Beeotch: 3 pages on my desk by Thursday at noon

[TheGreatGatsby]

Judge Jerry Smith pounded the gavel on O-Tard's ass.

In a remarkable, partisan exchange in a Texas courtroom Tuesday, a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law.

Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.

“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President — stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review,” Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.

“The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific,” he added.

Smith was responding to statements Obama made Monday at a Rose Garden press conference, when he said in response to a question that it would be “an unprecedented and extraordinary step” if the Supreme Court overturned a law that was passed by “a democratically elected Congress.”

“I would 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 — and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, there’s a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Obama’s argument clearly unsettled Smith, who just moments into the presentation by DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaesvang interrupted to voice his displeasure.

“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?” he said.

“Yes, your honor. Of course there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes,” Kaesvang replied, sounding surprised by the random question.

Smith didn’t back down explaining that Obama’s statements had “troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or their authority or the concept of judicial review, and that’s not a small matter.” He also referred to the law in question as “Obamacare,” an informal reference that has been politically charged.

Kaersvang again reiterated the administration’s deference to judicial review, but Smith was not satisfied, moving to demand an annotated explanation 48 hours from now.

Neither spokesmen for the White House nor Department of Justice would comment on the matter.

Speaking at an Associated Press luncheon today, Obama appeared to try and clarify his position, arguing that it’s been decades since the Supreme Court struck down a law on an economic issue, such as health care.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it,” he said, “but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.”

You can listen to full audio of the exchange HERE. It begins at 18:01 into the recording.

Source

 

[logical4u]

It will be interesting to see if they make that paper, public... Who will be charged (?), if it does not get written?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There's debate about whether the judge has jurisdiction here. And if there is jurisdiction, then one wonders if there could be a contempt charge if Obama doesn't comply.

I don't think there's jurisdiction. Then again, I used to think that the Constitution required an actual budget to be passed by the Senate before money could be appropriated.

I think the judge is within his right to hold the executive branch publicly accountable whether or not he has actual legal jurisdiction; particularly on such a gross statement that perverts the Constitution.

 

[freedombecki]

There's debate about whether the judge has jurisdiction here. And if there is jurisdiction, then one wonders if there could be a contempt charge if Obama doesn't comply.

I don't think there's jurisdiction. Then again, I used to think that the Constitution required an actual budget to be passed by the Senate before money could be appropriated.

I think the judge is within his right to hold the executive branch publicly accountable whether or not he has actual legal jurisdiction; particularly on such a gross statement that perverts the Constitution.

I'm sick of Barack Obama.
I'm sick of Democrat Precinct criminals "finding more votes (for Democrats)" after their Democrat comes up short, and always just enough to take the election away from the Republican who was just declared the winner.
I'm sick of government by presidential order.
I'm sick of Barack Obama's criminal communist cronies being on the government payroll to fill their pockets with hard-earned taxpayer money.
And I'm damn sick of Nancy Pelosi giving her relatives millions upon millions of taxpayer guarantees for their bankrupt businesses.
The judicial department needs to send the cheaters in the DNC a strong and unequivocal message that cheatin' time is over.

Bully for the Texas judge who isn't going to take it anymore.

 

[Liability]

I detest the Obama Administration, but I think there's a pretty decent chance the Administration will decline to comply with the homework assignment "request" from the judges.

And I'm not sure I'd blame the Administration if they took that course.

They ASKED the attorney representing the Administration, and she gave the answer for the Administration. That really should suffice.

Giving out petty homework assignments is kind of beneath the dignity of the COURT!

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a court order. If the Department of Justice does not comply, it will be in contempt of court. There could be sanctions, ultimately the Court could move to have the responsible attorney disbarred. There have been instances of attorneys in criminal contempt of court that lands them in prison. There need be no trial in contempt sentences since the contemnor has "the keys to his cell in his pocket."

 

[Katzndogz]

In Honduras when Zelaya declared himself president for life, it was the Supreme Court that ordered his arrest and the military was happy to comply. I would hope that our Supreme Court be as courageous.

 

[Jackson]

There's debate about whether the judge has jurisdiction here. And if there is jurisdiction, then one wonders if there could be a contempt charge if Obama doesn't comply.

I don't think there's jurisdiction. Then again, I used to think that the Constitution required an actual budget to be passed by the Senate before money could be appropriated.

I think the judge is within his right to hold the executive branch publicly accountable whether or not he has actual legal jurisdiction; particularly on such a gross statement that perverts the Constitution.

I'm sick of Barack Obama.
I'm sick of Democrat Precinct criminals "finding more votes (for Democrats)" after their Democrat comes up short, and always just enough to take the election away from the Republican who was just declared the winner.
I'm sick of government by presidential order.
I'm sick of Barack Obama's criminal communist cronies being on the government payroll to fill their pockets with hard-earned taxpayer money.
And I'm damn sick of Nancy Pelosi giving her relatives millions upon millions of taxpayer guarantees for their bankrupt businesses.
The judicial department needs to send the cheaters in the DNC a strong and unequivocal message that cheatin' time is over.

Bully for the Texas judge who isn't going to take it anymore.

I feel it, too, Becki

 

[freedombecki]

In Honduras when Zelaya declared himself president for life, it was the Supreme Court that ordered his arrest and the military was happy to comply. I would hope that our Supreme Court be as courageous.

When our congressmen tried to clean up the Clinton Administration, there was hell to pay for them at the polls the following year of outraged Democrats trying to cling to cheating as a cause for hurting conservatives. So you're right, it would be nice if the Court flushed out the criminals.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

In Honduras when Zelaya declared himself president for life, it was the Supreme Court that ordered his arrest and the military was happy to comply. I would hope that our Supreme Court be as courageous.

When our congressmen tried to clean up the Clinton Administration, there was hell to pay for them at the polls the following year of outraged Democrats trying to cling to cheating as a cause for hurting conservatives. So you're right, it would be nice if the Court flushed out the criminals.

I don't take the view that Republicans are much more innocent than Dems behind the scenes. Yes its the stated Democrat agenda that has prevailed. But they couldn't have done all that they've done without the overwhelming assistance of Republicans (which is why I shake my head when Obama has the nerve to call them radical right wingers).

And here's the reality about the media, the courts and the GOP: If even one of them had a backbone, Obama would already have been kicked out of office for forging citizenship documentation. That right there, is all you need to know. Cling to hope if you must; but that is the gross reality.