda Greenhouse would mock him for saying that. Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison?
For that matter, did he sleep through his own 2010 State of the Union Address, in which he upbraided the Supreme Court for striking down portions of the Taft-Hartley and McCain-Feingold laws, both of which passed Congress by wider margins than ObamaCare did?
Come to think of it, ObamaCare passed the House by just 219-212. If Obama thinks that's a "strong majority," he must've slept through arithmetic class at Punahou.

 

[Steinhauer]

The statements by Obama took everyone by surprise; democrats, republicans, libertarians and independents alike.

If he had anyone on the supreme court justice panel that favored his bill before he made those comments, I am sure they are having second thoughts now.

 

[Jiro]

 

[Foxrac]

lol.

 

[airportcop]

Seems that Obama would make a good dictator since he just wants to do what he wants regardless of whether it is constitutional or not! I think he's getting angry and worried that he might lose the election. Then he will just have to try and think of a way to have it recounted or discounted as not real. He'll try just about anything in desperation to get his way like a spoiled child! We're not going to take it any more "O"! Get out and find another job! I know, maybe some middle eastern country in dire need of a dictator might want him. Probably not since he failed here! Good luck and farewell!

 

[Foxrac]

Seems that Obama would make a good dictator since he just wants to do what he wants regardless of whether it is constitutional or not! I think he's getting angry and worried that he might lose the election. Then he will just have to try and think of a way to have it recounted or discounted as not real. He'll try just about anything in desperation to get his way like a spoiled child! We're not going to take it any more "O"! Get out and find another job! I know, maybe some middle eastern country in dire need of a dictator might want him. Probably not since he failed here! Good luck and farewell!

I disagree with entire of your post.

 

[rolling7]

Seems that Obama would make a good dictator since he just wants to do what he wants regardless of whether it is constitutional or not! I think he's getting angry and worried that he might lose the election. Then he will just have to try and think of a way to have it recounted or discounted as not real. He'll try just about anything in desperation to get his way like a spoiled child! We're not going to take it any more "O"! Get out and find another job! I know, maybe some middle eastern country in dire need of a dictator might want him. Probably not since he failed here! Good luck and farewell!

The sooner the better.

 

[airportcop]

I disagree with entire of your post.

That is your right to do so and thank you for being so polite about it. That is the beauty of this country.

 

[deafdrummer]

I'm proud of my Texas judge in that regard... Perhaps we need to talk about exercising our option at secession...

"Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

My hope, really is that the US Dollar will lose its world reserve currency that Obama or the next president will have no choice but to sign the same document that Gorbachev signed in 91 to dissolve the USSR. Only this time, it'll be the USSA.

I told people not to go there with Obama in the last election. "Oh, he is a good man. He's going to help get this country back together." I kept saying, "uh-huh, uh-huh," (BS) and now, I'm seeing people reap the rewards of their mistakes... The state of the economy, market manipulations in various markets like oil, gold, silver, commodities, you name it, the continuing collapse of the housing market, and the stagnation of the stock market. I predicted ALL OF THIS with the research over the last 7 years. ALL OF IT. It's happening according to plan.

People in the right places have been asking that the public (the citizens) in various countries with the populations and the money help take down the USSA goons, not by firing shots, but by simply going around the US Dollar as a world reserve currency. For instance, the Taj Mahal refused to take US Dollars and instead asked for other currencies, citing inflationary pressures. The other thing to do is start demanding from Americans traveling abroad payment in gold or silver, or at least another currency. There is no way that our military can control 7 billion people except through nuclear weapons. The faster this is done, the faster the machinations of our goon-controlled government can fall apart before your passports are confiscated, your money stolen, your jobs destroyed, your right to private property taken away, and Terminators are brought into being by the Japanese who can't seem to understand what they're leading themselves into (Terminators could end up breaking out of Japan). If you do this now, then the military, reliant upon money to conduct business with civilians, will be frozen in place around the world and be unable to come back home intact to enforce martial law upon the goon's orders.

What this is ALL ABOUT is socialist goons asserting that we have no rights. It's all about control. That is what the statist movement is about, especially during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Anti-Federalist saw it coming and had the Bill of Rights put in.

I know I went way off on something else, but I want people to see a small part of what's going on. I can certainly understand why the Greek pensioner, upon receiving a reduction in his pension, decided to off himself rather than be a burden to his family by taking a bullet to his head at Syntagma Square, though I wouldn't choose his solution for myself.

 

[Jiro]

I'm proud of my Texas judge in that regard... Perhaps we need to talk about exercising our option at secession...

"Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

My hope, really is that the US Dollar will lose its world reserve currency that Obama or the next president will have no choice but to sign the same document that Gorbachev signed in 91 to dissolve the USSR. Only this time, it'll be the USSA.

I told people not to go there with Obama in the last election. "Oh, he is a good man. He's going to help get this country back together." I kept saying, "uh-huh, uh-huh," (BS) and now, I'm seeing people reap the rewards of their mistakes... The state of the economy, market manipulations in various markets like oil, gold, silver, commodities, you name it, the continuing collapse of the housing market, and the stagnation of the stock market. I predicted ALL OF THIS with the research over the last 7 years. ALL OF IT. It's happening according to plan.

People in the right places have been asking that the public (the citizens) in various countries with the populations and the money help take down the USSA goons, not by firing shots, but by simply going around the US Dollar as a world reserve currency. For instance, the Taj Mahal refused to take US Dollars and instead asked for other currencies, citing inflationary pressures. The other thing to do is start demanding from Americans traveling abroad payment in gold or silver, or at least another currency. There is no way that our military can control 7 billion people except through nuclear weapons. The faster this is done, the faster the machinations of our goon-controlled government can fall apart before your passports are confiscated, your money stolen, your jobs destroyed, your right to private property taken away, and Terminators are brought into being by the Japanese who can't seem to understand what they're leading themselves into (Terminators could end up breaking out of Japan). If you do this now, then the military, reliant upon money to conduct business with civilians, will be frozen in place around the world and be unable to come back home intact to enforce martial law upon the goon's orders.

What this is ALL ABOUT is socialist goons asserting that we have no rights. It's all about control. That is what the statist movement is about, especially during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Anti-Federalist saw it coming and had the Bill of Rights put in.

I know I went way off on something else, but I want people to see a small part of what's going on. I can certainly understand why the Greek pensioner, upon receiving a reduction in his pension, decided to off himself rather than be a burden to his family by taking a bullet to his head at Syntagma Square, though I wouldn't choose his solution for myself.

I can never understand you Texans. they're whole another different breed of Americans

 

[Grayma]

During his Thursday-morning press briefing, Carney continued to try and explain away Obama’s comments that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his health care law. After trying to wax poetic to Henry, CBS reporter Bill Plante called out Carney.
“What he said on Monday was an obvious misspoken moment, because he talked about the Court not being in the position to overturn acts of Congress. You‘re standing up there twisting yourself in knots because he made a mistake and you can’t admit it.”

CBS Reporter Bill Plante Calls Out Carney: ‘He Made a Mistake and You Can’t Admit It’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

(there is a video, but it doesn't have closed captioning)

 

[Foxrac]

I'm proud of my Texas judge in that regard... Perhaps we need to talk about exercising our option at secession...

"Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

My hope, really is that the US Dollar will lose its world reserve currency that Obama or the next president will have no choice but to sign the same document that Gorbachev signed in 91 to dissolve the USSR. Only this time, it'll be the USSA.

I told people not to go there with Obama in the last election. "Oh, he is a good man. He's going to help get this country back together." I kept saying, "uh-huh, uh-huh," (BS) and now, I'm seeing people reap the rewards of their mistakes... The state of the economy, market manipulations in various markets like oil, gold, silver, commodities, you name it, the continuing collapse of the housing market, and the stagnation of the stock market. I predicted ALL OF THIS with the research over the last 7 years. ALL OF IT. It's happening according to plan.

People in the right places have been asking that the public (the citizens) in various countries with the populations and the money help take down the USSA goons, not by firing shots, but by simply going around the US Dollar as a world reserve currency. For instance, the Taj Mahal refused to take US Dollars and instead asked for other currencies, citing inflationary pressures. The other thing to do is start demanding from Americans traveling abroad payment in gold or silver, or at least another currency. There is no way that our military can control 7 billion people except through nuclear weapons. The faster this is done, the faster the machinations of our goon-controlled government can fall apart before your passports are confiscated, your money stolen, your jobs destroyed, your right to private property taken away, and Terminators are brought into being by the Japanese who can't seem to understand what they're leading themselves into (Terminators could end up breaking out of Japan). If you do this now, then the military, reliant upon money to conduct business with civilians, will be frozen in place around the world and be unable to come back home intact to enforce martial law upon the goon's orders.

What this is ALL ABOUT is socialist goons asserting that we have no rights. It's all about control. That is what the statist movement is about, especially during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Anti-Federalist saw it coming and had the Bill of Rights put in.

I know I went way off on something else, but I want people to see a small part of what's going on. I can certainly understand why the Greek pensioner, upon receiving a reduction in his pension, decided to off himself rather than be a burden to his family by taking a bullet to his head at Syntagma Square, though I wouldn't choose his solution for myself.

Well, I disagree with your post and USA isn't in state of collapse.

We got out of recession in almost 3 years ago but unemployment rate is much higher because of severe consequences from collapse of financial institutions. When recession started at earlier, it got more worse before it got better. Now, our economy is improving, just really start and unemployment rate has been dropped. I made post previously about Obama shouldn't make promise about unemployment rate will be stay under 8% because we don't know about how effective is stimulus package, very helpful, somewhat helpful, little helpful or no helpful. We had stimulus package in 1993 when Bill Clinton was our president and the economy wasn't worse as late 2000's, it did help so much, despite about republican revolution in 1994 because numerous of southern democrats became republicans during 1990's. Democratic Party has lost many conservatives and make their party as tied to progressive and liberal as Republican Party became more conservative, losing some of original libertarian. I don't regret my vote for Obama because he has much done to make our country looks better than being worse, also he is pro-gay rights (not marriage, just civil unions only). My view is progressive and Obama does share with most of my view. The approval rating for Obama is around high 40's to low 50's, that's exactly same as Bill Clinton in 1996 and GWB in 2004.

I think that Obama will have a better chance to win the reelection for 2nd term, after that, Democratic Party will be probably hot battle in primary, just same as Republican Party does.

 

[Grayma]

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare - Forbes

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “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.” (emphasis added).
President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority. But he figures you’re so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight. The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.
The law also barely squeaked past a Senate filibuster despite an overwhelming 60 Senate Democrats, and even then humiliating buyoffs were necessary. Public opposition was so strong that the ultraliberal Democrat controlled Massachusetts, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972, elected a Republican in a special election for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, to terminate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. That required final passage of the law improperly in violation of Congressional rules as a reconciliation measure, which is only to be used to clean up the budget and so cannot be filibustered.
And given that Obama is so certain you can’t remember what happened just two years ago, he is more than certain that you have never heard of the ancient history of Marbury v. Madison, where the 14-year old Supreme Court in 1803 took the then unprecedented step of overturning a provision of law adopted by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That case was where the Supreme Court first recognized its power of judicial review, under which it is empowered to strike down laws found unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Tuesday:
“In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of these laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities….probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act.”
As a former constitutional law professor and President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama no doubt knows all about Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. But he figures he can safely assume a majority of you know nothing about it, and his party controlled media will not tell you anything concerning it at this inopportune moment. Hence, another classic example of what I have called Calculated Deception.

There is a lot more. It's an interesting read.

 

[Jiro]

Court's Obama order a 'hissy fit' - CNN.com

(CNN) -- The Fifth Circuit's homework assignment to the Department of Justice is a disgrace -- an embarrassment to the federal judiciary. Still, it's a useful window on the contemporary merger of law and politics.

To review: On Monday, following the contentious Supreme Court arguments on the health care law last week, President Obama vigorously defended the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. "I continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," he said during a White House news conference. "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. 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."

Cue the phony outrage. It's phony because the president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to defend the law. He was not threatening anyone. (And how could he threaten life-tenured federal judges anyway?Threaten to withhold invitations to state dinners?)

He was making the same argument that conservatives have often made against judicial activism -- that judges should, in general, defer to the wishes of the democratically elected branches of government.

 

[Foxrac]

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare - Forbes



There is a lot more. It's an interesting read.

This article is just opinion and no one will know about constitutionality of this law until June.
Ron Paul Predicts Supreme Court Will Find Health Care Law Constitutional
Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional | The Nation

If you use Google so you will see plenty of articles about why health care reform law is constitutional or unconstitutional.

 

[Foxrac]

Court's Obama order a 'hissy fit' - CNN.com

Good post

 

[Jiro]

btw - it's not Obamacare. It's Affordable Care Act (ACA)

 

[Steinhauer]

McConnell to Obama: ‘Back off’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

McConnell to Obama: 'Back off'

Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
(CNN) - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell directly attacked President Barack Obama on Thursday, tweaking the president over his controversial remarks about the Supreme Court.

"The president crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it," McConnell said in a speech at the Rotary Club of Lexington, according to prepared remarks.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

He continued: "Respectfully, I would suggest the president back off."

On Monday, Obama made headlines when he compared a potential Supreme Court overturning of the Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010, to the kind of "judicial activism" that conservative commentators oppose.

He went on to add that he firmly believed the health care law would be upheld and challenged the court not to take an "unprecedented" step of undoing the law.

The comments quickly caused a rouse among conservative leaders, who charged the president with being misleading and trying to intimidate the high court.

And a federal court this week ordered the Justice Department to explain whether the Obama administration believes federal courts have the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional, as granted by the Supreme Court's landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury v Madison.

McConnell, describing Obama's remarks as "troubling," accused the president of not respecting the Supreme Court and dismissing its power as a separate branch of government.

"Let the court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended. The stability of our system and our laws and our very government depends on it," McConnell said.

The minority leader said if the Supreme Court decides to uphold the health care law, he would disagree with the decision but he would still "respect" it, drawing a contrast to what he sees as Obama's disregard for the high court.

"The American people should be able to expect that their president will defend the independence of the court, not undermine it," he said.

On Wednesday, however, Obama dialed down his language in a speech at a media luncheon.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it," he said. "But it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly-elected legislature, our Congress."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday further defended the president, describing questions over Obama’s reverence for the Supreme Court as “preposterous.”

“The president was not clearly understood by some people,” Carney said. “Because he is a law professor, he spoke in short hand.”
– CNN's Bill Mears and Tom Cohen contributed to this report.

Ummmm .... dude, nice back pedaling there ... we saw it, so did the Supreme Court Justices (who were also law professors )