Its Noon On Thursday, Did Obama's Justice Department Turn in Their Homework?

[mmmjvpssm]

If the courts had that kind of power it wouldn't be three equal branches of government. It would be one branch, the judicial branch and under them the executive and the legislative

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Can anybody cite a case where this has ever happened before? A President or the White House being ordered to write a letter accounting for what the President said in a press conference?

 

[Liability]

If the courts had that kind of power it wouldn't be three equal branches of government. It would be one branch, the judicial branch and under them the executive and the legislative

Welcome to the dark realm of Judicial Tyranny.

But you do need to consider what happened here.

The Court -- in this instance -- had EXACTLY that much power. And we KNOW (beyond doubt) that it had that much power BECAUSE that's the effect of the deferential behavior of the incompetent AG.

They "demanded" that he provide the homework assignment. He declined to assert the proper rejoinder. Instead, he CHOSE to meekly comply. Thus, they were SHOWN that they DID have that much power.

Can't really blame them for trying. But I can and do blame the AG (and by extension, his boss) for their own reaction.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

YOU argued that because a judge used the term ObamaCare, he should be impeached.



Pretty much off the rails.

No, I did not. I NEVER said he should be impeached for using the term Obamacare

Ok. YOU (being a dope) maintained that for using the term "ObamaCare" the judge should be removed from the bench.



For calling upon the Government to have the AG provide the 3 page letter, you maintained an impeachment was called for.



Sorry, pal. But you are dip-shit stupid either way.

If a judge says something dumb in asking you a question or asking you to do something, you politely answer anyway. You try not to tell a judge that he's a dope.

And judges don't get impeached for asking for something even if they aren't entitled to it (as long as the thing they are requesting isn't bribe or drugs or a hit or sumpin' like that).

You are a bit unhinged. You do know that don't you?

No, IDIOT. That is NOT what I said about his Obamacare remark. Why don't you maybe learn to read and not be such a dope yourself before claiming other people are. What I said was

His calling the Affordable Health Care act "Obamacare" would alone be reason to be removed from the case


Case, not bench, case, there's a big difference

 

[Si modo]

Hey idiot, the same applies, campaign speech, press conference, I don't care if he was talking to the Pope. The court has no business demanding he account for what he said

Sure it does, and it did.

No, it does not

Holder and the POTUS disagree with you.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Because not everyone is as petty as you are?

Let's start having liberal judges being as openly partisan and see what the response from the right is then you can get back to me about being partisan

Start?

START?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Payback is a bitch, eh lightweight?

I'm sure you're going to give some examples right?

 

[Si modo]

Nobody is trying to set anybody straight except this arrogant openly partisan judge. Nobody is telling them what they heard or how they must interpret it

The judge is simply answering the arrogance of one branch and reminding it that another branch is just as powerful.

Obama NEEDS to be reminded, sadly.

Then he can do it in a press conference on the Court House lawn (If that would be legal, I don't know)

A court order reminder is more appropriate for the reminder. It hit home, obviously.

 

[Katzndogz]

Can anybody cite a case where this has ever happened before? A President or the White House being ordered to write a letter accounting for what the President said in a press conference?

Neither the president nor the white house was ordered to write anything.

 

[Si modo]

If the courts had that kind of power it wouldn't be three equal branches of government. It would be one branch, the judicial branch and under them the executive and the legislative

Welcome to the dark realm of Judicial Tyranny.

But you do need to consider what happened here.

The Court -- in this instance -- had EXACTLY that much power. And we KNOW (beyond doubt) that it had that much power BECAUSE that's the effect of the deferential behavior of the incompetent AG.

They "demanded" that he provide the homework assignment. He declined to assert the proper rejoinder. Instead, he CHOSE to meekly comply. Thus, they were SHOWN that they DID have that much power.

Can't really blame them for trying. But I can and do blame the AG (and by extension, his boss) for their own reaction.

Politically, the AG did the right thing. The Executive branch's arrogance and power grab was too obvious and to challenge this simple letter would have brought more attention.

It was a correct political move, IMO.

 

[koshergrl]

Holy Hell! It's UNPRECEDENTED!

 

[Jarhead]

Can anybody cite a case where this has ever happened before? A President or the White House being ordered to write a letter accounting for what the President said in a press conference?

that is not what the judge asked for.

He asked for the Administrations opinion of the role of the court.

Just as the President has the right to ask for the court its interpretation of the role of the President.

Just as Congress has the right to ask for the either the courts or the POTUS' interpretation of any of the branches.

That is known as keeping the checks and balances in order.

What we had here was the president giving the people reason to question the integrity of the supreme court. Now, if the President does not see the Supreme Court as the branch that makes the final decisioon on the constitutionality of a law, then there is a serious breach in the 3 branch system....and conmgress weould need to take the appropriate action....including an impeachment proceeding.

Now...before you get all bent out of shape.....you likely agree with the mandate in the law...

But lets say it was a GOP president pushing through a GOP majority congress and senate a law saying that SS age is pushed up to 72 AND no one is grandfrathered....and it is presented to the SCOTUS for a decision...and the GOP president said "if they repeal my law, it is an example of judicial activism...

Would you want that kind of a President to continue unscathed?

Before you say yes.....do you know why bank robbers usually rob more than one bank? Becuase they got away with it the first time.

Think about it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The letter is out

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/doj_letter_smith.pdf

 

[Liability]

No, I did not. I NEVER said he should be impeached for using the term Obamacare

Ok. YOU (being a dope) maintained that for using the term "ObamaCare" the judge should be removed from the bench.



For calling upon the Government to have the AG provide the 3 page letter, you maintained an impeachment was called for.



Sorry, pal. But you are dip-shit stupid either way.

If a judge says something dumb in asking you a question or asking you to do something, you politely answer anyway. You try not to tell a judge that he's a dope.

And judges don't get impeached for asking for something even if they aren't entitled to it (as long as the thing they are requesting isn't bribe or drugs or a hit or sumpin' like that).

You are a bit unhinged. You do know that don't you?

No, IDIOT. That is NOT what I said about his Obamacare remark. Why don't you maybe learn to read and not be such a dope yourself before claiming other people are. What I said was

His calling the Affordable Health Care act "Obamacare" would alone be reason to be removed from the case


Case, not bench, case, there's a big difference

Yeah. Calm down. I went back and noticed the mistake and corrected it a few moments ago. Then I see that you caught my follow-up whoopsie. You are right. I MEANT to say "case" in the first place, but gummed it up when I posted the last time. My bad.

In any event, the rejoinder doesn't change as a consequence. Even as corrected, my response to your silly claims remains the same. You are laughably wrong. There is NO valid basis to remove him from the CASE nor is there ANY basis for a rational impeachment effort.

 

[Liability]

Let's start having liberal judges being as openly partisan and see what the response from the right is then you can get back to me about being partisan

Start?

START?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Payback is a bitch, eh lightweight?

I'm sure you're going to give some examples right?

Oh please. The whole mantra of reigning in judicial activism began with conservatives protesting liberal judges making law from the bench.

Show me the alleged right to privacy in the Constitution. Oh right. You can't because it's not in there. And the notion that a right to remain silent translates into a "requirement" of Constitutional proportions that cops must INFORM suspects that they are free to clam up. That's not in the Constitution either Liberal judges made it up pretty much out of whole clothe. And the "remedy" for a violation of that made up rule? MORE judicial activism: suppression of otherwise perfectly valid confessions.

You aren't debating on a serious level, kid.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did anyone post the letter yet? http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/doj_letter_smith.pdf

 

[rightwinger]

I give it an F

It was not three full pages

Is the judge going to put Holder in jail?

 

[Liability]

Can anybody cite a case where this has ever happened before? A President or the White House being ordered to write a letter accounting for what the President said in a press conference?

Neither the president nor the white house was ordered to write anything.

True. And in looking again (listening actually) to what the judge actually said (see 5th Circuit Court audio - YouTube ) it is not even technically correct tht the AG was the one called upon to provide the 3 page letter.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I give it an F

It was not three full pages

Is the judge going to put Holder in jail?

Only if the judge exceeds his constitutional authority

 

[Peach]

I give it an F

It was not three full pages

Is the judge going to put Holder in jail?

Or spank him with a wooden ruler?

 

[Ernie S.]

no letter yet Holder pledges response to judge - Chicago Sun-Times

From your link:

Obama had sought to clarify his remark on Tuesday. Obama said he was referring only to a specific class of constitutional law, and to the pattern of judicial deference to Congress exemplified by the upholding of New Deal legislation in the 1930s.

But obama doesn't have a packed Court, does he?