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 09:30:49 AM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-04-05 09:53:00 AM
i386.photobucket.com

I feel shocked.
 
2012-04-05 09:54:14 AM
I am SHOCKED! I was led to believe that he is a Freedom fighter, protecting Constitutional principles from dictaxor Obama. I thought he was a brave man, standing up to our statist monster of a "president".
 
2012-04-05 10:02:21 AM
Judicial partisanship was bad enough already with Moe, Larry and Schemp weighing in.
 
2012-04-05 10:13:28 AM
president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to defend the law.

Good thing we got that first amendment, otherwise president wouldn't be allowed to speak.,
 
2012-04-05 10:36:47 AM

SkinnyHead: president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to defend the law.

Good thing we got that first amendment, otherwise president wouldn't be allowed to speak.,


He can certainly speak in a non-controversial manner without being issued homework by some butthurt judge.
 
2012-04-05 10:46:08 AM

kingoomieiii: SkinnyHead: president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to defend the law.

Good thing we got that first amendment, otherwise president wouldn't be allowed to speak.,

He can certainly speak in a non-controversial manner without being issued homework by some butthurt judge.


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.
 
2012-04-05 10:56:08 AM

SkinnyHead: kingoomieiii: SkinnyHead: president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to defend the law.

Good thing we got that first amendment, otherwise president wouldn't be allowed to speak.,

He can certainly speak in a non-controversial manner without being issued homework by some butthurt judge.

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.


And he had no right to do so, that's all. The President's remarks had nothing to do with the case before the 5th Circuit Court and thus the justice had no business ordering counsel to do anything regarding them.

Your GED in Law strikes again!
 
2012-04-05 10:59:58 AM

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.
 
2012-04-05 11:00:17 AM

SkinnyHead: kingoomieiii: SkinnyHead: president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to defend the law.

Good thing we got that first amendment, otherwise president wouldn't be allowed to speak.,

He can certainly speak in a non-controversial manner without being issued homework by some butthurt judge.

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.


You're so cute when you're lying.
 
2012-04-05 11:02:59 AM
This is not judging. This is a judicial hissy fit.

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.
 
2012-04-05 11:04:03 AM

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.


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.
 
2012-04-05 11:07:48 AM

SkinnyHead: 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.


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?

This smells like automatic ground for appeal to me. If said judge doesn't like the lawyer's answer, then what?
 
2012-04-05 11:11:37 AM

hillbillypharmacist: 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.


The court requested briefing from that particular attorney because she just happened to be the attorney representing the administration who was appearing before the court in that ongoing legal proceeding.
 
2012-04-05 11:14:03 AM

SkinnyHead: The court requested briefing from that particular attorney because she just happened to be the attorney representing the administration who was appearing before the court in that ongoing legal proceeding.


Sure, you can just ask whatever attorney is in front of you that day, instead of submitting a motion or a letter to the DOJ directly. That works. If you're some sort of asshole.
 
2012-04-05 11:19:11 AM

Flab: SkinnyHead: 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.

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?

This smells like automatic ground for appeal to me. If said judge doesn't like the lawyer's answer, then what?


Both cases are related in that they involve challenges to Obamacare, aren't they? And of course the judge can ask an administration lawyer to explain the administration's position on a pertinent issue pending before the court. Why would that be an issue for appeal?
 
2012-04-05 11:22:14 AM

SkinnyHead: And of course the judge can ask an administration lawyer to explain the administration's position on a pertinent issue pending before the court.


Some random DOJ attorney cannot speak for the DOJ or the administration. That's Eric Holder's job.
 
2012-04-05 11:23:21 AM

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..."
 
2012-04-05 11:25:28 AM

SkinnyHead: hillbillypharmacist: 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.

The court requested briefing from that particular attorney because she just happened to be the attorney representing the administration who was appearing before the court in that ongoing legal proceeding.


Did the briefing have anything to do with that ongoing legal proceeding? No?

Then what right does the justice have to order counsel to write that briefing?
 
2012-04-05 11:27:49 AM

SkinnyHead: Flab: SkinnyHead: 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.

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?

This smells like automatic ground for appeal to me. If said judge doesn't like the lawyer's answer, then what?

Both cases are related in that they involve challenges to Obamacare, aren't they? And of course the judge can ask an administration lawyer to explain the administration's position on a pertinent issue pending before the court. Why would that be an issue for appeal?


Not even close. Obama's remarks regarded Supreme Court precedence, and a specific case before the Supreme Court. That has exactly zero to do with anything involving the 5th Circuit.

You really need to get your money back on that GED. It ain't workin.
 
2012-04-05 11:33:30 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Some random DOJ attorney cannot speak for the DOJ or the administration. That's Eric Holder's job.


It's not a random government attorney. It's the government attorney defending Obamacare before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

cameroncrazy1984: Did the briefing have anything to do with that ongoing legal proceeding? No?

Then what right does the justice have to order counsel to write that briefing?


Yes of course it did. Physician-owned hospitals are challenging Obamacare in court. The issue raised by the president is whether the court has authority to overturn an act of congress. The president claimed that there was no precedent for the court to do that. If the president was correct, then the court would just have to dismiss the case. So that seems like a very important point that the court needed to clarify.
 
2012-04-05 11:35:48 AM

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


Not the 5th Circuit Court, and not this particular case.

TRY AGAIN
 
2012-04-05 11:36:33 AM

SkinnyHead: Why would that be an issue for appeal?


Because the DOJ lawyer can then say that the judge ruled against her because of bias against her or her employer, not because of the facts presented in the case.
 
2012-04-05 11:38:59 AM

SkinnyHead: It's not a random government attorney. It's the government attorney defending Obamacare before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.


It doesn't matter if he's King High Craptacon on the River Dorkus Malorkus. He doesn't speak for the DOJ or the administration. It's not his job.
 
2012-04-05 11:39:04 AM
partisan hack who has wildly overstepped his authority

You mean like Obama?
 
2012-04-05 11:41:06 AM

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


No.
 
2012-04-05 11:47:14 AM

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.
 
2012-04-05 11:49:01 AM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: hillbillypharmacist: 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.

The court requested briefing from that particular attorney because she just happened to be the attorney representing the administration who was appearing before the court in that ongoing legal proceeding.

Did the briefing have anything to do with that ongoing legal proceeding? No?

Then what right does the justice have to order counsel to write that briefing?


If I was a judge, I would ask Jessica Alba to report to me on all her sexual fantasies.
 
2012-04-05 11:52:36 AM

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?
 
2012-04-05 11:57:23 AM

Flab: SkinnyHead: Why would that be an issue for appeal?

Because the DOJ lawyer can then say that the judge ruled against her because of bias against her or her employer, not because of the facts presented in the case.


Asking a government attorney to clarify the government's position on an important issue pending before the court does not show bias. I don't think the Supreme Court would overturn a 5th Circuit decision just because a government attorney was asked to brief an important issue.
 
2012-04-05 11:59:25 AM

SkinnyHead: Asking a government attorney to clarify the government's position on an important issue pending before the court does not show bias.


The attorney in question cannot speak for the government as a whole, and the judge knows this.
 
2012-04-05 12:08:47 PM

Flab: "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?


The part about the president being confident was not the issue troubling the court. It was the president's claim that it "would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress."

If there is no precedent giving the federal courts authority to overturn a law that was passed by a "strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress," why should the 5th Circuit or any other court waste its time hearing a challenge to a law that they have no power to "somehow" overturn. That's why the court thought it was necessary to get that issue clarified before going further with the case.
 
2012-04-05 12:09:19 PM

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.
 
2012-04-05 12:11:56 PM

SkinnyHead: If there is no precedent giving the federal courts authority to overturn a law that was passed by a "strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress," why should the 5th Circuit or any other court waste its time hearing a challenge to a law that they have no power to "somehow" overturn. That's why the court thought it was necessary to get that issue clarified before going further with the case.


Authority doesn't require precedent.
 
2012-04-05 12:13:26 PM

SkinnyHead: If there is no precedent giving the federal courts authority to overturn a law that was passed by a "strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress," why should the 5th Circuit or any other court waste its time hearing a challenge to a law that they have no power to "somehow" overturn. That's why the court thought it was necessary to get that issue clarified before going further with the case.


I don't see the words "authority" anywhere in Obama's quote.

Also don't see the words "5th Circuit"
 
2012-04-05 12:13:26 PM
its interesting watching our local GOP shills trying to defend this sort of thing...
 
2012-04-05 12:16:57 PM

SkinnyHead: That's why the court thought it was necessary to get that issue clarified before going further with the case.


um...no it wasn't. the judge was being a dick hole. that's why he gave out homework assignments and went home in a huff.
 
2012-04-05 12:25:28 PM

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.
 
2012-04-05 12:27:57 PM
"Ironically, this past December, in the midst of the case, Ms. Pine actually counseled a woman outside of PWC and convinced her not to have an abortion, thus saving the life of the child and possibly the mother as well."

Statistically speaking, giving birth is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than having an abortion.

Neither have been positively linked to breast cancer. Ever. By anyone.
 
2012-04-05 12:28:40 PM

kingoomieiii: "Ironically, this past December, in the midst of the case, Ms. Pine actually counseled a woman outside of PWC and convinced her not to have an abortion, thus saving the life of the child and possibly the mother as well."

Statistically speaking, giving birth is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than having an abortion.

Neither have been positively linked to breast cancer. Ever. By anyone.


Wrong threeaaaddddd
 
2012-04-05 12:31:42 PM

hillbillypharmacist: SkinnyHead: If there is no precedent giving the federal courts authority to overturn a law that was passed by a "strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress," why should the 5th Circuit or any other court waste its time hearing a challenge to a law that they have no power to "somehow" overturn. That's why the court thought it was necessary to get that issue clarified before going further with the case.

Authority doesn't require precedent.


Precedent is authority. If there really was no precedent giving the federal courts authority to overturn a law that was passed by a "strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress," you'd think that the administration would be happy to brief that slam-dunk, winning issue in court. What's with all the cry-babying?
 
2012-04-05 12:32:19 PM
I see the GED legal troll has arrived.
 
2012-04-05 12:32:51 PM
Poltifact just called bullshiat on the President.
 
2012-04-05 12:34:22 PM
Now, now, kingoomieiii, you never know if the clarified remarks are meant to be issued forth from a uterus.
 
2012-04-05 12:34:51 PM

soy_bomb: Poltifact just called bullshiat on the President.


um...you do know that Obama was just trolling when he said that, right?
 
2012-04-05 12:35:08 PM
SkinnyHead is a liar. Claims issued by him are not credible.
 
2012-04-05 12:35:20 PM

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.
 
2012-04-05 12:35:58 PM

soy_bomb: Poltifact just called bullshiat on the President.


The factual validity, or lack thereof, of President Obama's statements do not validate the judge's order.
 
2012-04-05 12:36:18 PM

soy_bomb: Poltifact just called bullshiat on the President.


Hey, that's great.

Now, what the f**k does that have to do with this douchenozzle judge handing out homework assignments to assuage his titanic butthurt?
 
2012-04-05 12:36:21 PM

soy_bomb: Poltifact just called bullshiat on the President.


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.
 
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