Fifth Circuit calls out DOJ lawyer: Is your boss now claiming that courts don’t have the power to strike down laws? Update: A lawyer’s take

posted at 5:19 pm on April 3, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Ace. Serious question for appellate lawyers: Is it S.O.P. for judges to introduce comments made outside the courtroom by one of the parties to the litigation in this way? Unless I missed something, the DOJ wasn’t and isn’t arguing Obama’s moronic claim yesterday that the Supremes striking down ObamaCare would be “unprecedented.” It sounds like Judge Smith (a Reagan appointee) was simply honked off at The One’s demagoguery in the Rose Garden and wanted to upbraid him for it.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

They ordered the DOJ to submit a three-page letter stating its position on judicial review by noon on Thursday, even though the Department’s lawyer conceded that Marbury v. Madison is good law and even though Obama himself never went so far yesterday as to say that the Supreme Court lacks the power to overturn laws. He said overturning ObamaCare specifically would be “unprecedented,” but no true-blue Warren-Court-loving lefty like The One would ever seriously impugn judicial review. And the Fifth Circuit knows it. What they’re doing here is humiliating him as a way of getting him to stop the demagoguery, with the letter acting as the equivalent of a kid writing on the blackboard as punishment after class. “I will not question Marbury v. Madison, I will not question Marbury v. Madison, I will not question…” Rest assured, a liberal court will pay President Romney back for this somehow at some point. And in fact, O might use the letter as a political opportunity. Now that there’s bound to be intense media interest in it, he could explain in it why (a) yes, of course he accepts judicial review, unlike that darned Newt Gingrich who wants to haul judges before Congress, and (b) it would nonetheless be kinda sorta “unprecedented” to use judicial review on his pet health-care legislation.

He elaborated a bit on that last point today:

“We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress, on a economic issue, like healthcare — like I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner [vs New York, 1905],” Obama told reporters during the question-and-answer session of the Associated Press luncheon…

“The point that I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitituon and our laws, and all of us have to respect it,” Obama said. “But it precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has trad exercise significant restraint” when considering laws passed on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

His point is that the two landmark cases over the past 20 years in which the Court struck down laws passed under the Commerce Clause didn’t really have to do with commerce. One was a gun-control measure and the other was the Violence Against Women Act. In those cases, he’s saying, you can understand why the Court would object: The statutes are targeting activity that isn’t really commercial in the guise of “commercial” regulation. In this case, with O-Care, the activity in question really is commercial. All of which is super, but it’s based on the standard liberal idea that there really is no conceptual limit to the Commerce Clause except the Bill of Rights. As long as Congress is genuinely trying to regulate commercial activity and they don’t step on any First or Second Amendment rights, they can pretty much go nuts. Just vote ‘em out if they do. Who needs enumerated powers?

Via the Daily Caller, here’s Scarborough wondering why a con law prof would go out of his way to blur the lines on separation of powers. Elections, dear boy, elections!

Update: A friend who’s an appellate lawyer answers my question in the intro:

It is not common for appeals courts to introduce party statements from outside the courtroom and demand explanations, but that’s only because most litigants aren’t dumb enough to make statements outside the courtroom likely to impact their cases. The notable exception to that general rule is the government-as-litigant, which, because it is led by politicians and ever-shifting public policy, is more likely than most litigants to have to explain statements or policies that may run against its best legal interests.

I’ll give you just two recent examples, where appellate courts have done like the Fifth Circuit did here. First, when the Obama Administration announced its decision to not defend DOMA even while it continues to enforce DOMA, several judges in DOMA-related cases (and a few in barely-related cases) demanded that DOJ explain. Those demands for explanation came from both Republican- and Democrat-appointed judges. Second, after months of the Administration attempting to push its “prosecutorial discretion” policy with respect to aliens in removal proceedings, the Ninth Circuit finally fed up with the apparent collision of the Administration’s announced discretion policy and the actual prosecutorial decisions of DHS, demanded in five test cases that DOJ explain what the discretion policy actually entailed and what that means for the Ninth Circuit’s cases. So this happens and it’s not the first time for Obama’s Administration.

As you noted, DOJ isn’t arguing President Obama’s “unprecedented” talking point with respect to the healthcare reform law. DOJ’s not that stupid. But from the courts’ point of view, that is a reason to be more concerned by Obama’s statement, not less. If Obama is announcing a shift in the Executive Branch’s position, of which DOJ is a part, then the courts are entitled to ask about it. Now, you and I and the judges know that Obama’s probably not announcing policy changes in what was just a campaign speech. But words have consequences, particularly for litigants. The courts may choose take Obama at his word, unless he explains that it was just a campaign speech and not intended to represent the position of the Executive Branch on the matter. The Fifth Circuit’s “homework assignment” is a fairly gentle reminder to the President that he actually leads the United States government and not just the campaign for his reelection.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

did Clarence Thomas have anything to say during the hearings? or does he have to get orders from Tea Party lobbyist wife Ginny first?

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Why would he have something to say? Do you think that idiot gov’t lawyer could have answered anything even remotely coherent that would constitute a real legal argument?

No.

BierManVA on April 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Nope. Only against the liar libs like Barack Obama and you who are calling for Supreme Court justices to be lynched.

northdallasthirty on April 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Everyone knows the executive branch under Obama has gone rogue.

If it wasn’t for a Republican House and SCOTUS Justices Obama would run wild and declare himself emperor. He still may. Narcissists with great power tend to become paranoid.

darwin on April 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

oh yes, what a tyrant!

Yes, nothing says belevolent ruler like stealing my children’s money to pay for someone else’s problem.

god forbid people don’t have to go bankrupt because they get sick in the greatest country ever ever in everdom

At least they have the option to go bankrupt! Under Obamacare if the govt says you can’t have that surgery then tough! Even if you have the money YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR IT OR HELP SOMEONE ELSE PAY! Hello Cancer Fundraisers!!! But that’s ok ’cause Obama says they can take an aspirin.

never mind every other civilized country has universal health care and the sky has not fallen

Greece?

txhsmom on April 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

If this liberty killing law is struck down then religious people all across the country will breathe a sigh of relief. Obama’s war on Christianity will have been stopped.

Weight of Glory on April 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Justice Thomas hasn’t asked questions since 08. He lets the lawyers hang themselves.

Limerick on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Hahaha hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha

darwin on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

did Clarence Thomas have anything to say during the hearings? or does he have to get orders from Tea Party lobbyist wife Ginny first?

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

He was reportedly examining the rim of his carbonated beverage container for stray hairs.

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

’bout time someone cut down this jug-eared buffoon.

tommyboy on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Obama didn’t teach a general Constitutional Law course, the one most law students take. He taught 3 courses, racism and the law, voting rights, and due process/equal protection. He wasn’t a Con Law professor, he was a senior lecturer, I believe. Big difference. I doubt he ever mentioned Marbury in any of his classes.

mbs on April 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

With 75% of the people wanting it repealed, this won’t happen. You’re not from around here, are you? You should get with Ken and Dbaer. Like minded people, etcetera.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I don’t need to watch the clip I watched it this morning along with Mika eye rolling and mugging whenever Joe pointed out the obvious the Judicial branch is one of three branches of government the other two executive and legislative. The purpose is clear Checks and Balances. Not one of any of the three of the branches is supposed to be able to swing us from the trees, like the progressives did, in their power grab by passing Obamacare, completely on partisan lines. No major pieces of legislation has passed in this country without bi partisan support.

Dr Evil on April 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

did Clarence Thomas have anything to say during the hearings? or does he have to get orders from Tea Party lobbyist wife Ginny first?

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Poor, sick racist DBear. You’ve already called for Thomas to be lynched; it should surprise no one that you are now trying this tack.

Tell us, sick racist DBear; why do you think black people who disobey you should be lynched? Why do you support killing black people for disobedience to white liberals like yourself?

northdallasthirty on April 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

ia the Daily Caller, here’s Scarborough wondering why a con law prof would go out of his way to blur the lines on separation of powers. Elections, dear boy, elections!

And a heaping helping of arrogance and too big for his britches attitude.

scalleywag on April 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Heh, makes us shake in our…never mind. We’ll just starve you.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Kenin, D-Bear, Lib,
Your prattle betrays your ignorance, save your idiot left wing talking points for media matters.

rob verdi on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Lesson to liberals….don’t send Alfalfa to argue your case with the Surpremes.

Limerick on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

every other civilized country has universal health care and the sky has not fallen.

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Define “universal”

Thousands of patients will be condemned to blindness because of a decision to ration the NHS treatment which could save their sight, leading charities warned last night.

They said that patients with macular degeneration, the most common cause of blindness in the elderly, would effectively have to lose the use of an eye before qualifying for therapy to save their remaining vision.

Their condemnation came as the NHS drug rationing body, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), recommended restrictions on funding a treatment for the condition.

Macular degeneration affects two million people in Britain. One version, wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), can mean loss of sight in the affected eye within three to five months of diagnosis.

It is the principal cause of irreversible blindness in Britain but the sight of many sufferers can be saved at a cost of around £1,500 per patient if treated early enough.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-122995/You-blind-eye-NHS-treat-you.html#ixzz1r15wM3Oh

Green_Bay_Packers on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Guessing Obama was going to school in Indonesia and missed this animation on the structure of the US Government:
SchoolHouse Rock Three Ring Government

albill on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I thought “crusades” was a rightie term, and non-PC for you, the ‘erudite’ bunch.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Remember that idiot woman who did that interview with Katie Couric? She couldn’t even name a Supreme Court decision!

Undefeated!

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I wish Obama could control my life…unfortunately it’s unconstitutional! What a load!

DHChron on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

oh yes, what a tyrant! god forbid people don’t have to go bankrupt because they get sick in the greatest country ever ever in everdom never mind every other civilized country has universal health care and the sky has not fallen. what exactly has the GOP done for health care except EXPAND the entitlement state w/ Medicare part D? an unpaid for big giveaway to big pharma! oh yes let’s put that party back in charge sure miss the Bush years of terrorist attacks, boneheaded invasions and expansion of government!

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

You are just incoherent. So let me get this straight; you love Herr Obama because he’s giving everyone free health care, but Bush is evil because he expanded the welfare state with Medicare Part D? If heaven forbid you become seriously ill, make sure you flee the evil USA and get on the very first plane to London, Montreal, Havana or Pyongyang for the best care anywhere, right?

Putz.

Rixon on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Wow. Three trolls hit this thread in the first seven minutes.

Is that some kind of record?

farsighted on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

he was a senior lecturer, I believe. Big difference. I doubt he ever mentioned Marbury in any of his classes.

mbs on April 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I read somewhere he was a guest lecturer, but was that grad or undergrad?

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

the hacktivist neocons on the supreme court are not infallible they already dealt 2 major blows to freedom w/ Bush v. Gore and Citizens United if they do it a 3rd time we every right to call them out you pearl-clutchers!

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Let’s revisit the facts, shall we?

Bush v. Gore was decided in 2000.

Chief Justice Roberts took his seat in 2005.

Justice Alito took his seat in 2006.

Therefore, Roberts and Alito had nothing–NOTHING–to do with Bush v. Gore. Got problems? Take it up with Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, along with Sandra Day O’Connor. You can try digging up William Rehnquist, but you won’t have much luck.

But keep choking that Bush v. Gore chicken if you wish.

BuckeyeSam on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Gosh it takes a judge to do what the GOP deliberately fails to do-fight with all you have-the planned takeover of our freedom.

So they send up an unprincipled money man to explain complex economic theory. That’ll sway those women voters back from the Obama candy treasure…groan.

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

oh yes, what a tyrant! god forbid people don’t have to go bankrupt because they get sick in the greatest country ever ever in everdom never mind every other civilized country has universal health care and the sky has not fallen. what exactly has the GOP done for health care except EXPAND the entitlement state w/ Medicare part D? an unpaid for big giveaway to big pharma! oh yes let’s put that party back in charge sure miss the Bush years of terrorist attacks, boneheaded invasions and expansion of government!

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Yo, Fool, listen up. Since you obviously haven’t been paying attention, let me give you a little schoolin’. Actually, their skies have fallen and their economies are collapsing because of their so-called universal health care and entitlement programs. Ever lived in a European country? The health care over there sucks in a really big way.

Also, just how many people do you personally know that have gone bankrupt from catastrophic illness? Really? That many? It makes a good headline, but the reality just isn’t there. If it does happen (rarely) my sympathies go the family, but that goes under the category of “Life is hard, then you die”. No amount of wealth distribution is going to correct that fact of life.

soulmate on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

LOL

This is what democracy in a representative republic looks like.

You run afoul of the Constitution? You go against all public opinion and even members of your own party in a partisan drive to grab power that the nation said NO to? You pass a bill on a strict party line vote in backrooms with slimy deals and payoffs and in the dead of night, all the while knowing the country didn’t want it?

You get SMACKED DOWN.

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Why didn’t Kagan recuse herself…?

“If a judge “has served in governmental employment and, in such capacity, participated as counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy,” she must recuse herself when the case reaches her court (28 U.S.C. 455 (b)(3)).”

… I’ll keep asking until you answer.

Seven Percent Solution on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Kenin, D-Bear, Lib,
Your prattle betrays your ignorance, save your idiot left wing talking points for media matters.

rob verdi on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Beuties to behold. If they are your enemy, you and your families have it made. Just starve them.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

S/b “beauties”.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Like the estrogen filled Zero always says: The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. The redistributive change on the menu is you.

Western_Civ on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Do you keep up on world economic news?

The sky is falling all over the place.

The architect of Canada’s healthcare system has declared it a failure.

The U.K. is moving to privatize portions of their healthcare system too.

Perhaps instead of making the same mistake as Europe/Canada just 50 years later and with no excuses because we’ve already seen it does not work, we could try something else.

Or do you think that we can make nationalized health care work just because we are the….what did you call us….greatest country to ever be anywhere in everdom (or some other nonsense)?

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Thug gangsta on the bench ol DROOPY dog FACE Scalia the activist thug justice is enjoying his celebrity.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Fantastic.
Good for the 5th Circuit, before whom I appeared once as a California attorney. What a breath of fresh air, there, as opposed to our 9th Circuit.

GaltBlvnAtty on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Is there any way the DNC could send us something better than these two?

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

…a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner [vs New York, 1905],” Obama told reporters…

Oh, that’s rich… I can hear Obummer yelling at some hapless aide after the firestorm over his moronic (as AP puts it) comments: “&#%@&%^@! Find me a case I can cite from a long time ago so I can sound like the con-law scholar I am!!!”

KS Rex on April 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Fist

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Probably would have helped the Obamacrats if they actually read the bill they passed, huh?

Oh, well.

Too late now, Obamabots. You bought the cow.

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Wow, 0′s pathetic little trolls seem frustrated. What’s wrong little ones? Going down? You know the order 0care then 0. Dance little trolls.

Bmore on April 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

did Clarence Thomas have anything to say during the hearings? or does he have to get orders from Tea Party lobbyist wife Ginny first?

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM
He was reportedly examining the rim of his carbonated beverage container for stray hairs.

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

So are you. Get anyone to leave a sample yet handsome?

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Second

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Third

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Could there be a leak?

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor hanging out at Restaurant Nora in Washington DC

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/03/26/hhs-secretary-kathleen-sebelius-and-supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-hanging-out-at-restaurant-nora-in-washington-dc/

idesign on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Fourth

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Guessing Obama was going to school in Indonesia and missed this animation on the structure of the US Government:
SchoolHouse Rock Three Ring Government

albill on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I don’t remember the Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase verses in the “I’m Only a Bill” segment of Schoolhouse Rock.

BuckeyeSam on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

The Media Matters trollbots are having a temper tantrum because the two unqualified, social agitators on the court, were totally incapable of defending DeathPanelCare.

mudskipper on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Fifth

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Yes, nothing says belevolent ruler like stealing my children’s money to pay for someone else’s problem.

txhsmom on April 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

ask what your country can do for ME ME ME!!! the greatest country in the world ever ever ever of all time but our poor and jobless can go to hell hey don’t need health care. you guys say you love this country but of course you don’t. you only love those who think like u and have $$$$$$ you really don’t give a damn about this country because you don’t care about the welfare of it’s citizens just what goes into your pockets! i hope your children don’t grow up to be as selfish as u.

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Um, sure. You are aware that over 60% of the country wants this POS law thrown out by the supreme court. But we are to believe that if the court does toss it out these same people are gonna rise up in a crusade against the court. How does it feel to live in dreamland?

JohnInCA on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

PBHO is kind of like a god figure, standing above it all and being godly. And cool. Godly and cool.

Bishop on April 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Also hip. Don’t forget hip.

a capella on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

You obvious missed my comment here on the Thomas confirmation.

And here’s a news piece from that time I just found as I searched for the Grizzard column to see if it’s online:

Tough Week Shows Kennedy’s Damaged Standing

Kennedy, the senior senator from Massachusetts, played just a peripheral role in the debate over Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. And he was lanced by his Senate colleagues, lampooned by columnists from Washington to Miami, lambasted in a nationwide Gallup Poll, lassoed by Palm Beach prosecutors who want him to testify at his nephew’s rape trial, and laughed at in a “Saturday Night Live” skit….

Dave Barry, a Miami Herald humorist (who appears in The Seattle Times), wrote: “It is not easy for a man to sit through three full days of hearings with a paper bag over his head.”

Lewis Grizzard of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said that “what made me the sickest was having to sit there and watch Teddy Kennedy. It was an affront to Clarence Thomas that he was within 500 miles of that room.”

I had remembered Grizzard writing the bag quote. Perhaps he and Barry both did. But I did want you to have more background on the Thomas hearings in addition to the liberal spin.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Remember that idiot woman who did that interview with Katie Couric? She couldn’t even name a Supreme Court decision!

Undefeated!

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Please Kenin! Make effin’ sense. I’m sure you think Tina Fey is Palin. I’m also sure you’re stupid.

DHChron on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Sixth

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Also, just how many people do you personally know that have gone bankrupt from catastrophic illness? Really? That many? It makes a good headline, but the reality just isn’t there. If it does happen (rarely) my sympathies go the family, but that goes under the category of “Life is hard, then you die”. No amount of wealth distribution is going to correct that fact of life.

soulmate on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I do some bankruptcy work and I can tell you that you are dead on. By far the smallest debts on the schedules filed with the US Bankruptcy Court are medical debts. The largest debts are, naturally, mortgages and personal credit card debt. These people are lying when they talk about the thousands who have to file bankruptcy due to medical bills. Pure unadulterated B.S.

totherightofthem on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

The thugs on the bench scare no one.

Scalia is a disgrace who needs to be called out. Listening to his questioning has to be the lowest moment in the history of the political court (formerly known as the supreme court)

He doesn’t even pretend to hide the fact that he is an activist judge hell bent on pushing right wing agenda.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Barry, is that you!? Michelle went shopping again and left you all alone with a computer? Oh…

Typical idiot masquerading as human being. There is a great place for you and the rest of the idiots incapable of their own thought process. Its called Russia. Or Cuba. Or North Korea. Or… All already set up for your simpleton mind: government running things, free medicine for everyone, free education, free everything. All you have to do is move your sorry ass to one of those places, no need to pollute the air we breath here with your mere presence. I’ll buy your ticket. ONE WAY. Just say when.

There is no “right wing political agenda”, its simply called living by the laws our forefathers have established. Anyone not happy with that can find the country of their dreams elsewhere (list above). Better yet, it should be mandatory for you idiots to live in a communist/progressive liberal land for a few years, you will come back in awe of what we have here and kiss the land for accepting you back. Actually, beg us to take you back.

riddick on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Hee Haw justice. Any tornadoes near by?

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Possibly, as I you mentioned your inflatable girlfriend is missing. But she might just be sick of you.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM


The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.

– Robert Bork

itsspideyman on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Seventh

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Fourth

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Dancing lessons!

Bmore on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

A crusade? Just what are you going to try to do? Occupy the Supreme Court?

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Do you keep up on world economic news?

The sky is falling all over the place.

The architect of Canada’s healthcare system has declared it a failure.

The U.K. is moving to privatize portions of their healthcare system too.

Perhaps instead of making the same mistake as Europe/Canada just 50 years later and with no excuses because we’ve already seen it does not work, we could try something else.

Or do you think that we can make nationalized health care work just because we are the….what did you call us….greatest country to ever be anywhere in everdom (or some other nonsense)?

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Problem is, those of the National Socialist Left always think their way Marxism will work This Time..

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I just love this comment, really. Made my day!

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

albill on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

C’mon, who hasn’t learned from that show?

Oh, wait a sec…

BlaxPac on April 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I’m quaking. Does that mean you’ll actually put on some clothes and leave your mommy’s basement and hit the streets in your butterscotch Birkenstocks? It’ll be worth having you off the blog for a few hours.

Western_Civ on April 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Eigth

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Perhaps all these Judges are interested in right now is a good old-fashioned bitch slap of our current arrogant elitist lord and savior.

try again later on April 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Thank you God for liberal4life.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Scalia is a disgrace who needs to be called out. Listening to his questioning has to be the lowest moment in the history of the political court (formerly known as the supreme court)

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Lower than when 3 liberal justices took up arguments for ObamaCare while Verrilli was in the corner breathing into a paper bag?

Because that was awesome!

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Is it really a leak – is there an expectation of privacy in their deliberations? In the end it is all public record isn’t it? That isn’t meant as a statement, I’m asking a real question. Is it really abnormal for the administration to have some clue what’s going on in the deliberations, or is this actually unusual? It’s hard to tell what ‘normal is’ because we have bozos like Obama calling everything unprecedented – when most of the time he’s lying/ignorant.

WashingtonsWake on April 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Ninth

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

At least he wasn’t boffing an intern in the oval orifice. THAT would really be low.

After all the womanizers and walking sexual harassment lawsuits your side has defended ’till you’re blue in the face, none of you have any credibility AT ALL on ANYTHING even remotely resembling calling out “impropriety”.

Oh, and since you obviously missed it, that whole thing with Anita Hill has pretty much been proven to be absolute BS.

Meople on April 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

But keep choking that Bush v. Gore chicken if you wish.

BuckeyeSam on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Any one that uses Bush v Gore as evidence of an activist court is either misinformed or lying anyhow.

A court upheld the election rules put into place by the representatives elected by the people of Florida.

The rules for recounts and deadlines for certification were clear.

Bush v Gore didn’t decide who got to be president it decided whether or not a candidate could push for recount after recount after recount when the legally set certification deadline had already passed. The court’s finding was no. If Florida had a different law allowing for endless recounts, the SCOTUS decision would have been different.

It’s just icing on the cake that ever recount done (including one done by a left-leaning media) never managed to throw the victory to Gore. He lost fair and square and these dreamers want to continue on in a fantasy land where he would have won if there had been just one more recount.

Of course, it’s further icing on the cake that two of the main judges they like to smear with Bush v Gore were not even on the court at the time. The devil’s in the details, I suppose.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

LOL. The riot leaders are busy right now. They’re all in Florida. But, maybe by June…….

a capella on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Scalia is widely regarded as the best writer on the court–and has been for years. Roberts is excellent as well. Alito is very good too.

The problems for liberals is that their four justices aren’t regarded as highly as writers or intellects. Sotomayor, in particular, is a total hack.

BuckeyeSam on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Lets dance little one!

Bmore on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Set up the rape tents!

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Wow. Just wow.

I can’t think of anything comparable to the remarks from the bench, let alone the order to produce a position letter.

I guess some folks were listening when Obama spoke in derogation of the role and authority of the courts. I was thinking that suggesting any ruling against him was unprecedented hackery per se might not be the most diplomatic approach. Call me old-fashioned.

Think he pissed off any of the Supremes?

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I wonder, how many incarcerated American Japanese agree with Liberal4Life?

Limerick on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

ask what your country can do for ME ME ME!!! the greatest country in the world ever ever ever of all time but our poor and jobless can go to hell hey don’t need health care. you guys say you love this country but of course you don’t. you only love those who think like u and have $$$$$$ you really don’t give a damn about this country because you don’t care about the welfare of it’s citizens just what goes into your pockets! i hope your children don’t grow up to be as selfish as u.

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Funny definition of selfish you have there. I mean, seriously, YOU are the one wanting to TAKE money from all of your fellow citizens for every utopian scheme you can dream of and then you call the people you are taking from selfish if they object.

Hey bonehead, give me $1000. Seriously, my kid needs braces. What? You won’t give it to me. Why are you so selfish?

JohnInCA on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

As much as I love the administration being called on their moronicity, I am having a really difficult time appreciating a court behaving in this way. I suppose, you could argue it’s payback for his humiliation of the USSC in his state of the union a couple of years ago, but, I don’t know, it just seems… wrong to me.

WashingtonsWake on April 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

This is what happens when the Liberal agenda is never questioned by the press, never shown the light of day, it only survives in the echo chambers of academia, and the Democrat halls of power behind closed doors…

… And when their legislation is seriously questioned as to it’s legality and merit, they have no argument other than they “want it” to be so based on their ideology, not the laws that govern this Country or the Constitution that limits their power.

Just listen to Obowma, the Left, and our resident trolls…

… They don’t know how to handle the possibility that will not be able to do what they want.

The Horror… The Horror…

Seven Percent Solution on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Tenth

I can’t stop laughing.

Oh, dear Lord, your garden is a big one, and you sure created some stupid folks. If you are benevolent, you must say to yourself “my experiment sure went sour”. If you are malevolent you simply can’t stop entertaining yourself.

Heh, l4l, thank you so much. I really appreciate you.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Note this post. I believe it is the first time it has uttered more than a two sentence comment. Something must be happening to cause that.

DanMan on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

You are just incoherent. So let me get this straight; you love Herr Obama because he’s giving everyone free health care, but Bush is evil because he expanded the welfare state with Medicare Part D?

Rixon on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

at least Obama is trying to PAY FOR IT instead of putting it on the chinese credit card like Bush then oh hell he also said let’s have a massive tax cut to go with it! that won’t add to the deficit or anything! why do you all have amnesia of the Bush years!?!?

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Seventh

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Is this some kind of Satanic ritual? I mean, that’s what it sounds like, with you repeating the same angry sounding gibberish over and over.

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Fox’s Special Report is leading with this.

BuckeyeSam on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Dance poor little bear! Dance!

Bmore on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

The thugs on the bench scare no one.

That’s why you’re here waving your arms around in a panic, threatening everyone while spewing a stream if unintelligible nonsense at invisible boogeymen that live in your mind.

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

If they dare strike down this law a crusade of enormous proportion will be put up against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

oops! you proved me right. Activist courts create law…the Supreme Court strikes down unconstitutional laws. Too bad Obama Hussein is an idiot.

DHChron on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Problem is, those of the National Socialist Left always think their way Marxism will work This Time..

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. Thomas Jefferson

Chip on April 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Exactly! That’s why most of these guys think TARP didn’t work – we just didn’t throw quite enough money at it.

Of course, no matter how much is thrown at it, it will never be quite enough until it does work.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Fox News addressing it on Special Report now.

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

There is a positive side to President 10-289 having taught law classes:

I doubt any of his students ever passed the bar exam.

MichaelGabriel on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

i hope your children don’t grow up to be as selfish as u.
DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Quit whining and get a job deadbeat. Giving away someone elses money isn’t compassion.

tommyboy on April 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I read somewhere he was a guest lecturer, but was that grad or undergrad?

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I understood he started as a guest lecturer and eventually advanced to senior lecturer. This article gives a pretty good idea of his ideology, although being the NYT, they present it as a positive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

mbs on April 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM

every other civilized country has universal health care and the sky has not fallen.

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Actually their economies are in ruins and now they have started to privatize as Jade pointed out above.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

The people here have a long history of being disgusted with Bush’s spending.

The reason it doesn’t get mentioned much any more is that 3 years of Obama managed to make Bush look like a spendthrift.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM

against the activist political court.

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

It’s always so cute to see you leftistas discover new words and then watch you mis-use them in a sentence.

kbTexan on April 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6