Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Judge Smith said:Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority, in appropriate circumstances, to strike federal statutes because of win or more constitutional infirmities?
I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, and 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 -- and he's referring of course to Obamacare -- to what he termed a "broad consensus and majorities in both houses in Congress." That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of concept of judicial review. And that's not a small matter.
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 in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letters needs to be at least three pages single-spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific.
If you don't know what I'm talking about here is the raw information.
5th Circuit Court audio - YouTube
Judge Smith said:Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority, in appropriate circumstances, to strike federal statutes because of win or more constitutional infirmities?
I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, and 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 -- and he's referring of course to Obamacare -- to what he termed a "broad consensus and majorities in both houses in Congress." That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of concept of judicial review. And that's not a small matter.
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 in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letters needs to be at least three pages single-spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific.
I just sent the following letter to the Justice Department and a copy to the President
I just sent the following letter to the Justice Department and a copy to the President
You're actually going to comply with the demands of this judge who demands that you account for in writing for what President Obama has said ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! Complying with this BS would set a very dangerous precedent. This idiot judge who is so stupid he doesn't even know that the courts DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CAMPAIGN SPEECHES should have been told to go to f... hell right then and there. He should have been told that the President will say whatever he damn well pleases while he is on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL and he should have been told that that if he doesn't like it then that is just too damned bad. (ok, maybe not quite that blunt, but that's what he should have been told)
His calling the Affordable Health Care act "Obamacare" would alone be reason to be removed from the case. But with his absurd, stupid, idiotic, arrogant demand that President Obama, or anybody, account for what President Obama says on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL he should be impeached.
I just sent the following letter to the Justice Department and a copy to the President
You're actually going to comply with the demands of this judge who demands that you account for in writing for what President Obama has said ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! Complying with this BS would set a very dangerous precedent. This idiot judge who is so stupid he doesn't even know that the courts DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CAMPAIGN SPEECHES should have been told to go to f... hell right then and there. He should have been told that the President will say whatever he damn well pleases while he is on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL and he should have been told that that if he doesn't like it then that is just too damned bad. (ok, maybe not quite that blunt, but that's what he should have been told)
His calling the Affordable Health Care act "Obamacare" would alone be reason to be removed from the case. But with his absurd, stupid, idiotic, arrogant demand that President Obama, or anybody, account for what President Obama says on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL he should be impeached.
Well, it seems obvious that when a judge requests you clarify a department position, it's probably good to do so, especially when it involves an ongoing case.
remember the DOJ scandal.
they filled the DOj with partisan hacks
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ustice-department-turn-in-their-homework.html
Holder already said they'd comply, but what they say doesn't mean shit.
they're all lying pigs.
I just sent the following letter to the Justice Department and a copy to the President
You're actually going to comply with the demands of this judge who demands that you account for in writing for what President Obama has said ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! Complying with this BS would set a very dangerous precedent. This idiot judge who is so stupid he doesn't even know that the courts DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CAMPAIGN SPEECHES should have been told to go to f... hell right then and there. He should have been told that the President will say whatever he damn well pleases while he is on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL and he should have been told that that if he doesn't like it then that is just too damned bad. (ok, maybe not quite that blunt, but that's what he should have been told)
His calling the Affordable Health Care act "Obamacare" would alone be reason to be removed from the case. But with his absurd, stupid, idiotic, arrogant demand that President Obama, or anybody, account for what President Obama says on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL he should be impeached.
Although I think the author of the OP is a bit off the rails in his rhetoric, I will say again (since I voiced the opinion my own self, earlier): I think the "request" by those judges for a letter from the DOJ IS actually a bit out of bounds.
I'd be more than happy to see Holder knuckle under.
But as a matter of principle, I don't think I'd "honor" the "request."
I just sent the following letter to the Justice Department and a copy to the President
You're actually going to comply with the demands of this judge who demands that you account for in writing for what President Obama has said ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! Complying with this BS would set a very dangerous precedent. This idiot judge who is so stupid he doesn't even know that the courts DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CAMPAIGN SPEECHES should have been told to go to f... hell right then and there. He should have been told that the President will say whatever he damn well pleases while he is on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL and he should have been told that that if he doesn't like it then that is just too damned bad. (ok, maybe not quite that blunt, but that's what he should have been told)
His calling the Affordable Health Care act "Obamacare" would alone be reason to be removed from the case. But with his absurd, stupid, idiotic, arrogant demand that President Obama, or anybody, account for what President Obama says on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL he should be impeached.
