tnpir: 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.

Are we remembering a different Clinton presidency? They shut down the entire government not once but twice just to try to bring down his administration. When that didn't work, they actually brought him up for impeachment (the first president to be impeached in well over a hundred years). The GOP has no decency whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if Ronald Reagan himself were president again, if he were a part of the Democrat party he would be reviled with a hatred formerly reserved for the actual enemies of our nation.

Umm, Subby, you are a complete and utter dumb arse. "Legal experts" refers to more than one "expert," TFA contained no experts, just one partisan hack "analyst" but what are facts when they just get in the way of creating a narrative?

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.

Loath though I am to respond to such an obvious troll, we're really dealing with three distinct levels of stupid here. In descending order:

1) Obama's momentary brain death, in which he said something blindingly stupid.
2) The judge's irreversible brain damage in ordering a "clarification" of what was an obviously innocuous though stupid comment.
3) Conservative mouthbreathers and their total rejection of mind in insisting Obama actually meant to question the power of judicial review.

Garet Garrett: 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).

Is that the case where the supreme court decreed they had the authority to declare a congressional law unconstitutional, even though the constitution never granted them that specific power ?

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.

Without said precedent they wouldn't rule one way or another. You really don't see yourself as wrong, that's just so cute.

He clarified them, though; didn't he?

Totally BS move by the judges. Even if they did have a legitimate reason for asking the government to explain the position (they don't), they didn't even pretend to want to hear from the other side. They aren't interested in any legal argument, they just want to make a point. And in doing so, they called the credibility and impartiality of the court into question.

I actually think they may have violated a few sections of the code of judicial conduct for United States Judges.

s2s2s2: He clarified them, though; didn't he?

Yep.

Satanic_Hamster: "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?"

Yeah, the judge specifically requested a letter clarifying Obama's opinion on the authority of the courts to overturn "Obamacare". The DOJ should send a one page memo saying "The President has not signed any bill titled Obamacare."

/and two pages of space before the signature on the memo

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

I agree with your point re: fact checking. I disagree as you've applied it to the issue of "unprecedented." Surely whether or not the Court has ever previously struck down legislation passed by a strong majority is one subject to fact checking, provided the fact checker clarifies what he means by "strong majority," and acknowledges that "strong majority" is a fuzzy concept, subject to legitimate disagreement.

I think we agree in principle though.

Anyone point out this judge, this court was actually hearing an appeal that directly dealt with a part of Obamacare? Seems to be more than just a couple of folks on this thread pretending this judge pulled this challenge out of thin air...

jehovahs witness protection: partisan hack who has wildly overstepped his authority

You mean like Obama?

I was thinking more like Jeffrey Toobin.

The judge called the Affordable Care Act by the right wing talking point term Obamacare. Yes I know lots of people do, but he shouldn't. That right there smells like bullshiat.

So is Jeffrey Toobin, but you don't hear me on CNN biatching about it.

Seriously, he didn't really think an assertion of "it's interstate commerce because we say so" at the SCOTUS was going to pass, did he? And you'd think that his favorite president - who of course is a former Constitutional Law professor! - would know better than to disrespect the federal judiciary... while ignoring case law.

/What are the odds we're going to see a new "court-packing plan" introduced in Congress in the next few years if the individual mandate is struck down?

cameroncrazy1984: 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!

IRONY!!!

Did you hear that folks, CC's GED in Liberal Butthurt says that the fifth circuit can't order supplemental briefing.

Lulz

/man that article sucked! All the President is doing is exercising his First Amendments rights as a private citizen going about his business! What a farking Moran

Dr Dreidel

Isn't part of today's batshiat-wing of the GOP convinced that Marbury was a bad decision anyway? I know there's no force on Earth (not even the weak nuclear force) that could compel them to admit agreement with anything Obama has ever said, but it's kind of weird to see that part of the GOP criticizing Obama for what they believe in.

This is ignoring the fact that presidents say weird things all the time that don't turn into homework for DOJ staff attorneys. How many legal briefs was Gonzo ordered to write about torture? How many were asked for in the Hamdan case? How many times did a judge ask for this type of clarification during the Schiavo mess, when a full session of Congress - 3 people - passed, arguably, a bill of attainder for her?

How many times have a president's public, unsworn remarks spurred a judge to do something like this? Talk about unprecedented...

What is unprecdented is this administration waging war against the First Amendment while falsely accusing the Republicans of waging a war against women and immigrants and race.

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.

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.

Here's the problem with that argument. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law. If the Texas abortion law is unconstitutional, then it must stand that all similar laws are unconstitutional. If it were simply left at that, then you still would have ended up with a patchwork of regulations with some states allowing unrestricted abortion up to a certain point, and others only allowing nominal abortion rights (abortions only allowed for the first 7 days of pregnancy and only after a 24 hour browbeating session from your preacher). Rather than deal with subsequent cases over the next several years which would have resulted in the same end, they simply delineated precisely what the right entailed. Ultimately, the trimester framework was abandoned in Planned Parenthood v Casey. Similarly with busing, if the court had simply said that inequality was unacceptable but provided to requirements to solve the problem then you would have ended up with variable enforcement and the continued disenfranchisement of millions.

The Republicans don't particularly care about the constitutionality of their positions. They want to allow states to ignore the full faith and credit of other states when it comes to gay marriage. They want to criminalize most or all abortions regardless of your rights to privacy. They want to be able to torture enemy combatants in defiance of the 4th amendment. And this isn't a matter of "both sides are bad." The Democrats have a legitimate argument around the constitutionality of the individual mandate though ultimately it may not prevail before this court.

The GOP is the most dangerous enemy this nation has ever faced.

Shaggy_C: tnpir: 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.

Are we remembering a different Clinton presidency? They shut down the entire government not once but twice just to try to bring down his administration. When that didn't work, they actually brought him up for impeachment (the first president to be impeached in well over a hundred years). The GOP has no decency whatsoever. It wouldn't matter if Ronald Reagan himself were president again, if he were a part of the Democrat party he would be reviled with a hatred formerly reserved for the actual enemies of our nation.

Point taken, but lots of things still got done during the Clinton presidency. Very little (in the way of significant legislation) comparatively has gotten done in the Obama presidency. Add to that that the rules of decorum have pretty much been thrown out by the GOP. They've gone from trying a weak-ass impeachment to full-on we will destroy this country in order to save it.

Added to which, I can't remember any specific GOPers during the Clinton presidency (other than Gingrich) that I wanted to cockpunch until they passed out. These days, I have a hard time thinking of many GOPers in Congress who I WOULDN'T like to do that to.

Shaggy_C: Republicans aren't against the judiciary overturning unconstitutional laws. They're against the judiciary creating new law.

No, you're wrong. Even if DC v. Heller was textually based (and it wasn't--it ignored several words in the 2nd Amednment), its progeny case incorporating it against the states was definitely new law. It created a new right enforceable against states as well as the federal government. So it even stepped on states' rights.

Then there's Citizens United, which created a new constitutional right against government interference in the right of CEOs to spend shareholder money to support Republicans.

HotWingConspiracy


The GOP is the most dangerous enemy this nation has ever faced.


Actually - it is your way of thinking that is the greatest threat to this nation.

HotWingConspiracy: The GOP is the most dangerous enemy this nation has ever faced.

What we need here is a One Party System, hey HotWing? Maybe run by a former soldier, not too high in rank, a corporal maybe. And a nice uniform, with plain colors, like Brown Shirts, and nice strong boots.

/man, pull yourself together.

karnal: HotWingConspiracy


The GOP is the most dangerous enemy this nation has ever faced.


Actually - it is your way of thinking that is the greatest threat to this nation.

I'm part of the solution.

halfof33: What we need here is a One Party System, hey HotWing?

Who said that? I'd love to see the GOP split in two. I'm for more parties.

halfof33: HotWingConspiracy: Who said that? I'd love to see the GOP split in two. I'm for more parties.

And I want to see the Democrats split into 16 and 1/2!

You kind of already have that.

You know who else liked lots of political parties?

Parliamentarians? Fans of Democracy?

Or we could read the actual submission to the judge.

Link

In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are "presumptively constitutional,"
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Court has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is "strong."United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills," and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S. 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the "congressional judgment" at issue was "entitled to a strong presumption of validity"). The Supreme Court has explained: "This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is
within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power." Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills," and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-22i, 346 U.S. at 449.In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 , 1820 (20 1 0) ("Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality."); Beach Communications, Inc. ,
508 U.S. at314-15.

SlothB77: is this the thread where we say a bill that was passed with 0 republican votes in either the house or senate and 34 democrats voted against it was passed by a strong majority?

Sure, why not? 1% point wins are enough to declare you've earned a mandate now.

A) One hack lawyer sockpuppet getting paid by CNN does not "legal experts" make.

B) The 5th circuit is hearing a separate challenge to the ACA currently, with the government as a defendant in the case. Since the President (a party to the defense) made statements that could impact the judges' decision about the case, they were ENTIRELY within their power to demand a clarification of the President's statements. It would have been irresponsible of them NOT to.

C) Obama is running his mouth having a hissy fit because Kagan leaked the initial vote results on the ACA back to him and he lost. Not by a 5-4 margin, either. The whole thing is coming down and even Justices he counted on as being "his" told him to take that piece of crap and stuff it back up his ass where it came from.

D) His attempts at publicly attacking the credibility and legitimacy of the Supreme Court in this manner are horribly unpresidential. Even Clinton and Bush had more class and decorum than this.

htotheova: Or we could read the actual submission to the judge.

oh my gosh they responded?? But I was told quite clearly in this thread that:

"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."

Well maybe they explained that in the letter. Further, I was also told that the order regarding the supplemental letter was part of the GREATEST risk this country has ever faced.