Holder sends letter to Fifth Circuit: Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional, you know

posted at 4:40 pm on April 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

They asked for three pages single-spaced. He gave them two and a half. Impeach.

Seriously, though, given the immense interest in this story when it broke Tuesday, there was no way O wasn’t going to use the letter as an opportunity to plead his constitutional case on ObamaCare. The court wanted a statement of the DOJ’s position on judicial review but Holder naturally gave them a little more than that. First, the obligatory — and slightly peevish — acknowledgment that, yes, Marbury v. Madison is still good law:

The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation…

The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

Translation: The court should stop wasting time by demanding answers to questions that no one is asking, including the president. So much for judicial review. Then comes this part, which is aimed squarely at the Supreme Court and Anthony Kennedy:

In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Com1 has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S . 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-22i, 346 U.S. at 449.

In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15.

It goes on from there. Remember Kennedy’s question to Verrilli on day two of oral arguments about the government’s “heavy burden of justification”? Holder’s arguing here that Kennedy has it backwards, that in fact the heavy burden is on the states to show that the statute somehow exceeds Congress’s authority under Article I. That’ll be a key dispute as the Court debates this behind closed doors, I’d bet. Should Kennedy presume that the statute is constitutional in deference to Congress or, per his now-famous point about the mandate fundamentally changing the relationship between the feds and citizens, should he take a more wary view? As is often true in law, where you start your analysis may determine where you end up. Although even if he follows Holder’s lead and resolves to err on the side of deference to Congress, it’s hard to see how a judge can uphold a law which he believes alters the constitutional order. That was my point in this post last week. If you want to tweak the “fundamentals” of the relationship between Washington and the public, logically your only remedy is Article V.

Here’s Carney from today’s press briefing, now in his third day of trying to explain how a constitutional law professor could tell the country on Monday that striking down the mandate would be “unprecedented.” He can’t admit the real reason so this will have to do.


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

Slightly OT:

Leak At Department Of Justice Pulls White House Deeper Into Fast And Furious
http://www.westernjournalism.com/leak-at-department-of-justice-pulls-white-house-deeper-into-fast-and-furious/

Galt2009 on April 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I’m forced to assume at this point that Obama wants the law tossed out. There’s really nothing else to be gained from his years-long campaign to antagonize the Supreme Court in such a petty fashion.

KingGold on April 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Holder’s response will not please the court. They are way out on thin ice. Trying to school a judge? Dumb dumb dumb dumb.

dogsoldier on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

I’d rather presume that our political betters are in a constant state of corruption and pursuit of power. Makes it much simpler that way.

nukemhill on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Holder’s arguing here that Kennedy has it backwards, that in fact the heavy burden is on the states to show that the statute somehow exceeds Congress’s authority under Article I. That’ll be a key dispute as the Court debates this behind closed doors, I’d bet

A legitimate legal argument can be made by both sides. At the end of the day, it will come down to the ruling of one justice- Anthony Kennedy.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Does that include Partial Birth Abortion amendment?

rbj on April 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

What law are they making? Please enlighten us. It’s their job to review and decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Even Zero got the memo on that.

dogsoldier on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

*snicker*

Are you typing with one hand because you’ve crossed your fingers on the other one while you write this?

You’re pretty amusing, for a 10 year old.

nukemhill on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

They are clowns!

KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I am just not watching Carney again. I watched him yesterday, and while I know it’s his job, I’ve gotta say, I get a real…I’m gonna say it…Nazi vibe from him. He so easily mouths the lies, sneers with such contempt at the media people who refuse to believe — and distribute — his lies. He knows they’re lies. They know they’re lies. And yet he stands up there and mocks them for questioning the lies. Every time I see him, I am reminded that he was once a “journalist,” and I shudder. I know they’re all lefties, but this one is a particularly bad apple, a really, really unpleasant fellow whom I do believe would say — and do — anything to further the regime. Not a nice man. Not a nice man at all.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Holder is a disgrace to the legal profession. Obama “knows” the law says Carney. Being in the classroom is “knowing” what he was taught. Practicing what you are taught in a court of law is knowing the law. These elitest loons are alright in the classroom, but in real life they have no concept of how to apply it in reality..

volsense on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Here’s Carney from today’s press briefing, now in his third day of trying to explain how a constitutional law professor could tell the country on Monday that striking down the mandate would be “unprecedented.”

Allah, wouldn’t it be so schadenfreude-O-licious if Captain Unprecedented went down on a strikedown that they declared unprecedented??

ted c on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I thought that, according to Obamuh, and the rest of his apparatchiks, the Constitution was presumed to be racist – and, of course – misogynistic.

THERE is your presumption.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 5, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Well then, when Republicans regain power, let’s have them pass a law requiring everyone to possess a firearm because personal safety is everyone’s responsibility. Let’s see how fast the Left screams “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Obie: because if the SCOTUS declares Obiecare unconstitutional, it will suck for me…now, where’s my bottle and blankie…

Ltlgeneral64 on April 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

So respect for the Constitution has no bearing on these justices’(well, aside from the 4 liberals we know are in the tank for Obama) decision? Because if the Commerce Clause argument is such a slamdunk, then why did Obama’s lawyer screw up so badly last week in attempting to defend it?

Doughboy on April 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM

maybe somebody should inform Holder that the constitution as we knew it became obsolete in Jan 2009, over-ridden by some “expert”.

Obamatuer is not helping his cause much. Unlike kangaroo courts at the state/local levels, federal judges can be a rather arrogant bunch and don’t much appreciate sniper shots (they don’t get mad, they get even).

teejk on April 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Only two and a third pages, too. A certain federal attorney is looking at some serious time in the corner. :-P

M. Scott Eiland on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

He didn’t say what he said, although I admit that he said it and it’s on tape.

You mere mortals are too slow and stupid to understand his brilliant, supercomputeresque analysis even though the full quote (in complete context) says otherwise.

Glad I’m not stupid like you guys.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Well then, when Republicans regain power, let’s have them pass a law requiring everyone to possess a firearm because personal safety is everyone’s responsibility. Let’s see how fast the Left screams “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 4:50 PM

So, you’d be OK with my idea?

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

What color of crayon did Eric use to write this letter?

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Well, Eric, even if the court presumed a priori that the law was Constitutional, then applied the standard and it failed to meet it, then of course they should throw it out, right?

ted c on April 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I am just not watching Carney again. I watched him yesterday, and while I know it’s his job, I’ve gotta say, I get a real…I’m gonna say it…Nazi vibe from him. He so easily mouths the lies, sneers with such contempt at the media people who refuse to believe — and distribute — his lies. He knows they’re lies. They know they’re lies. And yet he stands up there and mocks them for questioning the lies. Every time I see him, I am reminded that he was once a “journalist,” and I shudder. I know they’re all lefties, but this one is a particularly bad apple, a really, really unpleasant fellow whom I do believe would say — and do — anything to further the regime. Not a nice man. Not a nice man at all.

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

How do you think he got the job?

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

The judicial branch does not make laws, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Sounds like they found some real lawyers to put together a relatively well-written response. Quite a difference between that and what spews forth from President Jackass McDowngrade.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I also used to presume that the DOJ stood up for “Justice“……

so much for presumptions, Eric.

ted c on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

What on earth are you talking about??

tommer74 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You know, if, for some bizarre reason, the court DOES decide to vote in favor of keeping all or part of Obamacare, things are going to get ridiculous up in here.

Book on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

The Court should assume nothing, and judge the evidence and argument objectively according to the Constitution and judicial precedent.And as for precedent, the doctrine of stare decisis while strong is not all powerful.

xkaydet65 on April 5, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Ask Arizona if obama presumes laws are constitutional.

Ronnie on April 5, 2012 at 4:55 PM

In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional

If it’s not in the scope of the limited powers of the law makers, how do you show that it’s “clearly unconstitutional”? It must first be within the scope of the limited powers of the law makers before anything else about it should even be considered.

Once again, they are depending on getting away with the begging the question fallacy to win their argument when it actually negates their entire argument.

Buddahpundit on April 5, 2012 at 4:55 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

ROTFLMAO.

Damned judges adjudicating from the bench – it’s treason!!

Your Assignment @sshat – a 3-page single paced essay on judicial activism…..take your time.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Tell holder to pound sand

cmsinaz on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Holder sends letter to Fifth Circuit: Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional, you know

The LAMENESS is strong with Holder.

When 28 states SUE over this POS bill, that was passed purely on partisan lines NO the courts are not supposed to presume that the law is constitutional. Otherwise we don’t need the third branch it’s just sorta in their job description.

Twenty-eight of these United States — encompassing 164 million people, 53 percent of America’s population, and 285 Electoral College votes

Eric Holder: this is how I make friends, and influence people in an election year – I embarrass myself making indefensible statement’s about the Highest Court in the Land.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

What we have here is the most hyper-partisan power grab in history. Total disregard for the will of the American people and purely making laws for totalitarian control.

John the Libertarian on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Holder is a disgrace to the legal profession humanity.

volsense on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

he says as he clicks his heels together then he sinks into his chair exasperated after nothing happens.

MechanicalBill on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

The judicial branch does not make laws, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Holder is a disgrace to the legal profession. Obama “knows” the law says Carney…
 
volsense on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

 
I’m guessing he knows the law like he “knows” the Bible. Brother’s keeper and all that.

rogerb on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I would argue that SCOTUS has no obligation to presume that a law is constitutional where Congress–by the Speaker’s own admission–passed the law without even reading it.

The presumption should indeed apply where Congress acts responsibly, and duly considers the law at issue.

In this case, however, Congress behaved like a gang of junkies trying to send a rocket ship to the moon to check out a rumor that the craters were filled with heroin.

SCOTUS should defer accordingly–i.e., not at all.

HeatSeeker2011 on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

I agree with you…ObamaCare was purely making a law based on ideology, and had no constitutional bearing. It has been upheld by lower courts on pure political ideology and not law.
Finally we agree on something, I knew you would finally understand, and support the constitution…btw, didn’t the ninth circuit overturn a certain proposition in California? That must have made you irate.

right2bright on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

There is a prior example of first class judicial activism: Roe v. Wade, whic not only struck down every state’s abortion law, but wrote a new law based on “trimesters.”

Wethal on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

There are times in life when you can go balls to the wall to defend your point of view. But there are also times when somebody else holds all the cards and it’s in your best interest to be polite and show deference. Obama has apparently not learned how to differentiate the two.

Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Like when they wrote new abortion laws for the country.

Wethal on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The judicial branch does not make laws, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

LMFAO!!

Oh do please explain!

I’m dying to know how striking down an unconstitional mandate equates to “making a law”.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The judicial branch does not make laws, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM
They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

OMG!!!! LMAO!!!

That’s not making law.

(Shaking my head in complete amazement)

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

ummmmm, that is not “making” that is overturning…you should get your money back for your G.E.D.

right2bright on April 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Except Texas and South Carolina laws.

SouthernGent on April 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I guess that makes sense.

Since, to a liberal, a decision to not engage in commerce is engaging in commerce, I guess that a decision to not allow legislation on the books is legislating.

Please, tell me this. What legislation is the SCOTUS going to ‘make’ by ‘striking down the healthcare law’?

Scott H on April 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

WHOA ! Passive agression on parade !
Holder’s Exhibit A.

pambi on April 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

well, it does concern statements by your boss, Eric, whose law happens to be subject to judicial review. The court can ask for clarification from another branch of government via proxy (that means you), right?

ted c on April 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

How does striking down a law(or part of a law) create a new law?

Doughboy on April 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

….you like to be repetitive…something taught at canine school?
When voters go to the polls to voice their pleasures on marriage, marijuana, death penalty and other issues that the legislative branch makes law… and then they are reversed by the judicial system…is your head face first in a load that’s in your diaper, or is it ‘ideology’ that gives one snots for brains?

KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Please, tell me this. What legislation is the SCOTUS going to ‘make’ by ‘striking down the healthcare law’?

Scott H on April 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

there’s a money question, I can’t wait for the answer. Don’t hurt yourself L4L…

ted c on April 5, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Please, tell me this. What legislation is the SCOTUS going to ‘make’ by ‘striking down the healthcare law’?

Scott H on April 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

The l4l response to this (if there even is one) will be something like this: THEY ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE POOR IN THE STREET TO DIE!!!!

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

ted c: Something I’ve learned here is that if you want to deal with trolls, you must be specific.

Scott H on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Where did Obama find this High School kid to be his Press Secretary? Pretty good gig for a dork.

Hummer53 on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

But..uh…I mean…you know…it’s ridiculous…

What did he mean? Only Anthony Kennedy knows for sure!

Steve Z on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

You really should consult your Lib HotAir Legal correspondent crr6 before making such a stupid statement. Even crr6 wouldn’t think that.

portlandon on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Do you think you could pass a civics test?

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Obama is a petulant child, and the product of his mediocrity being treated as brilliance. He simply can’t fathom how these peons and uppity peasants could oppose him.

SilverDeth on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Don’t understand why Baracky and Eric have their Pooh-Bear panties in a bunch. I just read the other day if the Supremes deem the mandate unconstitutional it’s a victory for Obama.

They must be rethinking that whopper.

fogw on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Do you think you could pass a civics test?

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 5:05 PM

What does my Honda have to do with it?

/libtard

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Dr Evil: To be fair, I doubt that most students enrolled in a civics class in this country could pass a civics test. Liberal4life would hardly be alone there.

Scott H on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Are you some kind of bot that the Mods here at Hot Air use to generate traffic? I find you impossibly stupid.

SilverDeth on April 5, 2012 at 5:08 PM

You just don’t look that smart right now friend.
 
libfreeordie on February 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM

rogerb on April 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I guess that when someone is considering something that Obama, Holder, or their minions did, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. When someone has done something that they do not like, then the presumption is guilty until proven innocent.

sabbahillel on April 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.”

Yes, but like all legal presumptions, it’s rebuttable. And the challengers to the Obamacare law did a very persuasive and excellent job of rebutting the presumption during oral arguments, which is why the government’s lawyer was stumbling and fumbling and stuttering and had to be coached in several of his answers by the Obama stooges. . . er, justices (Kagan and Sotomayor).

The Obama administration clearly lost the oral arguments. We don’t know yet if they’ve lost the case, but it was clear to everybody — even the liberal legal commentators like Jeff Toobin — that they lost the oral arguments, and in a rather spectacular fashion. Obama knows it, we know it, and the general public knows it. And that’s why Obama and his minions are pissed.

AZCoyote on April 5, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Translation…..when it’s our legislation, they should not overturn. When it’s EVil republican legislation, well, no way that could be constitutional. A tool of the highest order.

msupertas on April 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Obama should have had that judge arrested and brought before him oh wait oops that was Newt Gingrich that called for that! the party of liberty!

DBear on April 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

This might provide a good opportunity to construct a step-by-step list of what must be considered by scotus in determining the constitutionality of a law. This ends their little non sequitur games.

Step 1. Is the law within the scope of the limited powers of the lawmakers? If so, move to step 2. If not, the law is overturned.

Step 2. Does the law abide by the constitutional rights of all US citizens? If so, move to step 3. If not, the law is overturned.

…and so on.

Buddahpundit on April 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

What color of crayon did Eric use to write this letter?

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

LOL!!!!

Thread winner!

UltimateBob on April 5, 2012 at 5:13 PM

What color of crayon did Eric use to write this letter?

NoDonkey on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

…he may only be ‘aware’ of this letter…just like he wasn’t aware of the emails during Fast & Furious. He may have “been told about it”!
Eric doesn’t read 2 or 5 page briefs…he always testifies he “is aware of it”… or “aware of a problem”….so I can’t see him even using crayon to do something himself.

KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Paul Clement, nicknamed the “Labron James of Law’ argued for the states in last weeks Obamacare hearings. As we know, he mopped the floor with the SG.

He’ll be representing AZ next week when SB 1070 goes to oral arugments at the SCOTUS.

DrW on April 5, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I disagree with any type of “presumption” since it weakens the safeguard that the balance of powers is intended to provide.

Also, didn’t that sentence seem to read like an admission that this administration banks on good intentions being presumed? I actually think that sums up the entire schtick of this corrupt administration.

If Congress were conducting proper oversight of the Exec branch, Obama would have already been declared an enemy of the US. I don’t think you could come up with a better example if you tried. The only thing he’s missing is a bomb strapped around his waist. But who knows, maybe he has one. Maybe we saw the fuse pop out with Monday’s hostile statement.

DanaLynn on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

The judges should issue Holder a citation for contempt of court…

phreshone on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Can you at least be a bit more original… yeesh…

angelwing34215 on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

President Obama was NOT law professor. He was a lecturer. Those of us who graduated from law school know that there is a big difference between the two, at least from a “credit where credit is due” standpoint. Anyone can be a lecturer. President Obama was a lecturer. Jay Carney knows better – yet he lies.

President Obama is not a lawyer. He holds no license to practice law. In one of the many mysteries about the man, it is believed that he turned in his license to practice law. No one seems to know why. I believe his wife did the same. Does anyone wonder why? I do.

If I were a backer of the president, I would want to know why, because I would want to be sure that he deserves allegiance. I have never blindly backed anyone. (It is why I have read as much as I can about Allen West – and I fully back him)

Strike Twice on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Nope. And that was actually stupider than your first statement- so nice work there.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology Constitutional validity

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

In case you have NOT noticed, overturning Constitutionally invalid law IS the USSC’s job. There is no such thing as judicial activism.The role of any court is determine legal validity. Holder is being ignorant. He can’t admit that this is their true role. The USSC cannot make laws by definition. If a bad law is overturned, all else returns to the status quo. Holder could find himself held for contempt of court however, which is what I think should happen. If you care to argue that point I will remind you now that while Holder may not like the terms of the judges order, it is important he follow the orders outlined in the Judges order, or else he may be held in contempt of court. If a judge deems that this was a smart a$$ comment made in a legal fashion, we may see holder before the Judge.

The judicial branch does not make laws, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

By definition you cannot make something by destroying it or by taking away it’s meaning or existence. Which part of this is difficult for you to understand ?

DevilsPrinciple on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

The SC is supposed to presume that those dodo heads in congress know how to pass a constitutional law in the first place? The SC judges could just stay home and phone it in. Most of the congress critters aren’t lawyers and need a bunch of aides to read and explain things to them. We are not getting our moneys worth.

Kissmygrits on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Points and laughs at stupid4life…

I want to be embarrassed for you, but I can’t while I’m laughing so hard…

Wipes away tear of mirth…

Battlecruiser-operational on April 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

It’s sickening the way this annoying little troll drops in, and everybody stops what their doing to “feed” it.

Tomolena1 on April 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

So that’s your definition of the term “Judicial Activism”?

What “laws” would SCOTUS be “making” by throwing O’bamacare out?

G-

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Holder sends letter to Fifth Circuit: Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional, you know

Ah, actually Pal, the only stuff that’s Constitutional is like, in the stuff in the Constitution.

Bitter Clinger stuff – guns, religion, and, thankfully, booze.

Bruno Strozek on April 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Bet this really annoys the Lefty Losers.

But once the dust settles, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. They had an opportunity to argue persuasively in front of the Supreme Court and they couldn’t do it (and the Left knows that they screwed this up).

You can’t blame Roberts, Scalia, et al (who vote down the law) for a poor showing by the SG.

EMD on April 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

A legitimate legal argument can be made by both sides. At the end of the day, it will come down to the ruling of one justice- Anthony Kennedy.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Thanks for admitting your 4 Democrat SCOTUS Justices are Activists.

If they were ruling on this case as they should, based solely on its Constitutional and legal merits, the vote would be 9-0 to throw it out.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Dr Evil: To be fair, I doubt that most students enrolled in a civics class in this country could pass a civics test. Liberal4life would hardly be alone there.

Scott H on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

It’s a place to start. L4L is repeating what he/she is reading off of the liberal website’s comment threads. The liberal websites whre they just spew emotional trash about how Obamacare’s challenge makes them feel – you know like the Supreme Court is legislating from the bench, but as many have pointed out, overturning a law is not making a law.

From Scalia’s statements on the 2,700 plus pages they have no interest in trying to make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear. It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through, and pick out what can be salvaged. They didn’t write the legislation, and it’s not their job to make it better.

It’s too easy to bat around the ignorant, let L4L educate him/herself.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

We need better trolls. This one is an idiot (even for Democrats).

GardenGnome on April 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM

The judicial branch does not make laws, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

The Florida Supreme Court did in 2000.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

L4L, I don’t understand the impulse to stick your oar in just to have somebody (or a bunch of somebodies) grab it and whack you over the head with it. And you do it here every day, over and over. Surely you could find a different blog that’s better aligned with your superficial understanding of politics, a blog where the commenters would appreciate your input. It’s becoming painful to watch you here.

Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

We need better trolls. This one is an idiot (even for Democrats).

GardenGnome on April 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM

If you want a better class of troll, then maybe you should feeding THIS one.

Tomolena1 on April 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I’m too smart for you guys.

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I have an idea regarding our resident troll…

… I know it is tempting, but why don’t we let it alone to play with itself.

It will soon be jumping up and down, screaming and screeching, yelling:

“LOOK AT ME…! LOOK AT ME…!”

While we continue our thoughtful analysis at hand with wit, snark, and humor…

… Soon, in about a week or so, it will say something so offensive and will be banned, or it will just sit in the corner trying to remember the glory days.

Who’s with me…?

Seven Percent Solution on April 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yeah, presumed constitutional, until they are shown not to be, as I hope O-care will be, what’s the big deal?

kjl291 on April 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM

What we have here its first class judicial activism. Total disregard of the legislative branch and purely making laws based on ideology.

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

The Supreme Court doesnt make laws.
The only activism on the cort is by the Obama Liberal block who vote as one reagrdless of constitution or preceent.
You and Obama consider actiivism any ruling that doesnt go your way. FAIL.

ObamatheMessiah on April 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM

The judicial branch does not make laws, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

They are about to make one by striking down the healthcare law

liberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

lol, I’ll play.

What will this “new law” be called, and what is in this new law?

Go on, knock yourself out. You’ve been doing a great job of same all afternoon.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:22 PM

We need better trolls. This one is an idiot (even for Democrats).

GardenGnome on April 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM

If you want a better class or troll theN, maybe you should STOP FEEDING THIS ONE.

Tomolena1 on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3