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

Now that Holder and DoJ have thought about this in detail, does it mean they’ll now start defending DOMA as it goes through the courts? The case being heard this week is being defended by a lawyer representing the Republicans in Congress, because DoJ isn’t defending the act, even though it was passed by a larger (and truly bipartisan) majority of Congress….

prigsbee on April 5, 2012 at 7:29 PM

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

Congress ? We don’t need no stinkin’ congress !!

pambi on April 5, 2012 at 7:37 PM

“The President was speaking ‘short hand’…”

O_O

Seven Percent Solution on April 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Does Holder think there’s some sort of doubt that Clement and Carvin failed to demonstrate that Obamacare is unconstitutional?

applebutter on April 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM

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

mittens on April 5, 2012 at 6:31 PM

lmao.

Tim_CA on April 5, 2012 at 7:45 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

Okay, that’s it.
I’m not sure how you can stand to stay in character this consistently, but I can’t see you as anything but an attempt to politically mirror Colbert.

Count to 10 on April 5, 2012 at 7:46 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

SCOTUS frequently uses the legislative record to determine “Congressional intent.” In this circumstance, with such a sparse legislative record and a clear indication (admission?) that the members had not read what they were voting on, I would believe that no such presumption attaches. Put another way, how can you determine “congressional intent” when they had not had time to form intent?

EdmundBurke247 on April 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM

As for Carney’s statements, I’ll use an old computer phrase: Garbage in, garbage out.

EdmundBurke247 on April 5, 2012 at 7:55 PM

If I read one more time that Obama was a constitutional law “professor”, I’m gonna puke! He was a law “lecturer”… Big difference…

HornHiAceDeuce on April 5, 2012 at 8:09 PM

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could you help — help me with this. Assume for the moment — you may disagree. Assume for the moment that this is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?

I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?

HOLDER: Naaaaah.

applebutter on April 5, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Bill O’Scumbag
He is now complaining that the judge who wanted the three page letter having the DOJ explain Obama’s comments was grandstanding.
O’Reilly is nothing but a demagogue looking for ratings. The Judge had a right to challenge the DOJ for what Obeyme said. I used to think that O’Reiily was an honest conservative but I see him now as nothing but a blowhard in love with himself. He and Shep (crybaby) Smith have to go.

MNDavenotPC on April 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Bill O’Scumbag
He is now complaining that the judge who wanted the three page letter having the DOJ explain Obama’s comments was grandstanding.
O’Reilly is nothing but a demagogue looking for ratings. The Judge had a right to challenge the DOJ for what Obeyme said. I used to think that O’Reiily was an honest conservative but I see him now as nothing but a blowhard in love with himself. He and Shep (crybaby) Smith have to go.

MNDavenotPC on April 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Not going to happen, in fact expect more drift to the Left at Fox. The proggies’ favorite Nazi George Soros and Media Splatters won their war on Fox, and Ailes gave the order last year for them to moderate.

Fox News also hired Jessah Jacksum’s daughter Santita this month.

Fox News needs some real competition from the right.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 8:20 PM

HornHiAceDeuce on April 5, 2012 at 8:09 PM

And he lectured on the law & community organizing.

pambi on April 5, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Where would Barry and Holder be without Affirmative Action help?

galtani on April 5, 2012 at 8:31 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’m still waiting for your legal analysis of this issue. And your definition of judicial activism. I need 3 pages, single spaced. And no, you can call Eric Holder to help you.

NoFanofLibs on April 5, 2012 at 8:33 PM

NOTE TO ERIC HOLDER:

You need to learn how to do YOUR job before you lecture other people on how to do theirs!!!

Your “Justice for a few our friends department” needs a major fumigation. How about spending some time cleaning up the criminal enterprises running out of your own office??

landlines on April 5, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Holder is actually right on that one. Laws passed by Congress are initially given the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn’t matter, once it’s challenged all bets are off.

Axion on April 5, 2012 at 8:37 PM

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 8:20 PM

True.
We as conservatives are being betrayed at every level of media. I’m 61 and am a neophyte with the new social media. But I do know that we need to use same to circumvent the normal video venues.At my age I am ready to stand my ground physically. I do see it coming.

MNDavenotPC on April 5, 2012 at 8:46 PM

It would seem fair to assume bills passed by Congress meet the Constitution. They are supposed to research it first. When they don’t they get called on it.

The problem here is not Obama. He is what he is. The problem is the RINO’s who allowed these political hacks onto the Supreme Court in past years. If not for them this would never have been tried.

BullShooterAsInElk on April 5, 2012 at 8:51 PM

The trouble started when the American voters in 2008 gave the Democrats ‘the benefit of the doubt’ that they and Obama would fix the economy and not squander Trillions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous shovel-ready projects and bending the cost curve (up?) with Obamacare.

HoosierStateofMind on April 5, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Actually we have a constitutional scholar who doesn’t understand the constitution

Constitutional Law Proffesor my @ss.

D-fusit on April 5, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Carney’s a bigger LIAR than Obama because he has to LIE to protect the LIAR.

Ricohoc on April 5, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Actually we have a constitutional scholar who doesn’t understand the constitution

Constitutional Law Proffesor my @ss.

D-fusit on April 5, 2012 at 9:16 PM

It’s Clintonian parsing, -depends on the meaning of the word ‘professor’. Carney means a small-p ‘professor’, meaning someone who professes, and in little Bammie’s case it means someone who professes to know something about which he knows little.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Constitutional Law Proffesor my @ss.

D-fusit on April 5, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Let’s keep a couple points in mind.
Most of us first heard about Marbury v. Madison in high school government class. Even if this were not on the curriculum of whatever madrassa where Obama was educated, he would have run across it at Harvard.

Secondly, we know full well that even Barak Hussein Obama isn’t so stupid as to not know the law. Obama thinks (IMO knows due to Kagan on the SCOTUS) that the individual mandate will be rejected by the SCOTUS. He is setting his campaign up so he can blame the SCOTUS for the failure of Obamacare.

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Carney’s a bigger LIAR than Obama because he has to LIE to protect the LIAR.

Ricohoc on April 5, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Carney is not a liar, he is a propagandist. To be a liar he would have to be part of the process that came to the administration’s positions and clearly he is not bright enough to be part of that crowd.

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I can see it as judicial activism if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate and leaves the rest. I would say it is not if they strike it down as unconstitutional in total.

jake49 on April 5, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Look at the loaded words and utter stupidity of this AOL teaser summary:

After President Obama issued a stern warning to the Supreme Court, the attorney general injected himself into the politically-charged topic.

onlineanalyst on April 5, 2012 at 10:06 PM

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

MessesWithTexas on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Holder and Obama have repeatedly been brazen in defying the Constitution and contract law, and up till now they have been getting away with their shenanigans. They have taken “audacity” to new levels.

onlineanalyst on April 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Holder is actually right on that one. Laws passed by Congress are initially given the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn’t matter, once it’s challenged all bets are off.

Axion on April 5, 2012 at 8:37 PM

This is not an ordinary generic piece of legislation. Not only is it 2,700 pages plus, the Leader of the House, made the statement “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”. Right there, she’s admitting they don’t know if it’s unconstitutional, because no one read it. If no one read the bill before they passed it, the odds are it could be either constitutional or unconstitutional. This is the unprecedented part, passing legislation without reading it. The precedent-ed part is the Supreme Court hearing arguments from 28 state AG’s who apparently did read what was in the bill. The progressive left sowed the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind.

Dr Evil on April 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM

I think the presumption that Congress is acting constitutionally is a bad one. I think we need to watch Congress like a hawk with an eagle eye.

SukieTawdry on April 5, 2012 at 10:28 PM

So laws should be considered constitutional? What about Jim Crow laws? If we passed a law saying no more than 2 children per family, it would be presumed constitutional?

This is the purpose of the Supreme Court, to determine a law’s constitutionality. Since 1981 57 laws have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or around 2 every year.

If they presumed laws were by some nature of God constitutional, they were wrong.

itsspideyman on April 5, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I used to think that O’Reiily was an honest conservative but I see him now as nothing but a blowhard in love with himself. He and Shep (crybaby) Smith have to go.

MNDavenotPC on April 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM

O’Reilly does not consider himself a conservative. He thinks he is above all that, and calls himself a traditionalist. That allows him to be arbitrary and inflexible in his thinking while posing however he needs to for ratings.

O’Reilly = pinhead

WhatNot on April 5, 2012 at 10:39 PM

“I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising…I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.”

from the McCain-Feingold signing statement of George W. Bush, March 27, 2002.

Got your “presumption of constitutionality” right here.

wolfsDad on April 5, 2012 at 10:54 PM

My presumption is that Obama is a sick bastard and he bears it out over and over and over again.

VorDaj on April 5, 2012 at 11:00 PM

I used to think that O’Reilly was an honest conservative but I see him now as nothing but a blowhard in love with himself. He and Shep (crybaby) Smith have to go.

MNDavenotPC on April 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM

O’Reilly does not consider himself a conservative. He thinks he is above all that, and calls himself a traditionalist. That allows him to be arbitrary and inflexible in his thinking while posing however he needs to for ratings.

O’Reilly = pinhead

WhatNot on April 5, 2012 at 10:39 PM

BOR is too dimwitted and unpredictable to be assigned a political philosophy.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 11:13 PM

My presumption is that Obama is a sick bastard and he bears it out over and over and over again.

VorDaj on April 5, 2012 at 11:00 PM

YOU are a freaking sick idiot!!!

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM

O’Reilly does not consider himself a conservative. He thinks he is above all that, and calls himself a traditionalist. That allows him to be arbitrary and inflexible in his thinking while posing however he needs to for ratings.

O’Reilly = pinhead

WhatNot on April 5, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Whatever he calls himself, he’s in Scarborough’s category now. Just waiting for O’Reilly to start wearing those zip up jackets and faux horn rims like Joe.

TxAnn56 on April 5, 2012 at 11:37 PM

As in Roe v. Wade, the heavy burden must always be on a government wishing to impose its dictates contra the fights of the individual (I think the Court got it wrong in Roe v. Wade, but not on the “burden of proof” angle.)

notropis on April 6, 2012 at 12:05 AM

how ’bout “contra the rights”

notropis on April 6, 2012 at 12:07 AM

My presumption is that Obama is a sick bastard and he bears it out over and over and over again.

VorDaj on April 5, 2012 at 11:00 PM

YOU are a freaking sick idiot!!!

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM

What.. you Obama’s public defender or something skippy?

Don’t you have a screed about how Obama walks on water to write over at kos-sickostan?

I mean those leftwing lunatic fringe rants don’t write themselves now do they?

mark81150 on April 6, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Sharpton and Jackson can stand down. We have a brand new set of Justice Brothers. I cannot wait until Obama and his lackey, Holder, are unemployed.

micmac on April 6, 2012 at 12:26 AM

My presumption is that Obama is a sick bastard and he bears it out over and over and over again.

VorDaj on April 5, 2012 at 11:00 PM

YOU are a freaking sick idiot!!!

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Oops, you pulled a “Bush Derangement Syndrome” comeback, which is going to work as well as it did the first time.

But, you’re probably not great at learning a leeson, are you?

ccrosby on April 6, 2012 at 12:45 AM

YOU are a freaking sick idiot!!!

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM

OYouareafreakingsickidiotbutIammentallyinsane!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Not a lawyer,.. yet.. I do understand basic civics..

Three co-equal branches of government, executive, judicial, legislative. Each equal in influence and power to the others.. checks and balances. The way our government was designed to function, to make it profoundly difficult for mob rule to happen, or for a charismatic leader to simply seize power by edict.

Obama has since the House was reclaimed by the GOP, shown utter disdain for the power and independence of the legislature.. preferring one party rule.. and after Monday’s speech made it clear Harvard education or not, he understands the Constitution less well than I do, with only a High School education..

Of course it was a pre-80′s education so it wasn’t dumbed down by the democrats teachers pet unions yet..

and if Obama would release his college grades.. we’d see he, if not a halfwit, was unmarked by a single course of study..

This is why he scares so many people.. with his love of socialism, and it’s extreme version, communism, combined with his authoritarian streak..

How much of a shove would it take.. to see him attempt what Chavez did?

I trust him that little..

Whoever you vote for on the GOP ticket.. this is why when some say Obama and Romney are the same, it drives me crazy..

no, they aren’t..

because on his worst day, does anyone really believe, Romney would not suffer arrest, before he would sully the office of the presidency with the foul cast of scum Obama has.. from Soros.. to his pay to play cronies, to his Czars to all the Van Jones types and Mao worshipers he tolerates around him. Romney would never, ever dream of the Chavez El presidente for life insanity..

I doubt Obama dreams of anything else..

mark81150 on April 6, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Carney is just a flat liar. He’s painful to watch. I wonder whether Biden has pictures of Jay-baby with animals.

FerdtheMoonCat on April 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional

I guess that California Lefty judge who canceled the Prop 8 election because he didn’t like the outcome is in a lot of trouble?

viking01 on April 6, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Not going to happen, in fact expect more drift to the Left at Fox. The proggies’ favorite Nazi George Soros and Media Splatters won their war on Fox, and Ailes gave the order last year for them to moderate.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 8:20 PM

It is evident that the goal at FNC is to position itself slightly to the tight of CNN. FNC is playing conservatives for fools and many continue to believe Fox News is conservative.

bw222 on April 6, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional

I guess that California Lefty judge who canceled the Prop 8 election because he didn’t like the outcome is in a lot of trouble?

viking01 on April 6, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Don’t bet on it.. that moron has a lot friends in this state.

I don’t know what has to happen in order for CA to get it’s act together (well yes I do, but it’s not likely to happen any time soon…)

ccrosby on April 6, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Although generally 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), the presumption is quite “weak” when the Act was unread by anyone, passed in the dead of night, with only one party, and on its face appeared to subvert basic constituional principles. Obama v. My Ass, 324 U.S. 21 (2012).

Herald of Woe on April 6, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Where would Barry and Holder be without Affirmative Action help?

galtani on April 5, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Raiford, Florida.

jarhead0311 on April 6, 2012 at 6:18 AM

It is evident that the goal at FNC is to position itself slightly to the tight of CNN. FNC is playing conservatives for fools and many continue to believe Fox News is conservative.

bw222 on April 6, 2012 at 1:31 AM

A few talk radio guys like Rush and Levin and Poof -the voice of America will have to be shuffled around dark allies at night…

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 7:07 AM

BOR is too dimwitted and unpredictable to be assigned a political philosophy.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 11:13 PM

BOR believes in the regulation of anything he doesn’t like. He is predictable on that, and does not believe in the free market in that regard.

BOR loves getting behind laws with names of them that are attached to children, even if there are other laws on the books already covering the type of crime committed. He is predictable on that and sees no problem in increasing the number of laws or their reach if it is ‘to protect the children’.

BOR believes for every wrong ‘there ought to be a law’.

He calls this ‘traditionalism’.

I call it ‘Stateism with a happy face and good intentions’.

And it leads to no good, at all.

ajacksonian on April 6, 2012 at 7:19 AM

YOU are a freaking sick idiot!!!

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Getting a little unhinged?

zoyclem on April 6, 2012 at 7:20 AM

As predicted, the Regime responds in a deliberately contemptuous way.

wildcat72 on April 6, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Can we now get the biased joke of an attorney general held in contempt? he’s got to go.

sadatoni on April 6, 2012 at 7:45 AM

“You have nothing to fear a Obama Presidency”—-John McCain,

Minnesota Town Hall October 2008.

PappyD61 on April 6, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Here is the link.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE

Brilliance, and the moment the campaign ended and we got the “all clear” to vote for Obama.

PappyD61 on April 6, 2012 at 7:51 AM

PappyD61 on April 6, 2012 at 7:47 AM

*sigh*

cmsinaz on April 6, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional, you know

Oh, does that include Jim Crow laws as well?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 6, 2012 at 7:57 AM

My take: a recap.

kingsjester on April 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional, you know

Are Presidents also suppose to presume laws are constitutional. I’m thinking of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I cannot wait until November. Everyday it is just a running joke. If you’re not laughing, you’re crying. Every freaking day you wake up, it’s “So what stupid thing is Obama going to say or do today? How is he going to attack us or stick it to us today?”

A little over 7 months to go.. another 3 and he’s out.
I’m thinking though, if I were a betting man, there would be good gambling business in constructing a site or something where you could place daily bets on what American freedom or business Obama will attempt to take out on any given day before he leaves office. No business or activity is too small for the guy. No American tradition is too sacred.

Will today be the day he expands TSA to road side checkpoints? Place your bet. Will today be the day he eliminates chaplains from our military? Place your bet. Will today be the day he taxes milk and bread? Place your bet. There’s a goldmine there for someone.

JellyToast on April 6, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Will today be the day he expands TSA to road side checkpoints? Place your bet. Will today be the day he eliminates chaplains from our military? Place your bet. Will today be the day he taxes milk and bread? Place your bet. There’s a goldmine there for someone.

JellyToast on April 6, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Invest in home defense, because the libtard versus everyone else “race war” starts November 5.

Roy Rogers on April 6, 2012 at 8:29 AM

What exactly is Holder trying to argue here, and why is it relevant to the question asked???

Its another “ah ha, what a baffon” clown game that distracts from everything else. It was a cheap shot at the courts, while politicizing the answer. Red herrings are the key to anything Holder does – and lying.

BTW – you want to see a lazy, hack of an attorney:

changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago.

Gee scooter, glad youa re specific in time/date like a pro, and not a vague afterthought of ” a couple of days ago”

Odie1941 on April 6, 2012 at 8:36 AM

“The President was speaking ‘short hand’…”

O_O

Seven Percent Solution on April 5, 2012 at 7:42 PM

He was… but not to lawyers. Obama was speaking to the badly and poorly educated masses who will defend him and take the his viewpoint as their own. Who are these unelected people trying to tell Obama, the “constitutional law professor” and smartest man to ever hold the office, what is or isn’t constitutional? Impeach them!… See how it works.

Fallon on April 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Quit berating Bill O’Reilly. He’s tall

Bevan on April 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Does the DOJ actually go after criminals anymore? Seems like their role has changed from crime fighting to defending Obama and attacking anyone who gets in his way. It’s comforting, isn’t it.

JellyToast on April 6, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Right there, she’s admitting they don’t know if it’s unconstitutional, because no one read it. If no one read the bill before they passed it, the odds are it could be either constitutional or unconstitutional. This is the unprecedented part, passing legislation without reading it

Exactly! How can SCOTUS possibly assume that 2700 pages never read by even one person in Congress before passage and which SCOTUS has said it will not read is constitutional?

ObamaCare is thousands paragraphs cobbled together, some in contradiction of others, with admitted errors and omissions by people who were not elected but rather work for Congress. It also gives unprecedented and not completely known power to a person (Health Secretary) who was not elected.

IF SCOTUS lets ObamaCare stand, there can be no question that the third branch of government no longer works the way it was intended and that the Constitution of the United States of America is dead and buried.

katablog.com on April 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Behold!!!! The product of affirmative action and race based allowances on responsibility, respect for one’s country and the law.

Select individuals that get a great, free opportunity for education that basically middle digit the nation that gave it all away, while doing their best to destroy the golden goose.

America, the experiment is over and the results have been nothing but destructive.

Hening on April 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

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.

Eric, Eric, Eric…..don’t you know that by beyatch-slapping the Fifth Circuit with such an insolent response, the judge is going to have the last laugh?

olesparkie on April 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Remember that “duly elected Congress” Obluster referred to when he made the umbdass comment that started this whole flap? Turns out it wasn’t, as someone reminded me this morning. One could say the 60th vote needed in the US Senate was cast by none other than the man holding the former junior IL US Senate seat of, oh, Barack Obama, one Roland Burris, who was–wait for it–appointed to the seat by former and now disgraced Gov Blago, who as you may recall, attempted to sell the seat. Additionally, in 2009, Kirsten Gillibrand of NY was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s former US Senate seat and Michael Bennet was appointed to fill a US Senate seat from Colorado. So Mr. Prezuhdunce, Obamascare wasn’t passed by a duly elected Congress after all.

stukinIL4now on April 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM

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

Right?

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

More apt, L4L apparently believes Brown vs Board of Education, which struck down segregation laws, should be undone.

totherightofthem on April 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Odie1941 on April 6, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Such hacks at the DoJ that none of them could, apparently, cite to the actual opinions (the official reporters)in the cases referenced, referring only to citations in Westlaw.

totherightofthem on April 6, 2012 at 9:54 AM

“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.” – AlP

Tell that to the Ninth Circuit, or any other Judge appointed by a Leftist POTUS, oh and GHW Bush for nominating the Sununu-backed fascist hermit Souter.
Sadly, the majority of the American people know little to nothing about the Constitution which protects us FROM the Federal government.
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. When the fit hits the shan, there is still and always that “court” of final temporal judgment.

In Sum …
B. Hussein Obama has attempted to turn two+ centuries of law on its head in order to suit his own radical Leftist agenda. FDR tried that too, yet HE was still re-elected. In this information age, there is no longer an excuse for an uninformed populace. Lemmings, just lemmings.
Those same clueless voters will re-elect the street agitating race-baiter ChicagØbama.
(although with Mittens as the competition, Slappy oughta be happy)
Thanks, GOP wimps! /sarc

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 6, 2012 at 10:03 AM

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.

This assumes that Congress and the President take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.

A conservative justice in a feisty mood could write an opinion that Congress and POTUS knew the law was unconstitutional and yet voted for it and signed it into law anyway then attempted to bully the States and the Supreme Court. Now, that would be unprecedented.

bitsy on April 6, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Actually we have a constitutional scholar who doesn’t understand the constitution

Constitutional Law Proffesor my @ss.

D-fusit on April 5, 2012 at 9:16 PM

How dare you? And others? But of course Hussein knows the constitution, there is absolutely no doubt about that and should not be by now. Constitution of Russian Federation. Knows it inside and out as taught to him by his masters, word by word, line by line, page by page. Makes his daddy proud.

riddick on April 6, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Actually we have a constitutional scholar who doesn’t understand the constitution

Constitutional Law Proffesor my @ss.

D-fusit on April 5, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Oh, he understands the Constitution just fine. He studied it in order to destroy it.

bitsy on April 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM

“You have nothing to fear a Obama Presidency”—-John McCain,

Minnesota Town Hall October 2008.

PappyD61 on April 6, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Says the guy who endorsed Romney.

davidk on April 6, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Oh, he understands the Constitution just fine. He studied it in order to destroy it.

Very Lenin-like of him, wouldn’t you say?

EdmundBurke247 on April 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM

O’Reilly = pinhead

O’Reilly = bloviating pinhead

FIFY

jclittlep on April 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM

So we are suppose to assume the law is constitutional but how would Congress even know if it is or not, no one read the bill.

mtonepa on April 6, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Ooops, NBC realizes (aka, can’t hide it anymore) about their deception to the American public about the Martin case…
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/07/news-agencies-silent-on-nbc-producer-firing

Breitbart is Here!

ccrosby on April 7, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3