Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

[regent]

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were letters to the editor and have no legal standing.

 

[percysunshine]

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were letters to the editor and have no legal standing.

Another 30,000 posts and your opinions may constitute precident and have legal standing.

So don't stop now.

 

[regent]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

Idiot, The Congress cannot act outside of the Constitution without consequence. The Courts Role is to Interpret, and Apply Constitutional Law, and to Act when Government acts outside of it. It is part of the Checks and Balances. It is the Role of the Court to Settle such Arguments and abuses. Constitutional Amendment requires a 75% Majority for Ratification. That is not Simple Majority Rule but Super Majority, or Land Slide Support. Without that Support there are No New Powers, Short of Court Rule.

The abuse with Marbury, was not Judicial Review, but Personal involvement with Relatives among the Prime Parties directly involved in the Case and Prejudice.

Might want to check the importance of the case and not what it was about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

Idiot, The Congress cannot act outside of the Constitution without consequence. The Courts Role is to Interpret, and Apply Constitutional Law, and to Act when Government acts outside of it. It is part of the Checks and Balances. It is the Role of the Court to Settle such Arguments and abuses. Constitutional Amendment requires a 75% Majority for Ratification. That is not Simple Majority Rule but Super Majority, or Land Slide Support. Without that Support there are No New Powers, Short of Court Rule.

The abuse with Marbury, was not Judicial Review, but Personal involvement with Relatives among the Prime Parties directly involved in the Case and Prejudice.

Might want to check the importance of the case and not what it was about.

Do you have any concept to what the checks and balances are within the government?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"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," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

Obama continues to demonstrate that he is a fool and a partisan hack. What he calls activism is judicial review, and it is already costing him.

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress.

"I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.

A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.

However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.

"The 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," Smith said

Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law - Yahoo! News

 

[regent]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

There were some state laws declared unConstitutional but by state courts. Marbury is the biggie, however, a law passed by Congress declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Check a high school history book, or go on the internet.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

There were some state laws declared unConstitutional but by state courts. Marbury is the biggie, however, a law passed by Congress declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Check a high school history book, or go on the internet.

Do you have any concept to what the checks and balances are within the government?

 

[theHawk]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"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," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

The libs will chalk this up as 'Social Intimidation'. You know, its OK to intimidate and threaten so long as it serves the Greater Good.

 

[percysunshine]

If Pooh Bear were a Supreme Court Justice....Obama would outlaw honey.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were letters to the editor and have no legal standing.

There were at least two Supreme Court cases before Marbury were the question of constitutionality of laws passed by Congress was considered.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

There were some state laws declared unConstitutional but by state courts. Marbury is the biggie, however, a law passed by Congress declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Check a high school history book, or go on the internet.

It was the first law that Congress wrote that was actually unconstitutional. The concept of judicial review existed before Marbury, and actually decided that at least two laws that were challenged in court were constitutional.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"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," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

No they don't, they're allowed to change their vote between now and when the opinion is published.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were letters to the editor and have no legal standing.

There were at least two Supreme Court cases before Marbury were the question of constitutionality of laws passed by Congress was considered.

Which ones?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Federalist Papers were letters to the editor and have no legal standing.

There were at least two Supreme Court cases before Marbury were the question of constitutionality of laws passed by Congress was considered.

Which ones?

Hylton v US (1796) and Calder v Bull (1798).

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There were at least two Supreme Court cases before Marbury were the question of constitutionality of laws passed by Congress was considered.

Which ones?

Hylton v US (1796) and Calder v Bull (1798).

Calder v Bull addressed state legislation, not federal.

Never heard of Hylton v U.S. - just looked it up - interesting. I guess it never made the headlines MvM did because in choosing to uphold the law, the court didn't actually assert any power to strike down law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which ones?

Hylton v US (1796) and Calder v Bull (1798).

Calder v Bull addressed state legislation, not federal.

Never heard of Hylton v U.S. - just looked it up - interesting. I guess it never made the headlines MvM did because in choosing to uphold the law, the court didn't actually assert any power to strike down law.

Please point out what the difference is between the judicial review of a state law and a federal one is.

My point is that judicial review, as a concept, existed before Marbury v Madison, all Marshall did is explain how obvious it is that the courts are bound by the constitution and how they should consider it as the defining law if a law conflicts with it.

 

[The T]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"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," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

Obama continues to demonstrate that he is a fool and a partisan hack. What he calls activism is judicial review, and it is already costing him.

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress.

"I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.

A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.

However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.

"The 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," Smith said

Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law - Yahoo! News

I've been reading about it and hearing it in a number of places. Obamawants to play smackdown...so the Court has said fine...we'll play...now explain yourself...Obama is getting another come-uppance.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law



Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

Obama continues to demonstrate that he is a fool and a partisan hack. What he calls activism is judicial review, and it is already costing him.

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress.

"I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.

A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.

However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.

"The 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," Smith said

Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law - Yahoo! News

I've been reading about it and hearing it in a number of places. Obamawants to play smackdown...so the Court has said fine...we'll play...now explain yourself...Obama is getting another come-uppance.

One of Obama's former students appeared on Fox this morning, who himself is a law professor at the Unv. of Missouri. He said he was taken aback at his comments because Obama knows that the SCOTUS has the obligation to follow the constitution regardless of what the politics are and has done so many times in the past. He said it appears that Obama is trying to influence the court. He said Obama is trying to guilt the swing justices like Justice Kennedy to rule in favor of his bill, in hopes not to appear illegitimate. He also said that he clerked for the federal judge that put Obama on the spot this week. He said what he did was pretty interesting and very appropriate.

Obama is attempting to lecture lawyers that are much more accomplished in the law than himself and they're slapping him down. Lawyers have a responsibility to defend and uphold the law. If anyone steps out of line in their jurisdiction and tries to skirt the law they are obligated to do something about it.

I personally would rule against him for that very reason among several others that already existed.

Obama is trying a different way to bully the court, but he's not much different from Al Sharpton. He's suggesting that the court would be untrustworthy if they ruled against him. If you talk to most legal scholars they feel the opposite is true. Ruling for Obama would establish new precedence and totally change the legal landscape.....thus using judicial activism to make law that doesn't exist.

 

[Claudette]

Obama continues to demonstrate that he is a fool and a partisan hack. What he calls activism is judicial review, and it is already costing him.



Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law - Yahoo! News

I've been reading about it and hearing it in a number of places. Obamawants to play smackdown...so the Court has said fine...we'll play...now explain yourself...Obama is getting another come-uppance.

One of Obama's former students appeared on Fox this morning, who himself is a law professor at the Unv. of Missouri. He said he was taken aback at his comments because Obama knows that the SCOTUS has the obligation to follow the constitution regardless of what the politics are and has done so many times in the past. He said it appears that Obama is trying to influence the court. He said Obama is trying to guilt the swing justices like Justice Kennedy to rule in favor of his bill, in hopes not to appear illegitimate. He also said that he clerked for the federal judge that put Obama on the spot this week. He said what he did was pretty interesting and very appropriate.

Obama is attempting to lecture lawyers that are much more accomplished in the law than himself and they're slapping him down. Lawyers have a responsibility to defend and uphold the law. If anyone steps out of line in their jurisdiction and tries to skirt the law they are obligated to do something about it.

I personally would rule against him for that very reason among several others that already existed.

Obama is trying a different way to bully the court, but he's not much different from Al Sharpton. He's suggesting that the court would be untrustworthy if they ruled against him. If you talk to most legal scholars they feel the opposite is true. Ruling for Obama would establish new precedence and totally change the legal landscape.....thus using judicial activism to make law that doesn't exist.

Think your right but personally I think Barry is rather flabbergasted that the SC isn't falling all over his clusterfuck of a bill. As a "Law Professor" he must have known the bill would end up in front of the SC. If he thought it wouldn't happen then he's a fool.

I doubt he deals well with those who don't worship him and his oh so wonderful ideas.

 

[8537]

"Threatening the Supreme Court justices"?

My gawd that's pathetic. He commented. He didn't threaten. He can't remove them, he can't intimidate them, he can't shoot them. He gave comment.

I love when so-called conservatives get all worked up about the potential of the SCOTUS not being activist. Remember how they responded to Kelo?