Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[ERCougar]

Eric Holder's letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interact....pdf?hpt=hp_t1

I'm no attorney, but did he just thumb his nose at the fifth circuit?

Also, that's not three pages.

[Pelado]

Also, that's not three pages.

Hold Holder in contempt!

[LA Ute]

Charles Krauthammer has a devastating op-ed out today on this subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...txS_story.html

I think Obama was just angry and spoke without thinking. He's not good when he's off the TelePrompTer.

[ERCougar]

Hold Holder in contempt!

Ha...
But seriously, what do the legal minds think of this? It seems to fall way short of the rather specific request.

[byu71]

Apparently, Eric Holder would prefer not to be held in contempt. What they produce will be very interesting, but will probably be along the same lines as Obama's most recent comments - that the judiciary has the power to overturn legislation, but that they shouldn't use that power in this case.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...h-law-remarks/

I am shocked and dismayed. An analyst on TV is wrong. Who can I turn to. This is devastating.

[Pelado]

Ha...
But seriously, what do the legal minds think of this? It seems to fall way short of the rather specific request.

I think it would come off very poorly if the judge sent him back for a longer version of the same story. Even though he doesn't seem to have complied entirely with the order, I doubt anything will come of it.

I do wonder whether it's intentionally less than three pages. Is the Justice Department trying to goad the judge into looking like the bad guy?

[Pelado]

I am shocked and dismayed. An analyst on TV is wrong. Who can I turn to. This is devastating.

[YOUTUBE]GYKJuDxYr3I[/YOUTUBE]

[ERCougar]

I think it would come off very poorly if the judge sent him back for a longer version of the same story. Even though he doesn't seem to have complied entirely with the order, I doubt anything will come of it.

I do wonder whether it's intentionally less than three pages. Is the Justice Department trying to goad the judge into looking like the bad guy?

I guess the problem I see with it is that it doesnt really say anything. It makes the point that congressional laws are assumed to be constitutional until they're found to be not, but I'm guessing that's a fairly basic legal principle, no? What the judge seemed to be asking for is to address the president's specific statements:

stating specifically and in detail in*reference*to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this*regard*in terms of judicial review. . . It needs to make specific*reference*to the*President’s*statements and again to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

He does this in a single line at the end? Besides being less than three pages--like you said, probably intentionally--he seems to completely flout this order. Am I reading it wrong?

I would think the risk would be in aggravating the SC. But I understand they've already voted, so maybe nothing can really come of this?

[LA Ute]

I guess the problem I see with it is that it doesnt really say anything. It makes the point that congressional laws are assumed to be constitutional until they're found to be not, but I'm guessing that's a fairly basic legal principle, no? What the judge seemed to be asking for is to address the president's specific statements:


He does this in a single line at the end? Besides being less than three pages--like you said, probably intentionally--he seems to completely flout this order. Am I reading it wrong?

I would think the risk would be in aggravating the SC. But I understand they've already voted, so maybe nothing can really come of this?

I think a big part of this is Chicago-style smash-mouth politics.

[ERCougar]

I think a big part of this is Chicago-style smash-mouth politics.

Interesting.
I'm curious--assuming no one had voted at this point (have they?), how do the SC justices view this sort of disdain (for lack of a better word, other than contempt?). Am I reading too much into this--is it really common practice to ignore orders like this? To me, this is pretty gutsy.

[venkman]

Interesting.
I'm curious--assuming no one had voted at this point (have they?), how do the SC justices view this sort of disdain (for lack of a better word, other than contempt?). Am I reading too much into this--is it really common practice to ignore orders like this? To me, this is pretty gutsy.

I guess they could change their vote. As FDR proved, Supreme Court justices can be bullied into changing their interpretation of the constitution.

[Pelado]

Interesting.
I'm curious--assuming no one had voted at this point (have they?), how do the SC justices view this sort of disdain (for lack of a better word, other than contempt?). Am I reading too much into this--is it really common practice to ignore orders like this? To me, this is pretty gutsy.

I think it's more a calculated political move. Most people won't give a damn that the paper was technically less than the ordered 3 pages, or that it didn't cover the President's remarks in exactly the way ordered. People won't care one bit - unless the judge holds him in contempt or makes him redo it or some other ridiculous hoop.

I thought the judge was a little presumptuous in directly challenging the President's words (though obviously faulty). Public opinion will turn against the court if they are deemed to be overly picky about this order. While public opinion doesn't hurt the judge's term, it could have a negative effect on the political climate in the country. Accept the letter, playfully note that Holder can't follow specific instructions, and let it go.

[LA Ute]

N

I think it's more a calculated political move. Most people won't give a damn that the paper was technically less than the ordered 3 pages, or that it didn't cover the President's remarks in exactly the way ordered. People won't care one bit - unless the judge holds him in contempt or makes him redo it or some other ridiculous hoop.

I thought the judge was a little presumptuous in directly challenging the President's words (though obviously faulty). Public opinion will turn against the court if they are deemed to be overly picky about this order. While public opinion doesn't hurt the judge's term, it could have a negative effect on the political climate in the country. Accept the letter, playfully note that Holder can't follow specific instructions, and let it go.

I agree. It was a big mistake, IMO, for the 5th Circuit judge to wade into this. He risks lowering the court to Obama's petty level and just seems tit-for-tat.

[ERCougar]

Maybe I'm the exception, but personally, this whole incident (from Obama's statement down to and including Holder's response) has diminished my respect for Obama considerably. I voted for him in 2008 and I've always thought he was sincere, if occasionally a little misguided and overzealous. But this thumbing his nose at the judicial branch really bothers me.

[Uncle Ted]

Maybe I'm the exception, but personally, this whole incident (from Obama's statement down to and including Holder's response) has diminished my respect for Obama considerably. I voted for him in 2008 and I've always thought he was sincere, if occasionally a little misguided and overzealous. But this thumbing his nose at the judicial branch really bothers me.

The timing of Obama's comment is what gets me. Why piss off the judicial branch before they make the decision? Unless Obama believes the law will be overturned no matter what and so his commit is an attempt to save some face by shifting the blame of the failure of the law to the "evil" judicial branch and the current set of judges. In any case it was a very dumb comment by someone that supposedly has the expertise to know better. Of course, this is not the first piece of bullcrap that seems to continuously flow out of this man's month so at least he is being somewhat consistent. I guess he has that going for him.