Pro Zack: Bf+: Pro Zack: 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.

President is being an asshole too.


Your point?

By "is being" I mean "Is".

NTTAWWT - but "peacemaker" and "asshole" don't usually appear in the same package. I remember the heady days of Obama's first campaign for President, when we would all sing songs down by the river, and move into a post-racial world, because the great peacemaker had finally arrived.

but no, he's just another arrogant prick.


OK. Thanks.
I just thought you were trying to express an opinion on the topic.
My mistake-- At first, it appeared that you were defending the judge.

Deucednuisance: badaboom: Blaming partisanship on the OTHER guys. "Can't YOU see how unreasonable YOU are?". You don't agree with me therefore you are partisan.

OK, let's try again.

In what way was the statement counter-factual?

And you're certainly welcome to address the difficulty factor that you ignored last go `round.

badaboom: And your own statement is partisan. Why shouldn't it include the partisan campaign of the current President. Let me guess, you don't see him as partisan.

Because "partisanship" wasn't the claim that you asserted was "idiotic" and "ironic".

The claim was "psychotically asshole-ish". I've yet to see a refutation of that assertion. Hence my insertion of the difficulty factor. Feel free to refute it as to any of the candidates, or those voting for them.

It should be hilarious.

And thanks for continually supporting my point Mr. Partisan.

Can't we all agree that what the President initially said was inaccurate and politicized, while what the Judge is ordering is inane and inappropriate?

cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

Uhhh, it was Oral Argument on an appeal, during which one of the Judges issued an order.

/man, I think I am having a stroke, because that question was as dumb as barge of hammers.

kbronsito: 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?

I was wondering about this.

Shouldn't this court be confined to the case they are reviewing. And if they want a report from the Justice Department for XYZ wait until they are reviewing a case brought by someone with legal standing that would warrant that report.

And WTF is the deal with the arbitrary length of the response to the question? Does the judge have the authority to make his request in such terms?

The case they're reviewing is a challenge to the health care law. The judge asked the attorney for the executive branch to articulate the executive branch's position on whether the court could overturn a federal law. She responded that they could, and was then directed to put it in writing.

He's kinda being an ass, but I guess that goes with the lifetime appointment.

Pro Zack: I remember the heady days of Obama's first campaign for President, when we would all sing songs down by the river, and move into a post-racial world, because the great peacemaker had finally arrived.

Did you burn a few strawmen to keep warm?

imontheinternet: Pro Zack: By "is being" I mean "Is".

NTTAWWT - but "peacemaker" and "asshole" don't usually appear in the same package. I remember the heady days of Obama's first campaign for President, when we would all sing songs down by the river, and move into a post-racial world, because the great peacemaker had finally arrived.

but no, he's just another arrogant prick.

So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Washington and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark-that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

I'm inclined to watch Fear and Loathing now. Damn fine suggestion, sir.

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

So what were they all doing there...?

Bf+: OK. Thanks.
I just thought you were trying to express an opinion on the topic.
My mistake-- At first, it appeared that you were defending the judge.

nope. Judge thinks he is being clever, but as they say - a closed mouth gathers no feet.

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

The article is like 2 pages long!! You can't possibly expect me to read all of this, can you?!?

Deucednuisance: badaboom: Blaming partisanship on the OTHER guys. "Can't YOU see how unreasonable YOU are?". You don't agree with me therefore you are partisan.

OK, let's try again.

In what way was the statement counter-factual?

And you're certainly welcome to address the difficulty factor that you ignored last go `round.

badaboom: And your own statement is partisan. Why shouldn't it include the partisan campaign of the current President. Let me guess, you don't see him as partisan.

Because "partisanship" wasn't the claim that you asserted was "idiotic" and "ironic".

The claim was "psychotically asshole-ish". I've yet to see a refutation of that assertion. Hence my insertion of the difficulty factor. Feel free to refute it as to any of the candidates, or those voting for them.

It should be hilarious.

our whole system is broken because the framers couldn't have foreseen how psychotically asshole-ish the republican party would become after 1994

/Reading comprehension. How does it work?

badaboom: The statement, to summarize, was that things suck in the judiciary now because the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans are partisan.

No, "you" and "reading for comprehension" need to become better acquainted.

It's not "the judiciary" it's "the whole system" that's farked. (Read the original post.) It's not because the Republicans (and I don't mind saying it, but it's extra typing, and think of all the poor electrons dying for something we all know already) are "partisan", it's that they (as currently extant) are "psychotically asshole-ish".

Which you have yet to address.

Thanks for continuing to play.

qorkfiend: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

So what were they all doing there...?

Nevermind.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Edsel: For the record, here was Obama's explanation of his initial comments that pissed off the right-wing judge:

"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, Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. 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."

Why people are freaking out about this is beyond me. Obama simply recognized that the Supreme Court does not strike down federal laws very often and said he expected that the healthcare law would survive challenge.

Not very controversial.

You're right. That's far less controversial than "Arghhhhhhh....this is unprecedented!!! Derpity derp derp derp!"

Scerpes: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

The article is like 2 pages long!! You can't possibly expect me to read all of this, can you?!?

And, to make matters worse, it's in 14px Arial. I mean, seriously; how do you expect anyone to read it?

qorkfiend: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

So what were they all doing there...?

Wow.

badaboom: And thanks for continually supporting my point Mr. Partisan.

And thanks for not answering simple questions, Mr. Bare Assertion-Maker.

qorkfiend: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

So what were they all doing there...?

FTFA: "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, suggesting it wasn't clear 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."

readingishard.jpg

mitchcumstein1: He was asked his opinion and he gave it. What's he supposed to do?

It is well within their rights, and I have no issue with them reversing something...if it's based on the law, and not their own political beliefs. The best judges and lawyers I have ever met can easily argue the complete opposite of their political views if they see the legality in them.

That's wonderful in theory. However, their political beliefs shape their view of the law.

Official Transcript

Straight from the horses mouth.

impaler: Serious Black: To everyone who thinks that 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith is 100% in the right, how do you feel about Greta Van Susteren telling the Department of Justice to refuse to comply with the order and dare Judge Smith to hold the DOJ in contempt? Money quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: I imagine the discussion tonight at the Justice Department - I would certainly be having this discussion - is to refuse to do it. Because it really is beyond what is necessary in the case. It has nothing to do with the case. And the lawyer answered the question in court. And it's clearly just, you know, the judge is mad. And to refuse to do it, maybe you draw a contempt charge but then I would then take it up with the full court. I'm not so sure the Department of Justice has to comply with this.

Was thinking that myself.

Yup. I say this as somebody who thinks Obama's specific comments on Monday were very sloppy and could easily have given people the impression that he thinks the Supreme Court should be a rubber stamp for laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the President: Judge Jerry Smith is a partisan hack who should be thrown out of court.

RussianPooper: Scerpes: The case they're reviewing is a challenge to the health care law. The judge asked the attorney for the executive branch to articulate the executive branch's position on whether the court could overturn a federal law. She responded that they could, and was then directed to put it in writing.

"Put it in writing" wouldn't take 3 pages. The judge is asking for the attorney provide a case for something that is not in question before the court. Since it's in the court record, it's already in writing.

He's kinda being an ass, but I guess that goes with the lifetime appointment.

Kinda? He's clearly being an ass, very inappropriate and obviously biased.

That's what happens when presidents take on the judiciary. It tends to piss off judges.

Deucednuisance: badaboom: The statement, to summarize, was that things suck in the judiciary now because the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans are partisan.

No, "you" and "reading for comprehension" need to become better acquainted.

It's not "the judiciary" it's "the whole system" that's farked. (Read the original post.) It's not because the Republicans (and I don't mind saying it, but it's extra typing, and think of all the poor electrons dying for something we all know already) are "partisan", it's that they (as currently extant) are "psychotically asshole-ish".

Which you have yet to address.

Thanks for continuing to play.

Due to the amount of glue you probably sniffed as a child I will make this clear for you:
1. Comment made about how system is farked due to partisanship of Republicans
2. Comment by Boom about how stupid it is to blame partisanship on only one side

Here is an easy quiz for you:
A. Only the Republicans are partisan
B. Of course both parties are partisan.

TFA:

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."

Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

It's called the Affordable Care Act, you cock. "Obamacare" is a term created by the GOP. Get farked.

This judge is a disgrace and should have absolutely role in deciding the case. His biases are clear. He's nothing but a GOP shill.

jimpoz: Wendy's Chili: WombatControl: Someone who used to teach Constitutional Law should know better.

There's nothing in the Constitution about judicial review.

"...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and to Fact..."
-Article III, Section 2.

That doesn't say they can overturn laws.

qorkfiend: Brubold: cameroncrazy1984: Brubold: ///next time maybe they'll actually take steps to lower HC costs

Like, I don't know

-making many preventative care options copay free
-ending bankruptcy via the ER because people have health insurance
-having pre-existing conditions covered

Stuff like that?

Yeah, they really should've put that stuff into the bill.

They didn't do anything to make HC costs come down on either the insurance side or the business side. Evan Bayh flat out admitted this on a radio interview a couple of years ago.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-senator-evan-bayh-admits-health - care-bill-does-not-stop-rising-health-costs/

The real issue that was not addressed, Laura, that you've raised now, and I think appropriately, is the cost, the cost to both the government and to your listeners. We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.

How do you inject cost control into something that has no inherent cost controls without having it look like rationing? The people who can control costs - the doctors and patients - are the ones least interested in doing so.

I'm jumping in late here, so I'm not sure if you're talking about insurance cost or healthcare cost, but the answer is the same in any case: competition. If your insurance premiums are too high because there's only six companies and they're artificially inflating premiums, having a government-run insurer will bring down the cost of insurance because the government doesn't have to make a profit and will (hopefully, anyway) have less incentive to gouge the patients. If you're talking about the cost of medical procedures, then having government-paid doctors (like the UK's NHS system or the current VA model) that can perform procedures for less cost will also help bring down costs.

As far as other costs, bringing intellectual property law up to speed to deal with medical research will help reduce the costs of health care dramatically. Did you know that patents are now given for medical procedures, as in, a method for doing cataract surgery without incisions? There are laws in place to prevent doctors from being sued for using a patented procedure, but other lawsuits are still filed and the patents are still issued. Of course, that doesn't even start with the debate on pharmaceutical patents, the issues with generics, the milking of federal research dollars, and other issues related to prescription drugs.

In the long term, I think that a basic level of health care should be a service provided by the government, the same as a basic level of education. Bringing costs down will come only when the whole health care industry moves away from a profit-based model and towards a service-based model.

sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

So what were they all doing there...?

FTFA: "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, suggesting it wasn't clear 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."

readingishard.jpg

Salt Lick Steady: qorkfiend: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain to me what the DoJ was there in front of the judge for in the first place, then. If there was no motion.

It's in the article. They even provide a link to hear the entire oral argument, docket 11-40631. Are you really this helpless?

So what were they all doing there...?

Wow.

That would be why I corrected myself less than 2 minutes later. Reading is hard!

Concern trolling from the bench is a new low. Way to be 5th Circuit!

Wendy's Chili: jimpoz: Wendy's Chili: WombatControl: Someone who used to teach Constitutional Law should know better.

There's nothing in the Constitution about judicial review.

"...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and to Fact..."
-Article III, Section 2.

That doesn't say they can overturn laws.

Yup. The court actually used judicial activism to create judicial activism. Hell of a bootstrap there, Lou.

patrick767: TFA:

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."

Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."

It's called the Affordable Care Act, you cock. "Obamacare" is a term created by the GOP. Get farked.

This judge is a disgrace and should have absolutely role in deciding the case. His biases are clear. He's nothing but a GOP shill.

Link (new window)

qorkfiend: That would be why I corrected myself less than 2 minutes later. Reading is hard!

Refreshing before posting is for losers and commies.

apoptotic: Yes, perhaps the tone of Obama's weener is part of the problem.

We get it - it's black.

/and intimidating!

badaboom: Deucednuisance: badaboom: The statement, to summarize, was that things suck in the judiciary now because the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans are partisan.

No, "you" and "reading for comprehension" need to become better acquainted.

It's not "the judiciary" it's "the whole system" that's farked. (Read the original post.) It's not because the Republicans (and I don't mind saying it, but it's extra typing, and think of all the poor electrons dying for something we all know already) are "partisan", it's that they (as currently extant) are "psychotically asshole-ish".

Which you have yet to address.

Thanks for continuing to play.

Due to the amount of glue you probably sniffed as a child I will make this clear for you:
1. Comment made about how system is farked due to partisanship of Republicans
2. Comment by Boom about how stupid it is to blame partisanship on only one side

Here is an easy quiz for you:
A. Only the Republicans are partisan
B. Of course both parties are partisan.

C. Who the f*ck cares? Could you possibly find something dumber to argue about?

qorkfiend: That would be why I corrected myself less than 2 minutes later. Reading is hard!

Sorry if I don't refresh constantly to ensure that you come back to correct colossally ignorant statements.

sprawl15: qorkfiend: That would be why I corrected myself less than 2 minutes later. Reading is hard!

Refreshing before posting is for losers and commies.

That I can agree with.

Salt Lick Steady: qorkfiend: That would be why I corrected myself less than 2 minutes later. Reading is hard!

Sorry if I don't refresh constantly to ensure that you come back to correct colossally ignorant statements.

You should be.

mitchcumstein1
It is well within their rights, and I have no issue with them reversing something...if it's based on the law, and not their own political beliefs. The best judges and lawyers I have ever met can easily argue the complete opposite of their political views if they see the legality in them.

Yet it's very likely that the challenge to the ACA will be decided in a 5-4 decision along party lines. This is what our court system has become.

badaboom
Here is an easy quiz for you:
A. Only the Republicans are partisan
B. Of course both parties are partisan.

A. The Democratic Party is partisan.
B. The Republican Party is psychotically asshole-ish.

There!
/the "both sides are bad" claim ignores reality

patrick767: Yet it's very likely that the challenge to the ACA will be decided in a 5-4 decision along party lines. This is what our court system has become.

lulz

"Become"? What is it farking 1789?

themeaningoflifeisnot: Kinda? He's clearly being an ass, very inappropriate and obviously biased.

That's what happens when presidents take on the judiciary. It tends to piss off judges.

No, it's really not what happens. This is a very unusual situation. Federal appeals court judges do not normally ask the DOJ to defend statements by a president in a press conference that has not previously been part of the appellate record for some reason germane to the legal dispute before the court.


When you have one party making statements outside of the court that call into question the very authority of the court, yeah...it pisses judges off.

I_C_Weener: Wendy's Chili: jimpoz: Wendy's Chili: WombatControl: Someone who used to teach Constitutional Law should know better.

There's nothing in the Constitution about judicial review.

"...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and to Fact..."
-Article III, Section 2.

That doesn't say they can overturn laws.

Marbury v. Madison. It is "THE" precedent. The reasoning is sound. But it is a stretch looking at just the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution. On the other hand, if they have appellate jurisdiction as to "law" then they have the right to decide if the law is appropriate, right? Better tie that to some over-arching law or they can just decide whatever they want. What over-arching law of the land is there that might be a good basis to use for reference...what law...hmmm?

I understand how judicial review works and how it's tied to the Constitution, but it's not an authority explicitly granted in the Constitution.

badaboom
Link (new window)

What's your point? Ever heard of embracing the term that the other side uses as a pejorative? It doesn't change the fact that it's a loaded word created by the right wing. A federal judge has absolutely no business using it in court.