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

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

Yeah saw that. Love it. Contrary to Obama claims the court has ruled several times against congressional Bills--well over 50 times during history from Truman to Bush. Nothing Special about Obama except for his arogant claims---

This reply brought to you by....

It's called Marbury v. Madison and it's only 200 years old. You might think that a professor who had taught the Constitution had heard of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Wow. What an incredible over-reach by the court. They lack the power to compel the executive branch to do anything of the sort. It is not relevent to the case before them and is nothing but a political statement by a judge, exactly the sort of thing which reveals that the judicial system is nothing but a bunch of arrogant political hacks with zero accountability. 

Political or political response to a political attack?  As to whether they lack the power to compel we’ll see if the Justice Department complies within the time allotted and the format required.  If so then that will be akin to having been taken to the proverbial woodshed and rightly so.  We may be able to voice such careless provocative musings in a local barbershop, but for such statements to be made from that position of authority to the American people and in an election year shows nothing but contempt for what is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government and thus contempt for our system of government. 

And the president suggests, even in walking back his comments, that the court has a 'burden' in overturning from 'elected' persons.  Now if Congress gave concern as to the constitutionality of their actions, and if the executive branch equally made constitutionality a litmus test to the bills it signed, and as their oaths command, then the burden wouldn't fall only to the Supreme Court to ensure that the constitution isn't treated as just an old piece of paper, leaving it to them to prevent tyranny of the majorities.  Even congressman Clyburn has stated: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.  How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"  http://volokh.com/2012/03/28/democratic-congressman-and-senators-on-constitutional-authority-for-the-aca/

Do they not understand the concept at all or is it they just don't care?  In any event, the president is going to find out, Andrew Jackson he ain't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiThqLLPp1c

Can you even see the contradiction in your argument? It is glaring. It is obvious. But you can't seem to find it.

I wonder....if a judge made a political statement in a speech, can the president compel that judge to present a written explanation? Can Congress? What if a congressman gave a speech? Could the president or a judge compel them to present a written explanation of their opinion?

Gee. Why not? 

Now what is it about judges that they are supposed to do? Does impartiality strike a chord? 

Let's say a judge had a case in front of him. Should he respond to a political speech by the president by making a gratuitious demand on the lawyers in front of him in order to make a political point?

Is that really kosher with you? 

Originally Posted By cicerno (3 APR 2012 11:31pm)

Can you even see the contradiction in your argument? It is glaring. It is obvious. But you can't seem to find it.

 

I wonder....if a judge made a political statement in a speech, can the president compel that judge to present a written explanation? Can Congress? What if a congressman gave a speech? Could the president or a judge compel them to present a written explanation of their opinion?

 

Gee. Why not? 

 

Now what is it about judges that they are supposed to do? Does impartiality strike a chord? 

 

Let's say a judge had a case in front of him. Should he respond to a political speech by the president by making a gratuitious demand on the lawyers in front of him in order to make a political point?

 

Is that really kosher with you? 

 

 

No, I don't see any contradictions and apparently you don't either since you've failed to point one out.  What you have highlighted is that although the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, on matters of the constitution they are superior to the other branches.  Unfortunately, it took a lower court within the judiciary to point out that obvious fact.  So much for being a law professor; that guise has been exposed.  If a judge gives you an order within his court he can have you jailed for disobeying.  The president has no such power; he just has to suck it up.  Noon tomorrow will tell!