l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the
President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Unelected Group’
A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify
comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “
unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care
law (“Obamacare”).
“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,”
President Obama said.
“Ultimately I am 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.”
He continued:
And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’
ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack
of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow
overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court
will recognize that and not take that step.
And since making these remarks, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that it has until Thursday to explain
whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to
strike down a federal law.
Fox reports:
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was
being perceived as a “challenge” to judicial authority — referring
directly to Obama‘s latest comments about the Supreme Court’s review of
the health care case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare
challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the
executive and judicial branches.
Judge Jerry Smith asked the government attorney whether Attorney General
Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.
“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the
authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of
one or more constitutional infirmities?” Judge Smith asked.
Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the
President Meant by Unprecedented & Unelected GroupThe DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia
Kaersvang, answered yes. The lawyer then cited Marbury v. Madison, “the
landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more
than 200 years ago,” CBS News reports.
However, despite her response, Judge Smith was unsatisfied, specifically
referencing when President Obama called the judges an “unelected group.”
Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the
President Meant by Unprecedented & Unelected Group“That has troubled a
number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal
courts or to their authority,” Judge Smith said. “And that’s not a small
matter.”
He then told the attorneys that the DOJ must address this issue in “no less
than three pages, single spaced” by noon on Thursday, according to Fox.
“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday — that’s about 48
hours from now — a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney
General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by
the president,” Smith said.
“What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of
judicial review?” Smith asked.
But what’s really going on here? Allahpundit of Hot Air (“Hot Gas,” if
you’re from Texas) offers some insight:
…Obama himself never went so far yesterday as to say that the Supreme
Court lacks the power to overturn laws. He said overturning ObamaCare
specifically would be “unprecedented,” but no true-blue Warren-Court-
loving lefty like The One would ever seriously impugn judicial review.
And the Fifth Circuit knows it. What they’re doing here is humiliating
him as a way of getting him to stop the demagoguery, with the letter acting
as the equivalent of a kid writing on the blackboard as punishment after
class. “I will not question Marbury v. Madison, I will not question Marbury
v. Madison, I will not question…”
Since the appeals court issued its order, the Obama administration has
responded via White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
“Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as
their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as
unconstitutional,” Carney said Tuesday, according to Fox.
Carney said the president was specifically talking about “the precedent
under the Commerce Clause” regarding a legislature’s ability to address “
challenges to our national economy.”
Listen to the audio of Judge Smith’s order to the DOJ here. (relevant audio
starts about the 18-minute mark)
Update - Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice
Department will respond “appropriately” to a federal appellate judge in
Texas who demanded a letter recognizing the authority of the federal courts
to strike down laws passed by Congress.
On Wednesday, Holder acknowledged the courts have “the final say” and
defended the president’s remarks. He shrugged off a reporter‘s suggestion
that reaction to Obama’s comments have become a distraction.
“What the president said a couple of days ago was appropriate. He indicated
that we obviously respect the decisions that courts make,” Holder said at
a press conference in Chicago.
“Under our system of government … courts have the final say on the
constitutionality of statutes. The courts are also fairly deferential when
it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of
the people, Congress, pass,” Holder said.
Obama‘s comments didn’t break “any new ground,” he added.
“I think he said in some ways that which is obvious,” Holder said. “He
talked about the way in which Supreme Courts have typically looked at
legislation.”
Holder said he’s confident the Supreme Court will find the Affordable Care
Act constitutional “given the adequate, able representation” the law had
during arguments before the justices.
The story has been updated. The Associated Press contributed to this report. | P*********0
发帖数: 4321 | 2 If Obama refuses, what can the court do?
Arrest him for contempt?
Haha.
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the
: President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Unelected Group’
: A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify
: comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “
: unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care
: law (“Obamacare”).
: “I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,”
: President Obama said.
: “Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would
: be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed
| P*******e
发帖数: 96 | 3 如果那样的话就真的是连洪都拉斯都有可以嘲笑美国宪政的一天了。
【在 P*********0 的大作中提到】
: If Obama refuses, what can the court do?
: Arrest him for contempt?
: Haha.
| P*********0
发帖数: 4321 | 4 有点敬业精神。洪都拉斯笑话美国不是将来时。
当小布编造证据入侵伊拉克，把民脂民膏变成森森白骨的时候，你以为洪都拉斯在实行
注目礼吗？
【在 P*******e 的大作中提到】
: 如果那样的话就真的是连洪都拉斯都有可以嘲笑美国宪政的一天了。
| L*********h
发帖数: 2617 | 5 this is so ridiculous.
first, the president should not have commented on the judiciary and on a
pending case.
second, the 5th cir. is also idiotic for ordering US attorneys to clarify
the president's words. the president is not a party to this case. obama,
the administration side, has no influence on the judiciary whatsoever. who
gives a fuck about what he says? it's like, some homeless beggar cursed on
the court system, should a judge order him to clarify?
and how the hell can US attorneys clarify what the president meant? they
represent the United States, not the president. | l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 6 DOJ和president都是admin,当然有义务解释了.
Holder不是已经写了信回答了嘛.
who
on
【在 L*********h 的大作中提到】
: this is so ridiculous.
: first, the president should not have commented on the judiciary and on a
: pending case.
: second, the 5th cir. is also idiotic for ordering US attorneys to clarify
: the president's words. the president is not a party to this case. obama,
: the administration side, has no influence on the judiciary whatsoever. who
: gives a fuck about what he says? it's like, some homeless beggar cursed on
: the court system, should a judge order him to clarify?
: and how the hell can US attorneys clarify what the president meant? they
: represent the United States, not the president.
|
|
