If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Federal Appeals Court orders the Obama Administration to have the Constitutional Law Professor President give the judges a teaching moment to explain why 200+ years of precedent is wrong   (cbsnews.com) divider line 425
    More: Amusing, President Obama, United States courts of appeals, Obama administration, legal education, direct response, judicial review, United States Code, landmark case  
•       •       •

5190 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Apr 2012 at 10:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



425 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-04 09:35:03 AM  
"...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.
 
2012-04-04 09:37:38 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.


done in one.
 
2012-04-04 09:39:34 AM  
Wait, we should be following precedent now?
 
2012-04-04 09:39:51 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.


Ok we're all done here.
 
2012-04-04 09:42:45 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.


yup.

I'm actually kinda worried that an appellate court judge would be so childish. I dunno...I kind of expect judges to be more impartial or to at least show more self control while on the bench.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-04 09:44:33 AM  
And these are the people who pretend that aren't judicial activists?
 
2012-04-04 09:44:40 AM  

Weaver95: I'm actually kinda worried that an appellate court judge would be so childish. I dunno...I kind of expect judges to be more impartial or to at least show more self control while on the bench.


there has been a sea change in the judiciary since bush v. gore. the judicial branch is now just as partisan as the other two branches. our whole system is broken because the framers couldn't have foreseen how psychotically asshole-ish the republican party would become after 1994.
 
2012-04-04 09:45:11 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.


/thread
 
2012-04-04 09:45:35 AM  
Yeah, because Scalia is known for following court precedents....
 
2012-04-04 09:46:26 AM  
well, ok - let me clarify: In my completely amateur opinion it sounds like these judges are being extremely childish and immature. From what I've read, it sounded like Kaersvang was giving a fairly standard opening argument when the judges interrupted and got pissy with her and Obama. then gave Kaersvang a homework assignment, took their ball and went home in a huff.

does that sound about right to everyone else?
 
2012-04-04 09:48:20 AM  

FlashHarry: Weaver95: I'm actually kinda worried that an appellate court judge would be so childish. I dunno...I kind of expect judges to be more impartial or to at least show more self control while on the bench.

there has been a sea change in the judiciary since bush v. gore. the judicial branch is now just as partisan as the other two branches. our whole system is broken because the framers couldn't have foreseen how psychotically asshole-ish the republican party would become after 1994.


yeah, see - that's why I hope i'm misreading this situation. It would be really ungood if the judiciary started ruling cases based on blatant partisan politics instead of staying within legal grey areas and slow shifts in opinion.
 
2012-04-04 09:48:26 AM  
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.

Is there precedent for an appeals court to demand a justice department lawyer submit a report explaining what another government official meant in a speech giving opinions about another court?
 
2012-04-04 09:52:32 AM  

impaler: 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.

Is there precedent for an appeals court to demand a justice department lawyer submit a report explaining what another government official meant in a speech giving opinions about another court?


Not that I've been able to find, so far.
 
2012-04-04 10:02:52 AM  
It's absolutely bizarre that a Court of Appeals judge would interject a President's remarks that are not part of the record of the case into oral argument.

Talk about being political.
 
2012-04-04 10:06:58 AM  
The court is actually proving the President's point. They've taken a political position as a judge, which you aren't supposed to do.
 
2012-04-04 10:07:00 AM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: It's absolutely bizarre that a Court of Appeals judge would interject a President's remarks that are not part of the record of the case into oral argument.

Talk about being political.


that's what it sounded like to me...but I keep thinking I gotta have something missing here. they wouldn't just up and be that blatant, would they? I mean - isn't that sort of thing kinda frowned upon by the judicial establishment?
 
2012-04-04 10:07:11 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.


That's your perspective only because you listened to the words that were said, not to the words you wanted to hear.
 
2012-04-04 10:11:20 AM  

Weaver95: themeaningoflifeisnot: It's absolutely bizarre that a Court of Appeals judge would interject a President's remarks that are not part of the record of the case into oral argument.

Talk about being political.

that's what it sounded like to me...but I keep thinking I gotta have something missing here. they wouldn't just up and be that blatant, would they? I mean - isn't that sort of thing kinda frowned upon by the judicial establishment?


Not if you're a hyperpartisan GOP-appointee. I mean it's not frowned upon by the GOP. Just everyone else.
 
2012-04-04 10:23:21 AM  
I can't help but wonder if the tone (and, hell, even the language) of Obama's Weenerss weren't so much founded upon a mistaken comprehension of our Constitution, but designed to be a bit of populist propaganda. The dude's sharp as a tack.

Wendy's Chili: Wait, we should be following precedent now?


No. President. We should all be following the President.

/got nothin
 
2012-04-04 10:25:20 AM  

xanadian: a mistaken comprehension of our Constitution


And what would that be?
 
2012-04-04 10:32:55 AM  
"The president was being cute in his statements," [former Scalia clerk] Fitzpatrick said. "I don't think he really believes courts ought to defer to the political branches; I don't recall him expressing displeasure when the Supreme Court struck down Congress's partial-birth abortion law, for example. But the president is a politician. He's allowed to be cute. Federal judges are supposed to be above that. I suppose that's what we get for giving them life tenure."

"Clearly Obama pissed off Smith through yesterday's sloppy talk," said one Republican lawyer in Washington who reviewed the exchange. "What he's doing here is a bit aggressive insofar as it's not like he learns anything from the briefing. It's quasi-punitive, but it's some lawyer in the civil division who is working on this right now, not even a White House counsel lawyer, so it's punitive in an ineffectual way. ... Obama screwed up [Monday] by speaking sloppily, but substantively he fixed it [Tuesday]. I'm quite confident my side will overplay its hand here."

Many conservatives and Republicans were unnerved by Obama's initial statement, but even among them the consensus is that it's not the judges' job to punch back politically or defend its turf.

After listening to audio posted by the court, Orin Kerr - a professor at George Washington University Law School and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy - concluded, "[t]he order still strikes me as highly inappropriate: The DOJ lawyer was quite clear as to DOJ's position, and lower court judges deciding cases based on briefing and argument should not be going outside the record to come up with assignments to litigants based on press releases by politicians in such politically charged matters. It just makes the judges look like political actors themselves, which doesn't help anyone."
 
2012-04-04 10:33:29 AM  

Wendy's Chili: xanadian: a mistaken comprehension of our Constitution

And what would that be?


Whatever the court seems to think it is. This is ridiculous. I just hope the Administration, in response to this, crafts a 3 page "fark you and do your job and quit getting distracted with partisan farkery, the President can be as partisan as he wants because he's elected, not appointed, and your job is not to derail other shiat with this asshattery just because you're butthurt about your willful misinterpretation of the statements made".
 
2012-04-04 10:36:09 AM  

Elandriel: Wendy's Chili: xanadian: a mistaken comprehension of our Constitution

And what would that be?

Whatever the court seems to think it is. This is ridiculous. I just hope the Administration, in response to this, crafts a 3 page "fark you and do your job and quit getting distracted with partisan farkery, the President can be as partisan as he wants because he's elected, not appointed, and your job is not to derail other shiat with this asshattery just because you're butthurt about your willful misinterpretation of the statements made".


Page 1:

MARBURY

Page 2:

v.

Page 3:

MADISON
 
2012-04-04 10:36:46 AM  
sounds like ACTIVIST JUDGES to me!
 
2012-04-04 10:37:47 AM  
Partisan asshole needs to be removed from the bench. Not a farking peep from the judiciary when conservatives bleat about activist courts. What the fark is this shiat?
 
2012-04-04 10:39:43 AM  
IN all fairness, Obama's comments did come across as uppity.
 
2012-04-04 10:39:48 AM  
Obama can't catch a break, can he?

Yet here is an opinion poll he's not doing too badly (new window).

You can vote on him here (new window). That system allows you to vote once per day, and put up your own polls.
 
2012-04-04 10:41:10 AM  
This is bullshiat. I hope the administration ignores it completely.
 
2012-04-04 10:41:10 AM  
I can't tell if this is a stupid statement or a scary statement.

"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, 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. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.


WTF? If Congress exceeds its powers it should be reigned in by somebody. If that's the duty of the courts, then they've been asleep at the wheel for the past 100 years or so.
 
2012-04-04 10:41:11 AM  
As mentioned by a constituional law professor in another link from a few days ago, any argument made against the healthcare reform would ultimately be entirely frivilous.

Obama should take the call to put the activist conservative supreme court justices in their place.

Then again I hope they strike it down. I'd love to see the impeachment process finally start to get rolling for people like Thomas.
 
2012-04-04 10:41:50 AM  

FlashHarry: hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.

done in one.


I still expect another 50+ comments regarding why Obama sucks.
 
2012-04-04 10:42:19 AM  
This will be a whole bucketful of hilarity.
 
2012-04-04 10:44:56 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Partisan asshole needs to be removed from the bench. Not a farking peep from the judiciary when conservatives bleat about activist courts. What the fark is this shiat?


There are peeps, usually from the judges being called "activist".

My favorite was the preemptive response from the Kitzmiller v. Dover judge.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
 
2012-04-04 10:45:10 AM  
"I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.

They have the power to strike down this law, but they shouldn't use it, because they have it.
 
2012-04-04 10:45:44 AM  
Friend of mine brought up an entertaining point.

FTA: The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

Obama should reply with a statement explaining that there is no law or bill called "Obamacare", and fill the rest of the three pages with lists of bills signed during his presidency for review.
 
2012-04-04 10:45:56 AM  
Obama's original comment was sloppy and should have been worded better, but the judge's response could not have proven the President's point any better.
 
2012-04-04 10:46:08 AM  
On what basis can a federal appeals court "order" the administration to make any kind of statement?
 
2012-04-04 10:46:43 AM  
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."

It was certainly ignorant for the president to say that overturning a law passed by congress would be "unprecedented." It's good to see that the court called him out on it.
 
2012-04-04 10:46:56 AM  
His clarifications make him sound like a bigger idiot that Bush. But it all is just another example that this bozo isn't qualified for his job.
 
2012-04-04 10:47:11 AM  

someonelse: On what basis can a federal appeals court "order" the administration to make any kind of statement?


magic!
 
2012-04-04 10:47:22 AM  

meat0918: HotWingConspiracy: Partisan asshole needs to be removed from the bench. Not a farking peep from the judiciary when conservatives bleat about activist courts. What the fark is this shiat?

There are peeps, usually from the judges being called "activist".

My favorite was the preemptive response from the Kitzmiller v. Dover judge.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."


It should also be pointed out that he was a conservative W appointee, so being a Republican does not automatically make you an insane partisan hack.
 
Bf+
2012-04-04 10:47:25 AM  
Firstly... done in one.

Secondly, what Aikido dojo did Obama practice at and when will Republicans stop taking the bait?
 
2012-04-04 10:47:55 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.


And you're being an idiot. You're ignoring what 0bama actually said. Nice try though.
 
2012-04-04 10:48:25 AM  
Let this be a lesson. The use of the phrase "activist judges" is a conservative creation. Therefore when a liberal tries to use it, he can't. It's just not in his personality.
 
2012-04-04 10:48:42 AM  

SkinnyHead: 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."

It was certainly ignorant for the president to say that overturning a law passed by congress would be "unprecedented." It's good to see that the court called him out on it.


How about passed by a "strong majority" of Congress? How many bills overturned were barely passed?
 
2012-04-04 10:49:11 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.


the judge is being an asshole, but you seem to predicate your decision about whether the judge is being an asshole on whether obama said something stupid (which he did, but you intentionally left out part out), and that means you're an asshole too.

"take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
 
2012-04-04 10:49:31 AM  

justtray: I'd love to see the impeachment process finally start to get rolling for people like Thomas.


With a GOP controlled House? It's not even unlikely; it's simply impossible.
 
2012-04-04 10:49:34 AM  

Mearen: hillbillypharmacist: "...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn [this] law..."
is not the same as
"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."

Appeals Court Judge is being an asshole.

And you're being an idiot. You're ignoring what 0bama actually said. Nice try though.


What did he "actually say" then? I tried to get someone to tell me this yesterday, but I just got called a monkey.
 
2012-04-04 10:49:37 AM  
When a federal judge uses the word "Obamacare" in a order, I think we've pretty much learned all we need to know about that judge's motivations.
 
2012-04-04 10:50:37 AM  

sprawl15: Friend of mine brought up an entertaining point.

FTA: The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."

Obama should reply with a statement explaining that there is no law or bill called "Obamacare", and fill the rest of the three pages with lists of bills signed during his presidency for review.


I noticed that too.
 
Displayed 50 of 425 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report