Court Asks Obama To Clarify His Attacks On Judiciary
Well this is just great. Jan Crawford at CBS News reports:
In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would 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."
Many people have pointed out that a 219-212 vote is not, according to the basic principles of math, a "strong majority." It's more like "close to a razor-thin margin of victory." But many people have also pointed out that courts overturning laws hasn't been unprecedented since the very early 19th century.
Apparently the judges had heard about President Obama's rather ill-considered remarks:
The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
Smith then became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.
It's not clear to us either! Thanks for asking, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals!
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Court Asks Obama To Clarify His Attacks On Judiciary
Astonishing
Yes, there has been at least some discussion about this--back when Gingrich was more a factor in the GOP race and was emphasizing his intention to take on the courts. I generally agreed with Gingrich's honest open reasoned principled schema and definitely do disagree with the DavidDowBarackObama mobism, thugery, and fabrication. Both Gingrich and Obama want to take on the courts, but for different reasons and in different ways.
However, James of England and Mendel have another opinion.
I do find several of Gingrich's ideas appealing, especially regarding jurisidictional approaches to limiting judiciary scope. But threatening to bring judges in front of tribunals or impeach them for unpopular decisions endangers the independence of the judiciary, and is truly a large step toward banana republic.
And Obama's attack on the court so defies common sense as to make it difficult to know where to begin criticizing it...
Feb '12
Re: Court Asks Obama To Clarify His Attacks On Judiciary
If you took one of the Pres's class at UofC, in the past. Don't you have to question the grade you received?
Jul '10
Re: Court Asks Obama To Clarify His Attacks On Judiciary
Severely Ltd.
I hadn't considered this, but Yes.
I can easily imagine his autobiography as a multi-volume defense of his every moment in office. Packaged and marketed more ways than The Lord of the Rings. ยท Apr 3 at 5:16pm
Oh, great. Now I'll have night terrors.