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.

(CNN)   This may come a a shock to you, but legal experts say that the federal judge who ordered the administration to "clarify" Obama's remarks on judicial review , is a partisan hack who has wildly overstepped his authority   (cnn.com) divider line 284
    More: Followup, President Obama, hissy fit, judicial restraint, federal courts, judicial review, Jeffrey Toobin, judicial activisms, constitutionality  
•       •       •

4161 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Apr 2012 at 12:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-05 12:36:53 PM
This many people are arguing with Skinnyhead? Really?
 
2012-04-05 12:37:00 PM

Dimensio: The factual validity, or lack thereof, of President Obama's statements do not validate the judge's order.


But it's hard to argue with a rock solid authority like Politifact. They totally nailed the lie of the year for 2011.
 
2012-04-05 12:37:10 PM
"Legal Experts" = A guy with JD who gave up practicing law to be a journalist?

You're not even trying.
 
2012-04-05 12:37:13 PM
Sigh. Obama completely mischaracterized the position of Republicans vis a vis "judicial activism" and then proceeded to attack that invented position. It's the very semblance of a straw man argument.

Republicans aren't against the judiciary overturning unconstitutional laws. They're against the judiciary creating new law. The classic examples are Roe v Wade and school integration. In Roe, they could have just said "the Texas abortion law is unconstitutional". Instead, they came up with an entire legal framework that allowed certain abortion rights by trimester and then required that those apply across the country. Same with the school integration piece - instead of just saying "separate but equal is inherently unequal, segregation is unconstitutional" they instead created forced busing programs that required school districts to meet mandatory quotas.

That is the crux of the judicial activism argument. Not that they overturn laws that were passed by narrow majorities in the Senate. Obama completely misstated the issue. He's a constitutional law expert, he knows better - he's just being underhanded and sleazy. I guess all of his playing Republican the last four years has actually turned him into one.
 
2012-04-05 12:38:06 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: This many people are arguing with Skinnyhead? Really?


I'm angry today.

I'll stop it now.
 
2012-04-05 12:38:23 PM
Did they get three pages (single spaced) of "go fark yourselves" repeated over and over?
 
2012-04-05 12:38:33 PM
The DOJ could either:

A) Take it seriously and send him a 2800 page memo (since it says at least 3 pages, not ONLY 3 pages) single spaced explaining free speech.

B) Don't take him seriously but respond by buying him a copy of the constitution, highlight the first amendment

C) Be petty and flag him for IRS audits for the rest of his life or coincidentally mistakenly mark him as dead in the Social Security office and let him live the rest of his days trying to convince his banks, credit card companies, family and friends he's actually not dead yet.
 
2012-04-05 12:38:48 PM

Shaggy_C: Sigh. Obama completely mischaracterized the position of Republicans vis a vis "judicial activism" and then proceeded to attack that invented position. It's the very semblance of a straw man argument.


actually, I thought it was rather tricksey of him. I think he's finally starting to catch on that the GOP will NEVER play fair with him.
 
2012-04-05 12:38:52 PM
Now Obama directs the DOJ to respond to the 5th Circuit by asking how many divisions they have.
 
2012-04-05 12:40:44 PM

soy_bomb: Poltifact just called bullshiat on the President.


Yeah, they rated his initial comment false based on strict literal interpretation...
However, Obama's elaboration a day later at least gives us more to think about. He argued that invalidation of the health care law would represent a court action unseen since the Great Depression on an issue that affects every American. Ornstein echoed that interpretation, saying that a ruling by the court which overturns a major social policy and challenges prior court rulings would be unprecedented.
So, no, they really didn't. They just published a "false" rating to satisfy the stupid fairness doctrine BS they've got going on there.
 
2012-04-05 12:40:46 PM

hillbillypharmacist: SkinnyHead: Precedent is authority.

Precedent and authority don't have anything to do with each other. Not even tangential.

You can make a decent case that Obama was wrong to say it would be unprecedented, but you can't even make a stupid, trolly, crap case that he was questioning the court's authority.


Really? Then why do people (including genuine "legal experts") point to Marbury as "authority" for judicial review?

When you describe a case as "authoritative," that typically means nothing more or less than "binding precedent" (i.e., the case was issued by a court having precedential jurisdiction, and the holding was on point to the contention at issue in the present matter).
 
2012-04-05 12:40:51 PM

hillbillypharmacist: SkinnyHead: Precedent is authority.

Precedent and authority don't have anything to do with each other. Not even tangential.

You can make a decent case that Obama was wrong to say it would be unprecedented, but you can't even make a stupid, trolly, crap case that he was questioning the court's authority.


I'm a progressive, and pro-Obamacare. It's more than a "decent case." Obama spoke stupidly, and gave the mouthbreathers on the right another "57 states" moment to harp on for the next 5 years. Obviously, Obama knows courts have long struck down legislation as unconstitutional. Whatever he actually meant, his word choice in that moment was dumbfounding.

Don't waste breath defending Obama's wording on this. Not worth it.
 
2012-04-05 12:41:06 PM
This thing is "due" today, isn't it? I wonder when we'll find out what the response was. Or wasn't.
 
2012-04-05 12:41:47 PM

Garet Garrett: Really? Then why do people (including genuine "legal experts") point to Marbury as "authority" for judicial review?


They don't? They point to it as "precedent"

Good attempt, though.
 
2012-04-05 12:42:02 PM
Jesus, this thread went to complete and utter shiat in record time.

/GED! GED!!
 
2012-04-05 12:43:02 PM
They demanded a letter of "no less than three pages, single spaced," due on Thursday, explaining the president's remarks.

Dear Your Honors,

The President's remarks were very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very....
..
..
..
..
very very very very very very very very very very very very innocuous.

Sincerely,
DOJ
 
2012-04-05 12:43:07 PM

Weaver95: actually, I thought it was rather tricksey of him. I think he's finally starting to catch on that the GOP will NEVER play fair with him.


Yep, so we're going to have two sides lying about what they're trying to do and demonizing their opponents while they're at it. Amazing the "fall from grace" that Mr. Obama has gone through, right before our eyes. "Hope and Change and the American people are tired of partisanship" has turned into "Republicans are assholes". I can't say I am really all that upset about this development - it's kind of funny to see the Republican methods used against them for a change. I just wonder if public opinion will be so easily swayed...
 
2012-04-05 12:43:37 PM

tnpir: Jesus, this thread went to complete and utter shiat in record time.

/GED! GED!!


it's interesting watching the GOP shills devolve into a pack of poo slinging monkeys. Obama really does destroy their brains. they just cannot handle a black man in the white house.
 
2012-04-05 12:44:52 PM

Shaggy_C: Weaver95: actually, I thought it was rather tricksey of him. I think he's finally starting to catch on that the GOP will NEVER play fair with him.

Yep, so we're going to have two sides lying about what they're trying to do and demonizing their opponents while they're at it. Amazing the "fall from grace" that Mr. Obama has gone through, right before our eyes. "Hope and Change and the American people are tired of partisanship" has turned into "Republicans are assholes". I can't say I am really all that upset about this development - it's kind of funny to see the Republican methods used against them for a change. I just wonder if public opinion will be so easily swayed...


well, that's one way of looking at it. another is that Obama is setting the GOP up to fail. look, if the GOP are wailing and flailing about over a straw man argument, then they're not off doing something effective. tactics of distraction work in politics just as well as in military strategy.
 
2012-04-05 12:44:53 PM
Well, I see skinnyhead has successfully hijacked the train, but I'll still try this anyway.

This really does seem like the judge is being a petty asshole by ordering the Feds to do some detention homework because he didn't like what their parents wrote in a letter to the editor or something. The question is if it is legal.

Now, just about any order from a judge should be followed, unless you want to end up in jail or with a heavy fine. You can't just ignore an unlawful order, either - you need to go to higher authority to get them to tell him to stop, through a writ of some sort usually.

So, in the present case, can the judge require this crap? Well, under appellate procedure, parties are required to brief the issues of the case, including briefing supplemental authorities discovered during or after oral arguments. That's in FRAP 28, btw. I'm not sure that a judge can order a party to submit a brief, because usually, if the party doesn't submit a brief, they've just lost any arguments they might've made. Forcing a party to brief an issue of the law as basic as Marbury v. Madison seems like an issue that a judge is going to be perfectly aware of, and the only punishment for not writing a brief is usually that the judge doesn't consider your position. When the judge already has a position, and is just doing it to browbeat you, I don't think you can be held in contempt for something like that.
 
2012-04-05 12:45:44 PM

incendi: hillbillypharmacist: Oh, that would be fine if he wanted the DOJ to clarify their position. But that's not what happened.

The judge demanded that a particular attorney that works for the DOJ submit a report on the Presidents remarks during an already ongoing legal proceeding.

It's worse than that. The judge demanded they write a three page paper, single spaced, due Thursday. That's not a request for a legal opinion, that's extra homework for being naughty. Not only that, but the naughtiness occurred in an unrelated setting. That's like Mr. Smith, the science teacher, saying, "Jane, write me a three page paper about why talking in class is bad, because Johnny was talking in Mrs. Jones' class yesterday." And Mr. Smith is just bitter because Johnny is bangin' Mrs. Jones and he's jealous.


Obama spoke stupidly in a moment of temporary brain death. The judge who ordered this "clarification" is irreversibly brain damaged.
 
2012-04-05 12:45:48 PM

Garet Garrett: Really? Then why do people (including genuine "legal experts") point to Marbury as "authority" for judicial review?


A particular case may be a vehicle that clarifies the authority of the court or other government power, but it is not the source of that authority or power.
 
2012-04-05 12:45:48 PM
ref="http://www.fark.com/comments/7034154/76022884#c76022884" target="_blank">kingoomieiii: SkinnyHead: I'd say Obama toadies are the ones who are all butthurt about it. The court simply requested a letter brief from the DOJ to clarify the administration's position on pending litigation after the president made some foolish remarks, that's all.

To anyone watching, this is a beautiful example of spin.


Actually it's not even a beautiful example.

1/10
 
2012-04-05 12:46:44 PM
Fartbama should respond to the Judge " No you can't overrule Legislation that has not passed. Since there is no Fartbamacare law."
 
2012-04-05 12:46:50 PM

SkinnyHead: The president questioned the authority of the court to overturn Obamacare. The thing that's got Obama toadies all butthurt and all is that the 5th Circuit actually took him seriously.


Your argument is that it's reasonable to think the Supreme Court might not have the authority to declare a law passed by Congress constitutional? Avoiding the issue of whether that's a reasonable interpretation of what the president said, it's flat out wrong. And any lawyer or judge who doesn't know that has no business being anywhere near a court. This judge doesn't need a review of the Supreme Court's powers. And if he did, it would be the job of his law clerks or whatever to get it. He did this because he doesn't like the DOJ attorney or he doesn't like the president.
 
2012-04-05 12:47:37 PM

DarwiOdrade: So, no, they really didn't. They just published a "false" rating to satisfy the stupid fairness doctrine BS they've got going on there.


You cherry picked on sentence that refers to Obama's walk back of his previous statement after he was spanked repeatedly over his moronic statement.

Our ruling

That was a lot of Supreme Court history. First, let's review Obama's statement: "Ultimately, I am 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."

There's simply no support for the assertion that the law was passed by a "strong majority." It was passed along party lines in a sharply partisan climate, and the 60 votes in the Senate were the minimum needed to keep Republicans from bottling it up in a filibuster.

But the "unprecedented" idea is more nuanced. It's without question that the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by Congress -- by any margin -- is a common and routine occurrence, and by no means without precedent. Volokh gave us a close analogy with the case of Boerne vs. Flores, a religious freedom law that glided through Congress but was held unconstitutional by a majority of the court, including two of its liberal justices.

However, Obama's elaboration a day later at least gives us more to think about. He argued that invalidation of the health care law would represent a court action unseen since the Great Depression on an issue that affects every American. Ornstein echoed that interpretation, saying that a ruling by the court which overturns a major social policy and challenges prior court rulings would be unprecedented.

But we're taking Obama literally, and that historical perspective was not reflected in his original statement, which is what we're ruling on. He simply said the law passed with a strong majority and overturning it would be unprecedented. Wrong and wrong. We rate the statement False.
 
2012-04-05 12:48:04 PM

Gosling: Politifact lost all their credibility after calling a non-lie the Lie Of The Year just so they wouldn't have three straight Lies Of The Year come from the right. To hell with what they think.


The fact that poltifact is still called that is the lie of the year. They stopped being concerned with actual factual issues a long time ago. Seriously, look what they said about the Obama thing: They basically just disagreed with his characterization of the vote as a "strong majority" and his characterization of the move to overturn as "unprecedented."

Neither of those things, however, are actual facts. Politifact basically took the President's statement, and said "I disagree, therefore your statement is false."

That's not a factual inaccuracy, it's a difference of opinion. When you inject opinion into the discussion it defeats the whole purpose behind the notion of "fact-checking." To be fair, though, "Politopinion" doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily.
 
2012-04-05 12:48:29 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: This many people are arguing with Skinnyhead? Really?


They aren't arguing with him. He is just an alt account attention whore. They are arguing against his constant lies, like what people do with bevets.

He is an act, and it wouldnt surprise me if he was actually the opposite political stance in real life. Then you have to question the sanity of someone who constantly argues and tries to damage his OWN stances. How is spreading lies against your stances going to help people side with them? Its self defeating.
 
2012-04-05 12:48:30 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Garet Garrett: Really? Then why do people (including genuine "legal experts") point to Marbury as "authority" for judicial review?

They don't? They point to it as "precedent"

Good attempt, though.


Nice try. Here's the ABA:
The power of judicial review established by Marbury has enabled the Court to effect revolutionary change in our understanding of constitutional provisions.
Link.
 
2012-04-05 12:48:37 PM
Anytime Obama says anything the GOP spin machine goes into over drive.
This is why their credibility is in the toilet.
 
2012-04-05 12:48:41 PM

Weaver95: tnpir: Jesus, this thread went to complete and utter shiat in record time.

/GED! GED!!

it's interesting watching the GOP shills devolve into a pack of poo slinging monkeys. Obama really does destroy their brains. they just cannot handle a black man in the white house.


Agreed. I've reached the point where I cannot logically think of another reason. Republicans hated Clinton when he was in office but things got done. The hate for Clinton doesn't even come CLOSE to the hate for Obama, though.
 
2012-04-05 12:50:25 PM
Really someone who calls the legislation "Obamacare" and thinks he needs a clarification of something that has nothing to do with his case at hand? I am shocked.
 
2012-04-05 12:50:44 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Garet Garrett: Really? Then why do people (including genuine "legal experts") point to Marbury as "authority" for judicial review?

A particular case may be a vehicle that clarifies the authority of the court or other government power, but it is not the source of that authority or power.


Amazing how quickly people resort to textualism when it suits them. You know, it's only a FOOLISH consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds.
 
2012-04-05 12:51:42 PM

SkinnyHead: I'd say Obama toadies are the ones who are all butthurt about it. The court simply requested a letter brief from the DOJ to clarify the administration's position on pending litigation after the president made some foolish remarks, that's all.


That HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COURT CASE THE JUDGE IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED WITH.

Sorry what legislation was entitled "Obamacare"? Can you show me where this legislation with that legal name was passed?
 
2012-04-05 12:51:58 PM

The Homer Tax: The fact that poltifact is still called that is the lie of the year. They stopped being concerned with actual factual issues a long time ago. Seriously, look what they said about the Obama thing: They basically just disagreed with his characterization of the vote as a "strong majority" and his characterization of the move to overturn as "unprecedented."


I'm sorry, but Obama was just wrong in his phrasing. With his clarification, I understand what he was trying to say. But what he actually said was wrong and moronic.

As to the "strong majority" issue, you're exactly right. That's a matter of opinion, not fact. Though surely the better case is that Obamacare really did pass with a "strong majority."
 
2012-04-05 12:53:24 PM

Garet Garrett: Really? Then why do people (including genuine "legal experts") point to Marbury as "authority" for judicial review?

When you describe a case as "authoritative," that typically means nothing more or less than "binding precedent" (i.e., the case was issued by a court having precedential jurisdiction, and the holding was on point to the contention at issue in the present matter).



Because it's the first SCOTUS decision that formally outlined the principles of judicial review. There are examples of the Supreme Court examining the constitutionality of laws prior to Marbury but that one was the opinion that made it formal. It's certainly not the end-all-be-all of the scope of the Court's reach but it is the granddaddy decision. It makes perfect sense to refer to it regarding the basic notions of judicial review in the United States.
 
2012-04-05 12:53:47 PM

Weaver95: its interesting watching our local GOP shills trying to defend this sort of thing...


What the are you talking about? All I see is a hell of a lot of

"(ignored: asshat)" and "(skipped: comment text contains an ignored login name)"

/Aaahh.
 
2012-04-05 12:53:54 PM

Weaver95: tnpir: Jesus, this thread went to complete and utter shiat in record time.

/GED! GED!!

it's interesting watching the GOP shills devolve into a pack of poo slinging monkeys. Obama really does destroy their brains. they just cannot handle a black man in the white house.


I generally don't put people on ignore until they really annoy me, but over time my ignore list has grown much much longer, and I laughed my ass off when I came into this thread and saw "ignored, ignored, ignored, ignored, ignored, references ignored" and so on.

And of course it's the usual suspects.
 
2012-04-05 12:54:03 PM

Corvus: Really someone who calls the legislation "Obamacare" and thinks he needs a clarification of something that has nothing to do with his case at hand? I am shocked.


The only thing shocking is that a major educational institution paid this dope to teach Con Law.

Well, not Con Law, really. 14th Amendment.

Not even that, actually, just equal protection cases under the 14th Amendment.

Which, I guess, makes it utterly unsurprising that the Lecturer in Chief knows little to nothing about the overall contours of the Constitution or that the courts have been striking down duly enacted acts of Congress for, literally, centuries.
 
2012-04-05 12:54:17 PM

tnpir: Republicans hated Clinton when he was in office but things got done. The hate for Clinton doesn't even come CLOSE to the hate for Obama, though.


it's an entirely different vibe - the Republicans felt that they could occasionally reach common accord with Clinton. they still hated his guts mind you, but they could still justify making a deal with the guy. These days tho...the GOP can't stand to be in the same ROOM with Obama. And Obama's policies really aren't that very different from Clinton's ideas. The vibe I get from the GOP is one of seething unrelenting hatred. they despise Obama down to a molecular level. And it can't be due to matters of policy - they agreed to much of these policy matters when Clinton ran the show.

so the only thing that's left is the racial thing. I hate to say it too but...yeah. I think a lot of Republicans are just mad as hell that a black man got elected president. And they're gonna be REALLY pissed off when he gets re-elected.
 
2012-04-05 12:55:09 PM

hillbillypharmacist: SkinnyHead: Precedent is authority.

Precedent and authority don't have anything to do with each other. Not even tangential.

You can make a decent case that Obama was wrong to say it would be unprecedented, but you can't even make a stupid, trolly, crap case that he was questioning the court's authority.


Well, according to the law dictionary, "authority" means "an official decision of a court used esp. as a precedent" So in legal talk, "authority" means "precedent"
 
2012-04-05 12:55:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Flab: SkinnyHead: Flab: SkinnyHead: The issue raised by the president is whether the court has authority to overturn an act of congress.

No.

Yes it is, Flab. The president questioned the authority of the court to overturn Obamacare. The thing that's got Obama toadies all butthurt and all is that the 5th Circuit actually took him seriously.

"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 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 passed law."

On what planet do the words "I'm confident that..." means questioning someone's authority?

On a planet where that uppity government nig is President.


In that comment, Mr. Obama sounds positively Republican.
 
2012-04-05 12:55:33 PM
Hey subby, the same has been said about 0bama so what's your point?
 
2012-04-05 12:56:10 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: This many people are arguing with Skinnyhead? Really?


I admit to that mistake in the past but it won't happen again. I need to have a little respect for my opponents.
 
2012-04-05 12:56:39 PM

bugontherug: I'm sorry, but Obama was just wrong in his phrasing. With his clarification, I understand what he was trying to say. But what he actually said was wrong and moronic.


I don't care about what he actually said. I care about fact checking. That's my point.

I wish that Politifact would actually keep to their namesake and concern themselves with actual factual accuracy of statements. I can get opinions on why his "unprecedented" statement is wrong anywhere. Conversely, places where people actually check actual factual accuracy of statements related to actual facts are few and far between.
 
2012-04-05 12:56:46 PM

theknuckler_33: They demanded a letter of "no less than three pages, single spaced," due on Thursday, explaining the president's remarks.

Dear Your Honors,

The President's remarks were very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very....
..
..
..
..
very very very very very very very very very very very very innocuous.

Sincerely,
DOJ


images.starpulse.com
Approves
 
2012-04-05 12:57:53 PM
"that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected judges' to strike acts of Congress . . . he was referring, of course to Obamacare."

Wait. The judge actually used the word "Obamacare?"
 
2012-04-05 12:58:06 PM

SpaceButler: Flab: So a judge presiding over case A can order a lawyer to clarify his boss' statement on unrelated case B currently being looked at by other judges?

They should just turn in three pages of "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..."


What the lawyer should have done is go to the nearest computer, look up the text of Marbury v. Madison, print that out, and hand it in. In the off chance that it wasn't three pages, print it twice.
 
2012-04-05 12:58:28 PM

I_C_Weener: In that comment, Mr. Obama sounds positively Republican.


Which is weird because in the statement he actually says that he is quoting republicans when he's making the statement, ("This is what you have said for years.").
 
2012-04-05 12:58:56 PM

SkinnyHead: So in legal talk, "authority" means "precedent"


Are you a lawyer? Some kind of professor of law? Perhaps a legal dictionary employee of Black's? Maybe a mind reader of the third degree?

The President says a lot of things every day. This statement was meant to call the SC to order and to rule his way. Good for him. He's a cheerleader here, so he can do that.
 
Displayed 50 of 284 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report