Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care

What's going on in the world today?

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c

Postby jediuser598 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:25 pm

A summation of the submitted letter from the SCOTUS blog:

Holder reaffirms Marbury
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. told a federal appeals court Thursday that President Obama and his administration do not quarrel with the authority of the federal courts to strike down an act of Congress, but argued that a court should not do so lightly. The letter was filed with a Fifth Circuit Court panel in response to a request on Tuesday for the government’s views.

The highly unusual exchange between the three-judge panel and the head of the Justice Department was apparently set off by remarks the President made on Monday, seemingly questioning the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down some or all of the new federal health care law. One of the judges on the panel, Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, apparently took offense at what the President had said and used a hearing on a pending case as a vehicle for challenging the Chief Executive and his administration.

The Circuit Court panel is considering a constitutional challenge by a group of Texas hospitals to a part of the new Affordable Care Act. Presumably, Judge Smith and his colleagues on the bench wanted to be sure that their authority to decide the case against the law was not being questioned by the government.

Holder’s letter took a slight jab at the demand by the panel for the government’s views on judicial review. He told the panel that his letter was not to be considered a formal legal brief, intending for the judges to accept it as something outside the record of the case. That was at least an implied suggestion that the three judges should not have introduced the judicial review question while pondering the pending case.

The contents of the Attorney General’s letter were no more than a routine recital of long-standing acceptance of the notion that the federal courts do have, in an appropriate case, the undoubted authority to nullify the federal or state law if they find that it conflicts with the Constitution. That principle was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and nothing in Holder’s letter questioned that precedent.

At the same time, however, the Attorney General emphasized that no federal court should reach out to strike down a federal law properly passed by Congress, and should never do so unless absolutely necessary. ... ore-142655

A link to the letter itself: ... letter.pdf
User avatar
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c

Postby Loki » Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:34 pm

Honestly his comment made me a bit scared for a second, I had to make sure the military was not seizing the capitol. For a President of any party any time to make a statement like that shows lack of knowledge or a disregard for constitutional authority.

1984 was not intended to be an instructional manual...
User avatar
Posts: 1272
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:22 pm
Location: Salem, Oregon

Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c

Postby jediuser598 » Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:37 pm

People have a way of sanitizing popular figures, as observed by Dan and other history lovers. What I find fascinating is that politicians, no matter the era, are politicians. When I looked up the Marbury v Madison case on Wikipedia, I found this:

In the presidential election of 1800, Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams, becoming the third President of the United States. Although the election was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take office until March 4, 1801. Until that time, outgoing president Adams and the Federalist-controlled 6th Congress were still in power. During this lame-duck session, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801. This Act modified the Judiciary Act of 1789 in establishing ten new district courts, expanding the number of circuit courts from three to six, and adding additional judges to each circuit, giving the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace. The act also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective upon the next vacancy in the Court.[3][4]
On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", were all located in the Washington and Alexandria area.[citation needed] One of them was William Marbury, a native of Maryland and a prosperous financier. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.[citation needed] He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The term for a justice of the peace was five years, and they were "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars."[5]
On the following day, the appointments were approved en masse by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed. This task fell to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State at President Adams's personal request.[6]
While a majority of the commissions were delivered, it proved impossible for all of them to be delivered before Adams's term as president expired. As these appointments were routine in nature, Marshall assumed the new Secretary of State James Madison would see they were delivered, since "they had been properly submitted and approved, and were, therefore, legally valid appointments."[7] On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President. As soon as he was able, President Jefferson ordered Levi Lincoln, who was the new administration's Attorney General and acting Secretary of State until the arrival of James Madison, not to deliver the remaining appointments. Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void.[6]
The newly sworn-in Democratic-Republican 7th Congress immediately set about voiding the Judiciary Act of 1801 with their own Judiciary Act of 1802 which reversed the act of 1801 so that the Judicial branch once again operated under the dictates of the original Judiciary Act of 1789. In addition, it replaced the Court's two annual sessions with one session to begin on the first Monday in February, and "canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year [1802] ... seeking to delay a ruling on the constitutionality of the repeal act until months after the new judicial system was in operation."
User avatar
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health c

Postby hondo69 » Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:20 am

Interesting bit of history there, I had never heard the Midnight Judges story before. It kind of ties into a few thoughts rolling around in my head lately.

Assume all of ObamaCare gets tossed out by the Supreme Court in June. What will follow will be a game of one-upsmanship the rest of the summer running up to the election. News of Obama’s war with SCOTUS will suck up a lot of air time on TV, drowning out many other important issues. My guess is that it’s all a calculated subterfuge.

For example, last week the EPA rolled out new rules that effectively will kill the coal industry. Hardly anyone noticed. Instead the country was focused on Obama vs. SCOTUS and Trayvon Martin. This EPA mandate (handed down by unelected officials) has the potential to change our way of life as we know it. Still, barely a sniff from the media.

So during the summer while we’re all caught up in election mud slinging and Obama’s various wars, I expect all kinds of really nasty mandates will come rolling out of Washington, most of which we’ll hardly notice. Should Romney win in November then you can expect even more nasty mandates to appear like magic before power changes hands in January. An avalanche of one a day wouldn’t surprise me.

So in walks Romney who has to clean up an ever growing pile of crap. His choices will be to prompt Congress to get to work undoing Obama’s mischief or to use broad executive mandates to do the job. Should he decide to go the latter route all hell will break loose. The Dems will scream bloody murder stating no President has those kinds of unchecked powers. The Repubs will be in a Catch 22. They rail against executive overreach now but understand that kind of high handedness is needed to clean up 500 piles of brontosaurus-sized crap.

He better hope control of the Senate changes hands or he’ll be in a no win situation.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX


Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Okeefenokee and 1 guest