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 5 6

It’s about time someone called on the Chicago Thug in Chief, although indirectly, to think before he speaks. I just heard him say the “Burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.” That, if I could be so bold is bulls**t. It’s up to the people who write the laws not to blurr the lines between what is and isn’t constitutional. I firmly believe the Democrats knew this would be challenged which is why they removed the severability clause daring the court to overturn the whole thing. If anyone believes they were responsible in doing that, well………….

bflat879 on April 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

mbs on April 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Thank you for posting that!

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

at least Obama is trying to PAY FOR IT

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

HAHAHAHAHA!

That’s pretty good – ever think about doing standup?

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

Chip on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 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

Crusade. Enourmous. Proportions. Big words. How did you type them while standing in line at Payday Loans while holding Starbucks latte bought with food stamps? Did other crusaders help out?

riddick on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

“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.

Should have stopped talking right there. However, he can’t help himself.

“But…..”

BobMbx on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

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.

AP, unfortunately your friend is wrong. Obama is supposed to do both, but hardly ever does. He focuses almost exclusively on the former.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

i hope your children don’t grow up to be as selfish as u.

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Whether they grow up selfish or generous, one thing is for darned sure, my kids will not mistakenly think that stealing other people’s money and passing it out makes them at all generous.

You can be generous with your own money.

There is no way to be generous with the money of another.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 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

Since when do Obamacrats care about deficits? Obama has quadrupled Bush’s deficits to their highest levels in history – by a ridiculous margin that even Bush wasn’t stupid enough to do.

And here’s something else, smarty pants:

WE DON’T WANT TO PAY FOR IT BECAUSE WE DIDN’T WANT TO BUY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE’RE RETURNING IT TO THE VENDOR WITH PREJUDICE.

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 6:05 PM

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.

Yes, he is in charge of the DOJ. Words have consequences.

He spoke stupidly.

novaculus on April 3, 2012 at 6:05 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

What kind of crusade? One where one goes armed? Are you threatening people?

ladyingray on April 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM

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.

Smack!

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

Yeah, he/she is usually just like a leftist talking point fortune cookie.

peski on April 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM

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

Shhhh, I’ll let you in on the secret…it’s anti-Satanic.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 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

Try holding your breath. You’ll get more of a reaction that way.

BobMbx on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

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

Did you intend to say miser? Zero has outspent all previous administrations.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 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

Obama’s run up more debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8, you party-line bleating moron.

ObamaCare costs are already exploding and are projected to be UNFUNDED by $19 TRILLION- which will do nothing but grow.

But enjoy whatever planet you live on.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 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

Supreme Court deliberations are confidential, and the judges’ law clerks have to take oaths to keep anything they hear or learn about the deliberations a secret. Deliberations are not public record. I don’t know if leaks are normal, though.

mbs on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

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.

uh, yeah – isn’t that one of the main arguments against Ocare? It takes a noncommercial lack of action and claims it is commerce to be regulated?

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

If the SCOTUS overturns ObamaCare the petulant boy king will stamp his feet…and call a press confernce.

d1carter on April 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Obama can’t write! I’ll school him…bring it on you socialist sh!t!

Bill Ayers can write. Specifically he can write Barack’s memoirs.

DHChron on April 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

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.

AP, I know you have an answer from a friend, but I’d also love to see the transcript of the argument in this case. News organizations rarely report accurately on what transpires during an oral argument, often butchering the exact interplay between the judges and counsel. And Jerry Smith is no hack; he’s a reputable judge.

BTW, the name of the case is Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary.

Erich66 on April 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

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.

Exactly what makes this lunacy so laughably transparent.

He’s a friggin’ fraud who beleives that the entire electorate is as stupid and easily fooled as his lemming followers.

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

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.

A. I’d be surprised if the DOJ responded.

B. I’d be surprised if this court ignored being ignored.

Akzed on April 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

BRETT BAER MAULS CARNEY ON FOX RIGHT NOW

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Whether they grow up selfish or generous, one thing is for darned sure, my kids will not mistakenly think that stealing other people’s money and passing it out makes them at all generous.

You can be generous with your own money.

There is no way to be generous with the money of another.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Well said!

mbs on April 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

It’s the kind of antics you’d expect from a banana republic.

bayam on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

.
Thank you, PresentDunce Øblama!

ExpressoBold on April 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

What if Holder doesn’t comply with the judge’s demand..?

d1carter on April 3, 2012 at 6:09 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

AP, so it’s okay to call a Supreme Court Justice a name based on an objective opinion on his personal appearance but anyone who dares to make a comment about MO gets banned?

I really enjoy your snark, but c’mon, man, have some intellectual integrity.

ladyingray on April 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

MichaelGabriel on April 3, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I really appreciate the optimist’s take. Good stuff.

DanMan on April 3, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Anticonstitutional. The man knows no deference to either Congress, nor the Judiciary. He sold his fellow Democrats down the river to get this thing, now he’ll sell the court down the river to do the same. His career has been built on the backs of people he’s thrown under the bus. He’s a thug, a thief, and needs limits.

that’s the truth.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 6:10 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

and why did we need some form of stimulus? it wasn’t like the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took over was it? who was president when the crash happened? must be that amnesia again. i can’t argue with 20 different intellectually dishonest people all at once so y’all have a good one

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

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

Shhhh, I’ll let you in on the secret…it’s anti-Satanic.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

If you say so. Sounded pretty creepy to me.

So that smell on L4L… is that part of the ritual too?

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

It’s the kind of antics you’d expect from a banana republic.

bayam on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

You summed up Obama to utter perfection!!! Kudos

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Whether they grow up selfish or generous, one thing is for darned sure, my kids will not mistakenly think that stealing other people’s money and passing it out makes them at all generous.

You can be generous with your own money.

There is no way to be generous with the money of another.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Well done.

Kataklysmic on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Jay Carney is hyperventilating on live TV…

d1carter on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 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 hope so. Nothing would be better than to watch a bunch of ineffectual liberals go on record that they don’t belive in the constitution or the concept of checks and balances between the branches of government.

But please do define for us outside the context of this case, what is judicial “activism”? “Not doing what I want” doesn’t count.

Scrappy on April 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

So that smell on L4L… is that part of the ritual too?

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

It reeks, doesn’t it?

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

THE ONE must not be questioned minions.

pitiful little judges.

filthy old Constitution.

Did we mention it was written by SLAVE OWNERS?

Evolve past that old 18th century rag.

–Progressives

PappyD61 on April 3, 2012 at 6:12 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

I won’t breath a sigh of relief until the ones who rammed this horrible bill down our throats – Obama and his minions – are run out of office and out of power.

Sterling Holobyte on April 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Jay Carney has lost it.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The president went “too far” Baier says to Carney. Carney threw Ruth under the bus. Ruth Marcus that is.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

and why did we need some form of stimulus? it wasn’t like the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month when Obama took over was it? who was president when the crash happened? must be that amnesia again. i can’t argue with 20 different intellectually dishonest people all at once so y’all have a good one

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Being President when something happens doesn’t mean you were the cause of it, you simplistic turd.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

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

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

Sometimes you can only conclude that they are simply insane.

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

Chip on April 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Carney waffles on DOJ’s homework assignment.

Jay, my boy, ya’ll are in deep shizzat.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

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…”

Heh. Obama has finally done exactly what he promised — bringing together the warring factions in American politics to a clear point of agreement, as well as answering the unanswerable, age-old political question

“Are you an idiot or a liar?”

In a bold stroke — dare I say genius? — Obama has solved it. He is both an idiot and a liar.

Jaibones on April 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I won’t breath a sigh of relief until the ones who rammed this horrible bill down our throats – Obama and his minions – are run out of office and out of power.

Sterling Holobyte on April 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

…until Nancy Pelosi flies away on her hammer, in the light blue dress she had on when the bill was rammed down the throat of the good U.S. producers. Bye Nancy.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

The president went “too far” Baier says to Carney. Carney threw Ruth under the bus. Ruth Marcus that is.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Sorry I cant watch! Sounds awesome. I gotta get some more popcorn.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Carney kept looking to his left of the camera.

Was Jarrett or Axelrod mouthing “abort, abort now”

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Anticonstitutional. The man knows no deference to either Congress, nor the Judiciary. He sold his fellow Democrats down the river to get this thing, now he’ll sell the court down the river to do the same. His career has been built on the backs of people he’s thrown under the bus. He’s a thug, a thief, and needs limits.

that’s the truth.

ted c on April 3, 2012 at 6:10 PM

++

GaltBlvnAtty on April 3, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Independents, think for just once.

This is what charlatanic purposeful chaos looks like.

YOU, and a few dunces on the right, like Noonan and Althouse, plus a few more who stayed home, brought this circus to town, and to the world, for utter and irreversible shame.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:16 PM

It’s the kind of antics you’d expect from a banana republic.

bayam on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Day Oh! Da-ay Oh….
Supreme Court come
and we wan’ go home..

BobMbx on April 3, 2012 at 6:16 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

:sigh:

Bush – $5T new debt – 8 years

Obama – $5T new debt – 3 years and change

Care to revisit that statement?

Besides, the easiest way to not have to pay for something is to not take on the obligation.

JeffWeimer on April 3, 2012 at 6:17 PM

“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.

Should have stopped talking right there. However, he can’t help himself.

“But…..”

BobMbx on April 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Yeah, I was watching that too, and waiting for the “but”. And with Obama, it’s a big one.

No, that is not a racist jab. And yes, I am calling him an ass. A big one.

Sterling Holobyte on April 3, 2012 at 6:17 PM

ladyingray on April 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Should be “subjective” opinion…

*facepalm

ladyingray on April 3, 2012 at 6:17 PM

A malicious out of control manipulator is president of the U.S.A., for so much shame.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Wow. Jay Carney just made a complete fool of himself under questioning by Brett Baer.

UltimateBob on April 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

i can’t argue with 20 different intellectually dishonest people all at once so y’all have a good one

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I’m sorry to hear about all those voices in your head. Too bad they are all intellectually dishonest liberal same difference intellectually dishonest.

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 6:18 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

What is it with trolls and erratic CAPITALIZATION of RANDOM words?

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Being President when something happens doesn’t mean you were the cause of it, you simplistic turd.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Obama certainly knows that. How much stuff has he “inherited”?

JeffWeimer on April 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

The schadenfreude at the pain of the trolls has no limits.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Wow. Jay Carney just made a complete fool of himself under questioning by Brett Baer.

UltimateBob on April 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Imagine having to defend this crap on a daily basis.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

:sigh:

Bush – $5T new debt – 8 years

Obama – $5T new debt – 3 years and change

Care to revisit that statement?

Besides, the easiest way to not have to pay for something is to not take on the obligation.

JeffWeimer on April 3, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Economic reality and liberals – like oil and water.

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

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

No, Obama makes bush look like a tightwad. Between Moochelle’s rampant spending (jets, etc.) and O’s profligate snatching of US money, we’ll be lucky if we have enough cash left to buy gas. Whoops…guess that won’t happen either, the way gas prices are skyrocketing. Thanks, Odimbo, for ruining our country….

chai on April 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

When I was a legal assistant, I sat in on a trial in federal court where one of the attorneys kept telling the judge he would be quick and “concise.” He droned on and on, and eventually the judge told him to go home, look up the definition of “concise” in the dictionary, and write it out 100 times.

This is even better.

toby11 on April 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

If jay carney spun obama’s remarks any harder he would have screwed himself into the gtound

2012chuck on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 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

What is it with trolls and erratic CAPITALIZATION of RANDOM words?

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

That’s probably the LSD talking.

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 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

You guys all know there’s no ruling yet, right?

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Poor little bear, not a good dancer?

Bmore on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

It’s called BALLS…foreign to RINOS

winston on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I think the legal term for what just happened to Obama is that he got
“b@tch slapped”…

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Activist justices, thuggery from the bench is not okay, and it is good that the President put them on the spot. These clowns have had a free ride for far too long.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The schadenfreude at the pain of the trolls has no limits.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

And it was nice to wake up from a nap and enjoy while having coffee. Well done!

Bmore on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Did you intend to say miser? Zero has outspent all previous administrations.

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Indeed. I was going to say penny pincher but changed it to spend thrift at the last second. I should have stuck with my original wording.

Of course, both Bush and Obama are profligate spenders.

It’s just sad that 3 years of Obama’s spending have already outpaced 8 years of Bush’s spending.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

at least Obama is trying to PAY FOR IT
 
DBear on April 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

 
Link please.

rogerb on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

You guys all know there’s no ruling yet, right?

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Yep – Winston Wolf rule in full effect.

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Activist justices, thuggery from the bench is not okay, and it is good that the President put them on the spot. These clowns have had a free ride for far too long.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

LOL….oh, I so hope this is a joke. You’re joking, right? lol

bridgetown on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

You guys all know there’s no ruling yet, right?

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

No, there has been a ruling, it happened last Friday. The justices voted, and now they have to write up their arguments. It’s just that they have not been formally presented.

right2bright on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

The schadenfreude at the pain of the trolls has no limits.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Yeah their hair is on fire…. lol

dogsoldier on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

His Skittles make him jumpy and the hoodie hides the Caps lock?

Odie1941 on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

When are we going to get the update with the Baier-Carney clip?

ladyingray on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 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 am still waiting for your agile legal mind to explain the reason that the law should be upheld as is.

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Reading Levin’s Ameritopia.

He quotes Locke and Montesquieu copiously setting forth the philosophical basis for the Constitution, vs. the utopian/Marxist view of man and govt.

I had read Locke, but not much of Montesquieu.

Both were prophets.

It’s as if they had a joint nightmare about the modern Democrap Party and Obooba, and wrote to warn posterity how to avoid the same nightmare.

Akzed on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Activist justices, thuggery from the bench is not okay, and it is good that the President put them on the spot. These clowns have had a free ride for far too long.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Liberal speak: a job = free ride

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

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.

When Congress has likewise exercised significant restraint; otherwise, the Court acts like they did in these cases:

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)

United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)

Resist We Much on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

lol…indeed! And it just tickles the hell out of me.

Tim_CA on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

but that’s only because most litigants aren’t dumb enough to make statements outside the courtroom likely to impact their cases.

Except for one ‘brilliant’ constitutional law scholar.

LASue on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

chai on April 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Yeah – I got my spending slang mixed up. Both spent ridiculous amounts of money, but, Obama has turned it into an art form. I don’t know if it’s funny or sad when I see Obama supporters in here talking about how Obama is better with money than Bush and is trying to pay for his special programs.

Perhaps it’s funny because it’s sad.

JadeNYU on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Jay Carney looked like a deer in headlights after running 10 miles…

d1carter on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

The schadenfreude at the pain of the trolls has no limits.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

And it was nice to wake up from a nap and enjoy while having coffee. Well done!

Bmore on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

schadenfreude at the pain of the trolls

This will be my new sock at Ace of Spades – thanks!

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

This president has no clue about governing because he has been in full campaign mode since he took his oath of office. Protocol,schmotocol….we ain’t got no stinkin’ rules!

The One!

tomshup on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I am still waiting for your agile legal mind to explain the reason that the law should be upheld as is. NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

The “Good and Plenty Clause.”

Akzed on April 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

So that smell on L4L… is that part of the ritual too?

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

It reeks, doesn’t it?

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Well, to put it more diplomatically, it, um, it’s rather… unique.

Question for the leftists here. If every conservative agreed to surrender to the loving embrace of socialist tyranny, would you be willing to bathe more than once a week in exchange?

Now before the rest of you call me a RINO and a sell-out, notice I said more than once. Don’t tell me you aren’t tempted as well.

RINO in Name Only on April 3, 2012 at 6:25 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

.
ØBlama called for “Hope & Change” during his election campaign in 2008. Now, when he is getting what he calls for, he and his loyal supporters are freaking out like they are surprised! I cannot tell you great this is!
.
The day you can successfully call anybody out, especially if it is a government official, elected representative, or judge is the day this country descends into the state beneath pure democracy. Your “call outs” are complete BS but I think you know you are just talking through your bunghole. I know you are and you are laff-uh-bull!

ExpressoBold on April 3, 2012 at 6:25 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

Would that be the crusade of the 70% of the American people that hate this law that was crammed down their throats versus the 30% of socialists that love it? That crusade you mean? Fine, and I think Texas is a fine place to start.

TxAnn56 on April 3, 2012 at 6:25 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

How is taking care of my children selfish? Should I just give them over to the state? How I spend my money is none of your business! When the govt steals my money, it steals from the poor and underemployed I give help to and hire to work for me. And, it steals money from my family. You know, the ones I need to take care of first. We the people can and do help far more people than the 200 new bureaucracies created under Obamacare will ever do. In fact, we will continue to help them despite the govt’s stranglehold on our lives and money.

txhsmom on April 3, 2012 at 6:25 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

???

Is this a joke?

darwin on April 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Activist justices, thuggery from the bench is not okay,

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Go research Griswald v. Connecticut and tell me the difference between this case and that one.

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Imagine having to defend this crap on a daily basis.

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Oh, I’m sure he’s compensated handsomely. How much does the President’s press secretary make?

Still, I’m sure he goes home every night after work and throws back a couple of strong ones.

UltimateBob on April 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Activist justices, thuggery from the bench is not okay, and it is good that the President put them on the spot. These clowns have had a free ride for far too long.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

You mean justices that cite foreign law not enacted in this country to overturn US laws?

Yeah, those clowns are getting shellacked this time. Serves them right.

Good Lt on April 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Presidential smack down! Me likey.

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6