Judges order Justice Department to clarify following Obama remarks on health law case

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This article hits the nail right on the head. Obama made a complete fool of himself and it's amusing to watch his lapdogs following behind him trying to scoop up his bullshit.

For someone who once taught classes at a law school, President Obama doesn’t seem to know much about the powers of the Supreme Court.

At a press conference Monday, Mr. Obama said he did not think the high court would rule that forcing Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional. “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 said.

There’s plenty of precedent for voiding a law like Obamacare. The top justices have invalidated more than 150 federal laws in part or in whole. Nor would there be anything extraordinary about such a step, as courts frequently make these types of rulings. In fact, it would be unprecedented and extraordinary for it to let stand the unconstitutional aspects of Obamacare.

There’s also no truth to the suggestion that Obamacare passed by a “strong majority.” The vote was 219 to 212, a razor-thin margin in which 34 members of the president’s own party voted no. The margin of passage has never been a factor in the Supreme Court’s review of any law. That’s simply not a part of American jurisprudence. In fact, if Mr. Obama believes what he says, he ought to be very satisfied with the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 by a whopping 275 margin in the House and by 71 votes in the Senate.

EDITORIAL: Obama flunks constitutional law - Washington Times

 

[Ernie S.]

And Yes, a sitting President CAN be held in contempt ie William Jefferson Clinton.

Jones v. Clinton 36 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999).

In July 1998, Wright leveled a $90,686 fine against the president. Wright said regarding this case that the fine was intended to both punish Clinton for the contempt violation and also "to deter others who might consider emulating the president's misconduct."

 

[Salt Jones]

And Yes, a sitting President CAN be held in contempt ie William Jefferson Clinton.

Jones v. Clinton 36 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (E.D. Ark. 1999).

In July 1998, Wright leveled a $90,686 fine against the president. Wright said regarding this case that the fine was intended to both punish Clinton for the contempt violation and also "to deter others who might consider emulating the president's misconduct."

They should do it then.

 

[Salt Jones]

The President should not have spoken about a pending case; no, there is nothing the Court CAN DO.

Obama wins no matter what the court decides. Either he gets Obamacare or he gets the base so energized that he wins in a landslide and gets single payer in the next term.

There is zero chance of single payer getting passed. ZERO. And the striking down of ObamaCare, a law the most people didn't want in the first place, will not push him over the finish line, but hey, I don't want to ruin your fantasy for you, so please continue.

Save this post and bring it out on election night and we'll see who's right.

 

[bripat9643]

They can't do anything to Obama without appearing partisan and helping to prove Obama's point.

So a "partisan" is anyone who disagrees with a Democrat?

 

[WillowTree]

And they can't do anything about what he said. All they are doing is proving his point.

The President should not have spoken about a pending case; no, there is nothing the Court CAN DO.

they can rule against his fat mouth and his hcb..

 

[WillowTree]

And they can't do anything about what he said. All they are doing is proving his point.

The President should not have spoken about a pending case; no, there is nothing the Court CAN DO.

Obama wins no matter what the court decides. Either he gets Obamacare or he gets the base so energized that he wins in a landslide and gets single payer in the next term.

"the base" ain't gonna be enough, he's lost all the white males, and most of the white women's in the land, not to mention the Jews and Seniors.. good luck wit da "base."

 

[Dot Com]

The President should not have spoken about a pending case; no, there is nothing the Court CAN DO.

Obama wins no matter what the court decides. Either he gets Obamacare or he gets the base so energized that he wins in a landslide and gets single payer in the next term.

"the base" ain't gonna be enough, he's lost all the white males, and most of the white women's in the land, not to mention the Jews and Seniors.. good luck wit da "base."

link? here's one:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-shows-obama-making-big-gains-female-voters-170245867.html

Female voters in battleground states are rallying around President Obama in droves, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday, suggesting a gender gap could pose one of the Republicans' biggest challenges in this fall's general election race.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.

Uh huh.

The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.

Nor will there be one forthcoming. It’s not the DOJ’s job to school partisan republican judges on the doctrine of separation of powers.

The SCOTUS has enormous power - as they have shown over the years. Four of the current judges despise our president and are way beyond mere corrupt.

If they can get Kennedy, the Repubs will win and the American people will lose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.

Uh huh.

The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.

Nor will there be one forthcoming. It’s not the DOJ’s job to school partisan republican judges on the doctrine of separation of powers.

It is, however, their job to follow court orders.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just because a law is passed by elected officials doesn't necessarily make it constitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll be somewhat surprised if Holder complies and submits a response on time.

Holder isn't going to go to jail for contempt of court if the response isn't in on time, the lawyer who was told to file the brief will. My guess is it will be there will be a three page single spaced response in before the deadline.

 

[zutalors]

All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.

Uh huh.

The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.

Nor will there be one forthcoming. It’s not the DOJ’s job to school partisan republican judges on the doctrine of separation of powers.

DOJ is clearly too busy running guns to Mexico to bother with this sort of frippery.