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

It was ‘on’ when Judge Smith called ACA ‘Obamacare’.
Yea, this isn’t political for his honor at all…of course not.
Ha.
Great letter from Holder.

verbaluce on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 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

Every time you talk all I hear is “durpey durp durp”

You remind me of Micheal Keaton’s character in Mutliplicity

Steve #4: “I like pizza! I got a wallet… She touched my pepe Steve”

StompUDead on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Is it possible that the presumption of constitutionalism is less compelling in this case because of the way the bill was passed? Surely the justices noticed that Republicans had been locked out of meetings, that promises made to secure votes are not being kept and that the vote was horribly one-sided. Maybe they don’t feel the Democrats earned that presumption with this one.

Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 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

I seem to recall some small town in GA that did just that some years back. Every adult had to own a gun. The last I heard was that crime in that town had fallen dramatically.

McCain Hater on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Oh my, Drudge is fronting Carney’s comment “Because (Barack) is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand and some people didn’t understand it.” Ha! He is taking a beating on some other sites for the lamest of spins. “Spoke in shorthand”?! Yeah, it was shorthand for: “I’m gonna turn my miserable leftist horde on you and you families, Justices, if you don’t vote how I want.” That was the shorthand, and that was what everyone “understood.”

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

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

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

Hilarious to watch though.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 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

She thinks she’s sounds like a conservative reacting to a liberal judge saying that the Constitution needs to be subservient to international legal trends and therefore the vote of the people to strike down gay marriage should not only be reversed, but gay marriage made the law of the land, for example. She can’t see how just killing a law for unconsitutionality isn’t the same as making a new law as part of your ruling.

PastorJon on April 5, 2012 at 5:25 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

You’re Late. Second Shift started at 3 PM.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Yea, this isn’t political for his honor at all…of course not.

verbaluce on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

How many republicans voted for the law again?

John the Libertarian on April 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Majority of the voters are in the 99%

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

She votes, people.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM

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

I resemble that remark!!!

+1

Bitter Clinger on April 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM

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

Did they really say this or did they ask for a letter brief, single space, no more than three pages?

Blake on April 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM

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

Should be good. Wish I could be there to watch, but I’m confident my fellow AZ citizens and myself will be well represented.

AZCoyote on April 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Yea, this isn’t political for his honor at all…of course not.

verbaluce on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Even uber-leftie David Corn admitted 3 of the liberal justices were arguing ObamaCare’s case because Verrilli was too busy hyperventilating and stammering.

Own your half-assed judicial activism, bitches.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM

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

Sweet! Scalia’s for the majority:

In the Matter of Unprecedented vs. United States;

“The court grants plaintiffs unprecedented motion. Not without careful and considerate debate the court finds no precedent to guide deliberations, and is fully aware of the unprecedented nature of this case.”

BobMbx on April 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Translation: The court should stop wasting time by demanding answers to questions that no one is asking, including the president.

Though I have never seen this before in an appellate court, I have seen trial courts not allow a party to mislead the public. The examples I previously gave are when a defendant pleads guilty and then goes out into the hallway and announces to reporters that they are 100% innocent and being forced to plead. The judge will make them reappear in court and explain themselves which results in them stating on the record that they are guilty and that they are freely entering into the plea agreement.

I see nothing wrong with the courts wanting the public not to be mislead. You sure can’t trust the media to report the truth.

Blake on April 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Did they really say this or did they ask for a letter brief, single space, no more than three pages?

Blake on April 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM

“That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.”

From CBS News, for whatever that’s worth. If accurate, then yeah. At least 3 pages. No less. He was pretty specific.

Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Since liberals like Ginsburg and Obama have already established that the Constitution doesn’t favor their outlook, they can’t win the tit-for-tat on the judicial activism fight because it’s obvious that they know what they are trying to do is unconstitutional and it’s also an admission that what conservatives are doing concurs with the Constitution.

Ginsburg didn’t advise another country not to adopt something similar to our Constitution because Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would be interpreting it. They obviously wouldn’t be. Obama’s anti-Constitutional comments didn’t involve right wingers interpreting it wrongly. In fact, Obama’s anti-Constitution comments are an admission of guilt on this issue. The Constitution doesn’t suddenly allow what he complained about it not allowing.

Buddahpundit on April 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM

So Carney basically said “You’re all just too stupid to understand the president’s brilliant legal remarks, and that’s why you’re so confused.”

EasyEight on April 5, 2012 at 5:34 PM

He gave them two and a half.

As always, Eric Holder, takes brazen to a whole new level.

MessesWithTexas on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 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

And if Bush was President and we were talking about a law passed by a Republican House and Senate, you’d be arguing the complete opposite. Thanks for playing.

joejm65 on April 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I seem to recall some small town in GA that did just that some years back. Every adult had to own a gun. The last I heard was that crime in that town had fallen dramatically.

McCain Hater on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Kennesaw Georgia.

Oldnuke on April 5, 2012 at 5:38 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

A presumption is just that. Here’s it’s easily hurdled when you observe, as Kennedy did, that you’re changing the fundamental relationship of the government and the citizen.

It should be a bridge too far. But we’ll see.

BuckeyeSam on April 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM

He gave them two and a half.

As always, Eric Holder, takes brazen to a whole new level.

MessesWithTexas on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Naw….he just exhausted his vocabulary.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 5:39 PM

So Carney basically said “You’re all just too stupid to understand the president’s brilliant legal remarks, and that’s why you’re so confused.”

EasyEight on April 5, 2012 at 5:34 PM

That’s really how it sounded…he basically insulted the intelligence of the press pool. They need to put down that shovel and step away before they find themselves up to their necks in the hole they’re digging.

Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I get it. The federal government gets pre-Dred-Scott “due process”, but the states are burdened by “substantive due process” that racist Roger Taney left us with–a key to many a state law struck down by the Court.

Yeah, because the Constitution was written to prevent the uppity states from getting in the way of the federal government showing ‘em how to do it.

The Constitution is now balancing–and spinning–on its ear.

Axeman on April 5, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Is the Obama admin requesting a presumption of innocence already?
-

RalphyBoy on April 5, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Why does anyone bother to interact with such obvious trolls like liberal4life?

HotAir commenters are such easy troll bait. That’s why.

Everyone already knows, or should already know, that not one single solitary Republican voted for the passage of Obamacare — and that even 34 Democrats voted NAY. It passed by only 7 votes. Obamacare in and of itself is strictly partisan and it is strictly partisan activism.

Contrary to the lofty campaign lies, the incessant flim-flam, and the unrelenting outright fraud permeating the White House — everything about Barack Hussein Obama and the entirety of Democrat leadership is purely pandering politics. It doesn’t matter what the damage will be. It doesn’t matter that the US Constitution even exists. Our Panderer-in-Chief and his loyal Democrat lapdogs, with 34 exceptions, have no interest in anything but self-preservation and being worshiped by the sheople.

To regularly engage reprobate troll’s like liberal4life and the other Lefty sock puppet trolls that saturate HotAir’s comments threads really underscores just how thin skinned many people here at HotAir really are. As so-called ‘mature adults’, you should have already learned long ago to pity them — then ignore them.

FlatFoot on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 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

D D ! ….don’t you think this is just someone on the staff yanking our chain?….Jerry Springer couldn’t even find one like this!

KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

That’s really how it sounded…he basically insulted the intelligence of the press pool. They need to put down that shovel and step away before they find themselves up to their necks in the hole they’re digging.

Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Ain’t that the truth. Imagine all the “Constitutional Law Professor Shorthand” jokes coming forth. Like, for example, “Trayvon would have looked just like my son” is “Constitutional Law Professor Shorthand” for “Could we please have some racial unrest? My campaign really needs it.” And “I called Sandra Fluke because I thought of my daughters” is “Constitutional Law Professor Shorthand” for “I thought of my daughters and though what great and cynical props they would be in my fledgling re-election campaign.”

Rational Thought on April 5, 2012 at 5:44 PM

From CBS News, for whatever that’s worth. If accurate, then yeah. At least 3 pages. No less. He was pretty specific.

Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I peeked at the online docket. It does say no less than 3 pages which is an odd way to phrase it.

Blake on April 5, 2012 at 5:44 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

Lololol. Thanks for the laugh :) the idea – one way or another really – seriously tickles me. HuffPuffers will be losing their freaking minds, just like the HotAir Heads. Oh man, I can’t wait.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 5, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Is it possible that the presumption of constitutionalism is less compelling in this case because of the way the bill was passed? Surely the justices noticed that Republicans had been locked out of meetings, that promises made to secure votes are not being kept and that the vote was horribly one-sided. Maybe they don’t feel the Democrats earned that presumption with this one.

I’ve been wondering when this point would come up! it was unprecedented how this bill was passed, and more people should be talking about that when they discuss it’s constitutionality.

jetch on April 5, 2012 at 5:45 PM

It was ‘on’ when Judge Smith called ACA ‘Obamacare’.
Yea, this isn’t political for his honor at all…of course not.
Ha.
Great letter from Holder.

verbaluce on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

During oral argument Tuesday over a lawsuit challenging a part of the health law

Judge Smith was listening to a challenge against the bill – I don’t know why would he be interested in if the President of the United States understand the role of the judiciary in this country, it’s not like he doesn’t have to make a judgement on the very same bill here in Texas or anything/

Holder doubled down on dumb and petulance.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Is it possible that the presumption of constitutionalism is less compelling in this case because of the way the bill was passed? Surely the justices noticed that Republicans had been locked out of meetings, that promises made to secure votes are not being kept and that the vote was horribly one-sided. Maybe they don’t feel the Democrats earned that presumption with this one.
Dee2008 on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

You can’t be serious….

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on April 5, 2012 at 5:46 PM

verbaluce on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

He called it “Obamacare” for the same reason everyone else calls it’ “Obamacare” it’s Barack Obama’s signature legislation.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Why does anyone bother to interact with such obvious trolls like liberal4life?

I dunno. I thought she or the other one (I get them confused) would be boohoo-ing over Whitney Houston. It appears she parboiled.

Blake on April 5, 2012 at 5:47 PM

CARNEY: It’s absurd for you to think that just because it sounded like the President misspoke that he, in fact, did mispeak. He was speaking clearly to those who could decipher what he meant.

Only Lefty Losers think this way.

EMD on April 5, 2012 at 5:47 PM

uh, if laws are presumed constitutional, what about the Defense of Marriage Act?

blakesq on April 5, 2012 at 5:52 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

You really need to take Civics 101 all over again. Here’s a quick reference guide for you:

1. There are three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. This system was put into place for the sole purposes of checks and balances. I’ll let you Google the checks and balances part yourself.

2. SCOTUS does not make laws, they adjudicate laws created by the Legislative Branch and signed by the Executive branch. Their job is simple – determine whether those laws violate any part of the US Constitution. BTW… they don’t need any regard for either the Legislative nor Executive Branch of government. It’s not a popularity contest.

3. Since judicial activism is a liberal meme (code for “I don’t like that you overturned my unconstitutional law”), you’ll never understand the principle of what’s in front of them. If you want to see judicial activism, it would be any conversation about why pieces and parts of this 2700 page piece of rubbish should be retained. There was no severability clause in this law. The baby goes out with the bath water if the individual mandate is out. And any attempt to keep any part of it is, indeed, your definition of judicial activism.

You may return to your classroom now.

VietVet_Dave on April 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM

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

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

Hilarious to watch though.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

We have another Live One on another “Court” thread, name of damien1967. damien1966 was much funnier.

Like most uneducated Leftists, damien1967 was amazed to learn that there was more than one SCOTUS ruling in the Bush-Gore Florida Fiasco. He had, of course only heard the Democrat Media whine about the “bitterly divided” 5-4 final decision which only addressed the remedy.

He was shocked to discover that in fact, SCOTUS had also ruled for Bush 9-0 and then again 7-2.

That’s because in the Parallel Bizarro World the Democrats constructed after that 2000 Election, those two earlier rulings never even happened.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:56 PM

blakesq on April 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM

This only applies to the laws that Emperor Obama chooses…

d1carter on April 5, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Thank goodness that 0bama nor Eric “My People” Holder are far left ideologues, just ask them.

jukin3 on April 5, 2012 at 5:57 PM

VietVet_Dave on April 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Next dave explains advanced particle physics to a bushel of turnips.

The net effect is the same.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Wait a minute. So now what Opie is saying is that when the President is talking that what he says is incomprehensible to mere mortals? When he speaks in Teh One superEnglish, we must wait for it to be interpreted for us and then fed back to us in endless stream of contradictory pablum by his series of flunkies?

I get it. So 2012 = 1984. Who knew math was so simple.

And English! Hey, since we don’t need dictionaries any more, isn’t that going to put a bunch of people out of work.

dissent555 on April 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Obama stepped into two latrines:

1. “If I had a son…bla, bla, bla”

2. “It was passed by a supermajority, is constitutional and none of the SC’s right to overturn”.

It’s more schadenfreude than one person s/b allowed to have.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Want a real laugh?

Ask 15 of your Dem acquaintances if Bill Clinton was Impeached.

Guarantee that at least 10 will say no….and the rest probably aren’t sure.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I think Roberts might get both Beyer and Ginsburg voting with the majority decision.

Elena tipped her hand when she stated we “the court” could keep, you know the good parts LOL!

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Man, I’m sorry. I had extra troll food and I had to get rid of it before it spoiled.

VietVet_Dave on April 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM

VietVet_Dave on April 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Next dave explains advanced particle physics to a bushel of turnips.

The net effect is the same.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I think it’s been scared off, it’s skittish, it didn’t get the right outraged liberal talking points, and now it has to go back for the nuance.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Man, I’m sorry. I had extra troll food and I had to get rid of it before it spoiled.

VietVet_Dave on April 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM

lol.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Did they really say this or did they ask for a letter brief, single space, no more than three pages?

Blake on April 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Here’s the written “request”:

http://volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/image001.png

As directed today, the panel has requested a letter referencing oral argument questions. The letter is to be no less than three pages, single spaced, and is due by noon on Thursday, April 5, 2012.

INC on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

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

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

Sorry, it isn’t possible for L4L to educate itself. If it was capable of logical thought and reason, it would be a Conservative4Life.

climbnjump on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Then why even have courts? We don’t need them. We have Obama. We have police. Obama passes the law. If you don’t obey, the police arrest you and that it.

JellyToast on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I’d question the premise, that deference is due “to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress.”

There was nothing “deliberative” at all– from the totally partisan support of the bill, to closed (to Republican) “deliberations,” to the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback to out right lying about abortion enforcement to buy a vote or 3, to midnight votes on Christmas Eve to bypassing the normal 60-vote requirement for passage in the Senate with “reconciliation” to giving members of Congress no time at all to read or study a 2,700 page bill to the (as Scalia noted, as has Steyn) the very fact that it IS a 2700 “bill”– about this bill.

It mocks the very concept of Congressional “deliberation.” It is entitled to no deference on those grounds by SCOTUS at all.

de rigueur on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 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

I like the idea in principle, but the problem is, it’s not a stable equilibrium. All that has to happen is for one or two people to forget, and then the trolls have been engaged. The natural tendency to point out stupidity is a primal instinct that cannot be repressed forever, and so the more one person engages the troll, the more others become exposed to the stupidity, and so they cannot help but join in.

Perhaps we should, instead, make lemonade out of lemons, and use the trolls for our amusement until their capacity for stupidity has been exhausted.

Admittedly, my plan relies on the assumption that the stupidity capacity for our trolls, however large, is still finite. Like the theory of relativity near singularities, my theory breaks down if an infinite stupidity quotient is assumed.

RINO in Name Only on April 5, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Ask 15 of your Dem acquaintances if Bill Clinton was Impeached.

Guarantee that at least 10 will say no….and the rest probably aren’t sure.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Back in the Golden Age of online political discourse (aka “Usnet Political Newsgroups”, which still exist to this day), I once asked a Clinton Fluffer this simple question:

“If you witnessed Bill Clinton breaking into your teenaged sister’s bedroom and then witnessed him raping her, would you consider him guilty of a crime?”

His answer? “I would need to see the evidence presented at the trial.”

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 6:25 PM

AG Holder underperforms again… can’t wait for him to do the perp walk next January…

Khun Joe on April 5, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Right on cue, the MSM does a fawning profile of Kagan. (Why none on the “wise Latina,” one wonders?

Wethal on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

al-Reuters, eh?

Did they also airbrush and Photoshop the picture of her?

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Sleazy Eric Holder needs a steel cage to admire from the inside until he completes the assignment as ordered. Not requested. Ordered. About ten days per page should do with an additional ten days for each day the full three pages, respectfully submitted, is late past the first 30. If Holder wants to pretend Attorney General / Marie Antoinette of Zimbabwe then letting him cool his heels in the Conciergerie (prison) equivalent might encourage him to increase the civilization factor priorities in his otherwise feral behavior.

viking01 on April 5, 2012 at 6:28 PM

the ‘wise latina’ will quickly become the ‘white latina’ if she betrays barry.

mittens on April 5, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Right on cue, the MSM does a fawning profile of Kagan. (Why none on the “wise Latina,” one wonders?

Wethal on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

al-Reuters, eh?

Did they also airbrush and Photoshop the picture of her?

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Photoshop has that cool new tool, ‘Remove Extra Chins’.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Did they also airbrush and Photoshop the picture of her?

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Well, yeah they did. But she still looks like Paul Blart, Mall Cop

Key West Reader on April 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM

To regularly engage reprobate troll’s like liberal4life and the other Lefty sock puppet trolls that saturate HotAir’s comments threads really underscores just how thin skinned many people here at HotAir really are. As so-called ‘mature adults’, you should have already learned long ago to pity them — then ignore them.

FlatFoot on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Well said. I’ve been wondering for quite some time why everyone here engages the likes of liberal4life in conversation at all. When you go into any thread, liberal4life makes a brief comment designed to incite, and always gets everyone worked up.

People refute the idiocy, but he/she/it doesn’t care, it just moves on to another thread, drops another flaming back of crap and everyone runs in to stomp on it again.

Just ignore what it says, it will eventually go away and stop polluting actual conversation with ridiculous platitudes and talking points.

ShadowsPawn on April 5, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Fire Holder and boot out Barack ASAP.

November can’t come soon enough.

profitsbeard on April 5, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Key West, based on that pic, she probably yelled “Yabba dabba doo!” about an hour ago!

DanaLynn on April 5, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Why does CarneyClown bother to show up to WretchedHive press briefings when he can just have them play platitudes from previous briefings?

Today he just recycled the old “Obama’s so brilliant we can’t possibly understand him when he speaks” meme. We don’t understand his shorthand bcuz he’s a law prof? We common folk understand law profs the way we understand lawyers and press secretaries bcuz they all speak plain old putrid BS. Honestly, I don’t know how that boy can face embarrassing himself day after week after month after year making excuses for this BSer-in-Chief. Get some self-respect, CarneyClown, will ya’?!!

stukinIL4now on April 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM

He called it “Obamacare” for the same reason everyone else calls it’ “Obamacare” it’s Barack Obama’s signature legislation.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Right on cue, the MSM does a fawning profile of Kagan. (Why none on the “wise Latina,” one wonders?

Wethal on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Which one’s the hot one again?

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

It may have been conceived by the Heritage Foundation, but no Republican tried to pass this at the Federal level, and none of them tried to force the mandate, the Democrats own this, plain and simple.

ShadowsPawn on April 5, 2012 at 6:45 PM

“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.”

Ergo the presumption should not apply to an Act pushed through Congress with bribes and which the Speaker of the House acknowledged was not even widely read by its members.

AP,

Please stop referring to Obama as a professor. He was a lecturer. I can’t believe you don’t know the difference.

Basilsbest on April 5, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Which is why the whole thing is so very hilarious.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Some Legal Eagles weigh in. First, Attorney John Hinderaker of Power Line, whose blog played a major role in taking down Dan Rather and C-BS “News”:

Holder inserted the foreseeable boilerplate about statutes being entitled to a presumption of constitutionality, etc. No quarrel with that. But he concluded with this howler:

“The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.”

But they were not. Obama said:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

There is no way to put Obama’s statement next to Marbury v. Madison and claim they are consistent. For Holder to assert that they are is almost childish.

And Law Prof Althouse in Madistan:

The letter — predictably — presents the most ordinary and elementary propositions of constitutional law going back to Marbury v. Madison.

Glenn Reynolds:

It’s all pretty unexceptional except for the final sentence.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Well, yeah they did. But she still looks like Paul Blart, Mall Cop

Key West Reader on April 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I understand John Goodman’s going to play her part in an upcoming movie. /s

Oldnuke on April 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

The concept may (or not) have come from some think tank but the law was enacted by Democrats.

Oldnuke on April 5, 2012 at 6:49 PM

And if Bush was President and we were talking about a law passed by a Republican House and Senate, you’d be arguing the complete opposite. Thanks for playing.

joejm65

Likewise. Suddenly the “tyrants in black robes” are GOP flavor of the minute. Rally round! Rally round!

Pathetic.

lostmotherland on April 5, 2012 at 6:50 PM

He called it “Obamacare” for the same reason everyone else calls it’ “Obamacare” it’s Barack Obama’s signature legislation.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with people calling it “O’bamacare”.

Why is that?

Sounds to me like you are feeling Shame at having your Dear Leader’s hallowed name attached to such a stinkbomb piece of Legislative Activism.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 6:52 PM

pambi on April 5, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Forgot to add:
SNORT !!!

pambi on April 5, 2012 at 6:53 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

So you believe Roe v. Wade should be undone right?

Right?

Spliff Menendez on April 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

One fallacious argument after another.

So –Romney supported Romneycare for the entire United States ? really./

You’re an imbecile.

CW on April 5, 2012 at 6:54 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

So you believe Roe v. Wade should be undone right?

Right?

Spliff Menendez on April 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM

And Gay Marriage in Massachusetts.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 6:54 PM

AP has it wrong: Kennedy clearly said, as he began his questioning, that laws passed by Congress are presumptively Constitutional and that the challenger had to demonstrate otherwise. He then went on to say, or at least strongly infer, that the Government needed to answer the arguments made by the states in this instance.

MTF on April 5, 2012 at 6:54 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

You’re a blithering idiot. One day you will have an original thought. One day.

CW on April 5, 2012 at 6:55 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

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

And the troll’s answer is….. crickets.

Trolls try to ignore hard questions. Trolls are not interested in rational discussion.

farsighted on April 5, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Ah yes we should give deference to Congress who did not even bother to read the bill. Remember they needed to pass it so they would know what was in it.

CW on April 5, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Trolls try to ignore hard questions. Trolls are not interested in rational discussion.

farsighted on April 5, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Sometimes our trolls are interested in a discussion. Now that dim bulb is another story. Wow talk about uneducated. She even embarrasses her liberal friends here.

CW on April 5, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Given that logic Obama should be happy if the Supreme Court overturns the legislation. He can simply state I had nothing to do with the bill passing, and signing it into law.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I seem to recall some small town in GA that did just that some years back. Every adult had to own a gun. The last I heard was that crime in that town had fallen dramatically.

McCain Hater on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

That was made a law back in the 80s and is not enforced at all. Crime is lower here (I live in Kennesaw) because both the City and County Police here do a great job. I do meet their qualifications as a resident, multiple times, but one would not get in any kind of trouble for not owning a firearm.

ManWithNoParty on April 5, 2012 at 7:02 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

There’s some shiite you just can’t make up, Silverdeth. If I sat around and tried to invent the stupidest, most insane, and bizarre statements and arguments possible on any subject, I couldn’t come near the gibberish we get from the current batch of trolls. No where near.

Harbingeing on April 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Is it possible that the presumption of constitutionalism is less compelling in this case because of the way the bill was passed? Surely the justices noticed that Republicans had been locked out of meetings, that promises made to secure votes are not being kept and that the vote was horribly one-sided. Maybe they don’t feel the Democrats earned that presumption with this one.

I’ve been wondering when this point would come up! it was unprecedented how this bill was passed, and more people should be talking about that when they discuss it’s constitutionality.

jetch on April 5, 2012 at 5:45 PM

But is this something that SCOTUS can even weigh in on? Legislative processes are strictly under the purview of that branch. Whether or not they followed their own rules seems to be something that should be managed by the parliamentarian, I’d think.

Although I agree with your overall point that the process involved was corrupt to the core, I simply don’t see how the judicial branch can have any say in the matter.

Not that I am any kind of Constitutional Lawyer™. But everything that I’ve read in the past about separation of powers makes me think I’m on the right track.

Anyone care to bring a more educated perspective to this?

nukemhill on April 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Yes, but it was conceived by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and is based on Romneycare. Semantics don’t change the underlying basis and history of the legislation.

bayam on April 5, 2012 at 6:40 PM

At least you are trying to nuance Obamacare.

President Barack Obama: I am glad people call it Obamacare, because I do care.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 7:06 PM

HotDog!

Try as they might they can’t find Constitutional kryptonite.

God bless the founders and God bless the stupid.

Limerick on April 5, 2012 at 7:09 PM

“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.” iberal4life on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

You’re a blithering idiot. One day you will have an original thought. One day.

CW on April 5, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Comparing Obamacare to Romneycare is like comparing a tank to a Go Kart.

Basilsbest on April 5, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Carney is making Orwell proud.

KMC1 on April 5, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Right on cue, the MSM does a fawning profile of Kagan. (Why none on the “wise Latina,” one wonders?

Wethal on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Hmmm, maybe because the wise Latina has actually showed a small amount of wisdom and kept her mouth shut and not committed an offense that could get her impeached from the SCOTUS???

SWalker on April 5, 2012 at 7:18 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

Is this really the best that Media Matters can do?

Sad.

WisCon on April 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Hey I wonder if he knows congress can repeal laws?
Bu for that matter, why even have a congress. Again, we have Obama. No need for courts or congress.

JellyToast on April 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Judges got a response that fast?

So why the hell hasn’t congress gotten a response on the ATF & DOJ’s gunwalking to Mexico yet?

CPL 310 on April 5, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3