Court of Appeals Demands Obama's Lawyer Answer Whether Courts Have Power To Strike Down Federal Law Or Not
You're going to intimidate us? Okay, we're going to intimidate you back.In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law... The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.The case being argued is a suit by physicians and physician-owned hospitals against ObamaCare. After getting the DOJ lawyer to confess that of course that power has been asserted (and used) by the court since 1803, the judge...
... became "very stern," the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to "many of us" whether the president believes such a right exists.As Allah noted, as reminded by @baseballcrank, Obama is currently inviting the courts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by truly solid democratic majorities, and still popular law. He has instructed his lawyers to not defend the law against challenge (Congress, I believe, has petitioned to intervene to defend the law). So no, he doesn't really believe the courts can't strike down laws. He's just lying for political effect, as usual. via @theRickWilson Status Update: Real.
Comments
Posted by: Vic at April 03, 2012 04:20 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Vic at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Jeffersonian at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (gxCRt)
Rule number one is never ever ever piss off the judge. Obama managed to piss off the entire judiciary. Heck of a job SCOAMT!
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: toby928© at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Justice Lennie Pike at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:22 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Waterhouse at April 03, 2012 04:22 PM (w/anX)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (Sh42X)
Posted by: Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (r2PLg)
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. The Chief is a woman appointed by Reagan.
Has the shit got real?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:24 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Veep Joey Biden at April 03, 2012 04:24 PM (JEpGb)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:24 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Walter Freeman at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (kqGWM)
Posted by: Supreme Court of Food at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (71LDo)
Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (Hx5uv)
The feces is now authentic.
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (jUytm)
Eastern District of Louisiana
Middle District of Louisiana
Western District of Louisiana
Northern District of Mississippi
Southern District of Mississippi
Eastern District of Texas
Northern District of Texas
Southern District of Texas
Western District of Texas
******************
Oh ya.
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Weimdog at April 03, 2012 04:26 PM (SwPvC)
Posted by: mallfly at April 03, 2012 04:26 PM (bJm7W)
Posted by: 5th Circuit at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (Zs83Q)
That really got out of hand quickly
Posted by: Ben at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Abdulh Ackbar, Lawyer, Justice dept. at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: steevy at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (7W3wI)
Posted by: huerfano at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (bAGA/)
Has the shit got real?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:24 PM (ZKzrr)
*************
La merde est vrai-or some thing.
Off to go check her out.
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (DGIjM)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (8y9MW)
There was a horse, and a guy on fire. I think Emilio killed somebody with a trident ...
Posted by: Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Benson at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (qzcNU)
Posted by: Yoda Martin Lawrence at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: USS Diversity at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (vpe0k)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:29 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Heralder at April 03, 2012 04:29 PM (/Mxso)
Posted by: Kensington at April 03, 2012 04:29 PM (H84UO)
Your safer telling them their mother was a whore than to tell a judge they're not as important as the executive or legislative branch.
Which is why I said I hope this is something the JEF continues to do--especially as his stupid scrunts in the media will cheerlead him on.
Posted by: jimmuy at April 03, 2012 04:29 PM (kSaUf)
Listen up --you namby pamby Mitt Romney--if you win this is your Supreme Court nominee.
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (r2PLg)
Houston, we have genuine poop.
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: William H. Bonney at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (XxAYS)
Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (H84UO)
Posted by: minuteman (formerly trainer) until Juggy is gone at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (Rojyk)
Posted by: SCOAMT at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (4FyKt)
FYNQ.
Love,
Us
Dear 5th Circuit,
How many divisions did you have again?
Love,
His Supremity, The One
Posted by: Heorot at April 03, 2012 04:31 PM (Nq/UF)
Teh Professor of Constitutional Law in Chief is getting schooled by his own courts.
Posted by: Marmo at April 03, 2012 04:31 PM (I8GNk)
Posted by: Soona at April 03, 2012 04:31 PM (J4dzh)
>>>So no, he doesn't really believe the courts can't strike down laws. He's just lying for political effect, as usual.
I think that is a rather loose statement that doesn't embody Obama's views. His real views on the subject are
Progressivism Wins!
That's it. That simple. He believes all of government process is a simple contrivance and only in the *right* so long as progressivism wins!
Democracy? If it supporting him great. If it isn't we are a Republic dammit.
Courts? Living breathing Constitution while they support him. Otherwise it's judicial activism to do anything.
Legislature? A democratically elected body whose laws should be respected? Or a do nothing partisan body of obstruction and human suffering?
That's it, no belief in process, representation, form, or function of any form of government beyond Progressivism Wins! government.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose now with dark clouds! at April 03, 2012 04:31 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: toby928© at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (Hx5uv)
I gagged on my cookie and shot milk through my nose on that one.
Posted by: YIKES! at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (Fx8df)
single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive
Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said."
Is this like a school assignment? Can I make the margins large, use a wide font, etc? I may have to insert a lot of unnecessary, redundant, and superfluous adjectives, too. Is that a problem? No? Marvelous.
Posted by: Oblahblah at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (Xwgt3)
How many divisions did you have again?
Love,
His Supremity, The One
Dear Mr. President,
On behalf of our friends, the Court,
More than you.
With Respect.
The US Armed Forces.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (8y9MW)
Bam is gonna get bytch slapped for his flame war...
Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (Jls4P)
That's like an ace review of a Short.
Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (+CrrB)
Posted by: Marmo at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (I8GNk)
Dear 5th Circuit,
How many divisions did you have again?
Love,
His Supremity, The One
Posted by: Heorot at April 03, 2012 04:31 PM (Nq/UF)
Yes, my fear if SCOTUS strikes down BambiCare is that he'll pull a Jackson and say "Mr. Roberts has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
Posted by: Yoda Martin Lawrence at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (RD7QR)
would love to have a Constitutional crisis right before the election. I
hope I'm wrong, but hasn't this been brewing for a couple of years now?
I think it depends on polling. If he is winning, the crisis won't occur until after the votes are counted and he is the confirmed winner. If he is losing, it will happen prior to the election.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose now with dark clouds! at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Y-not at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (5H6zj)
She could have been Bush41's, instead of Souter. Sigh.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Y-not at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: tsj017 at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (ORHaw)
Posted by: Federal Appeals Court Justices at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (DQHjw)
La merde est maintenant reélle was my guess (after many thousands of dollars, but some number of years ago in France, so I took phrase in French, and put it in Google Translator and got (ding ding ding):
Shit is now real
Posted by: @ParisParamus at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (KunEa)
fo shame.
Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (+CrrB)
Jefferson openly scoffed at Marshal.
Posted by: Vic at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: The Flaming Skull at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (d4vjp)
I would love for just one of them to Sue UofC Law School. That would be hilarious.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Warden at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (HzhBE)
Posted by: Warden at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (HzhBE)
I have no doubt Hillary's anal plug Lanny Davis will weigh in on why Baraka is correct, and the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit should be disbanded for insubordination.
Posted by: Doctor Fish at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (TkGkA)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (UOM48)
Nah, go with someone safe.
Posted by: John Sununu at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (5H6zj)
It would be interesting to see him try that route when 26 states are on that complaint. How exactly is he going to implement anything if those states tell him to stuff it and have the SC ruling to back them up?
Posted by: Zharkov at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (SI30P)
Help me please; I'm trying to find a quote.
Does anyone remember what Obama said when he said things would be easier for him to be president if it wasn't for Congress?
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (jUytm)
She could have been Bush41's, instead of Souter. Sigh.Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (ZKzrr)She was not yet ripe. IYKWIMAITYD.
Posted by: Will Folkes at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (KeXQh)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (UOM48)
That's relevant, right?
signed
XXOO
clueless libs, moving taht dial.
Posted by: joeindc44 would also like to thank Dr. Pepper for his tasty contribution to mankind at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: @ParisParamus at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (KunEa)
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (ZKzrr)
Bluff level: called
Posted by: joeindc44 would also like to thank Dr. Pepper for his tasty contribution to mankind at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (QxSug)
Obama just gave a BLATANTLY obvious Election speech, on OUR dime. It was NOT a campaign speech... WE paid for it. He even called out his Election Opponent BY NAME for his stances on the budget...
Add in that Obama has already (or still) gotten rid of all checks on Credit Card donations to his campaign?
Add in the very obvious racheting up of Divisive Racial and Gender Politics???
Add in his Justice Dept going after any State who wants to make sure Elections are fair and honest (voter ID )...
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (lZBBB)
This shit just gotreal andit's SPECTACULAR!
Posted by: What would Hitch do? at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (WGfPe)
Jackson never actually said that, though. And the court did win out. Worcester was freed.
ObamaCare is an albatross around his neck as it is. If he unconstitutionally ignored what would be a wildly popular decision, he may as well not even try to win reelection
Posted by: Benson at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (qzcNU)
This is a frat pledge being forced to dance around naked in front of the girls dorm.
This isn't "pistols at dawn," it's "now go get your shinebox."
Posted by: jimmuy at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (kSaUf)
Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (8g9qq)
Posted by: Cato at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (DqkgM)
La merde est maintenant reélle was my guess (after many thousands of dollars, but some number of years ago in France, so I took phrase in French, and put it in Google Translator and got (ding ding ding):
Shit is now real
Posted by: @ParisParamus at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (KunEa)
Ya I think mine literally translated to -
"the shit is truthful".
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (DGIjM)
Posted by: What would Hitch do? at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (WGfPe)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (sl3x6)
- The Judge with the big ass hammer
Posted by: Roy at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (VndSC)
simple... by declaring Martial Law, and Federalizing all the 'Militias' (National Guard Units)...
You know, that power that he gave himself a couple of weeks ago by Executive Order?
Posted by: Romeo13 at April 03, 2012 04:40 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:40 PM (QxSug)
That would be totally non-workable today. All of the states, or at least 55 out of 57, are in the federal government's pocket.
When the feds threaten to cut off revenues, none of them will buck the system.
If there's any problem with the court today it's that it does not take it's role seriously enough, or strike down enough laws. To the extent the Court has what is a Veto and not the ability to write law, and to the extent that the States use to be seen as having such a veto, they are not mutually exclusive - let them both have vetos. The more the merrier.
Posted by: Entropy at April 03, 2012 04:40 PM (TULs6)
Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at April 03, 2012 04:40 PM (Jls4P)
And that is a little different. Since the law compels action, and punishes for a failure to complete said action, they depend on the courts to enforce the law. Every court in the land would simply vacate any charges made relevant to enforcing O'Care. Then what's O going to do? Enforce a law with no courts? That's open civil war.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose now with dark clouds! at April 03, 2012 04:40 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Thomas Lyons at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (9EwDm)
Posted by: Charles Dickens at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (qwK3S)
(Though, you know that might make a comeback in the years ahead also. I bet that rug has seen some SHEEE-IT!!!!)
Posted by: The Flaming Skull at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (d4vjp)
Posted by: Toure at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (Fx8df)
"Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”
Bill Kristol uses few words to savage Obama for this sentiment:
If you’re president of China, people around the world who are fighting for freedom don’t really expect you to help. If you’re president of China, you don’t have to put up with annoying off-year congressional elections, and then negotiate your budget with a bunch of gun-and-religion-clinging congressmen and senators. If you’re president of China, you can fund your national public radio to your heart’s content. And if you’re president of China, when you host a conference on bullying in schools, people take you seriously."
Posted by: Mr. Pink at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (swkkW)
Posted by: Gaius Baraka Obamicus at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (JEpGb)
She could have been Bush41's, instead of Souter. Sigh.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (ZKzrr)
*************
Damn.
At 62 is she a little old?
A woman's life expectancy is longer--but still would like to stick 'em with someone for a long, long time.
A gal about 38...maybe 40ish.
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: The Flaming Skull at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (d4vjp)
***********
Bitch, please!
Posted by: Tums Have Carbs!!! at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (ggRof)
Disagreeing with a court decision or calling for reforms is vastly different than claiming the precedent doesn't exist and the court doesn't currently have the power.
One is calling for change or disagreeing. The other is denying a widely-understood reality with longtime historic precedent. While claiming to be a constitutional scholar.
Posted by: Benson at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (qzcNU)
How many divisions did you have again?
Love,
His Supremity, The One
Sir,
Best to reconsider that line of argument.
Respectfully,
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Posted by: Alex at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (tlK1P)
ObamaCare is an albatross around his neck as it is. If he
unconstitutionally ignored what would be a wildly popular decision, he
may as well not even try to win reelection
Posted by: Benson at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (qzcNU)
Well, but that statement was in relation to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Jackson essentially ignored it.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at April 03, 2012 04:42 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Soothsayer at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (jUytm)
be if we had leadership with balls) in calling out the courts when they
go what we perceive to be crazy.
Yes. We claim they make bad decisions. We don't claim they have the authority they plainly have (even if they usurped that authority from the States).
We can talk about whether or not Judicial Review is a power actually granted to the Courts (it wasn't), but we don't deny that they currently have that power, regardless.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: no good deed at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (mjR67)
Posted by: Obama to Kagan at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (qwK3S)
be if we had leadership with balls) in calling out the courts when they
go what we perceive to be crazy.
We aren't the President. Do you have an example of Reagan/Bush making such disparaging remarks about a case yet to be decided? Attempting to bully the court?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose now with dark clouds! at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:44 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston would be forever alone without AoS at April 03, 2012 04:44 PM (KCvsd)
brb, usurpin the checks and balances
Posted by: lolobama at April 03, 2012 04:44 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Preznit O'Shizzle at April 03, 2012 04:45 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: Obama to Kagan at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (qwK3S)
Close her up, we have a Winner.
Well crafted...It's got everything!?
Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 04:45 PM (+CrrB)
Posted by: Roy at April 03, 2012 04:46 PM (VndSC)
such disparaging remarks about a case yet to be decided? Attempting to
bully the court?"
Reagan and Bush, no. But the original poster used the more generic "we cons" and on that front, many a time, the courts have been disparged for openly overriding state legislatures on topics such as gay marriage.
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 03, 2012 04:46 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: Barky O'dipshit at April 03, 2012 04:46 PM (DGIjM)
Posted by: #OccupyResoluteDesk at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (Orvm4)
Posted by: Obama to Kagan
Thread Winner.
Posted by: toby928© at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (GTbGH)
only in my dreams, alas.
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (QxSug)
The 5th Circuit just gave the Obama administration a homework assignment. Be sure to show your work, scoamf!
Posted by: Warden at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (HzhBE)
Obama will just ignore this like every other demand any other courts ever made to him or his administration.
And the GOP doesn't have the balls to follow up on this one or any of the others.
Question: is the GOP simply that feckless or are they scared of Obama because he's black?
I'm starting to seriously consider Obama's pigmentation has the GOP scared shitless.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: dananjcon at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (8ieXv)
" I hope I'm wrong, but hasn't this been brewing for a couple of years now?"
Yup, ever since the SCOAMF'f SOTU speech where he bitch-slapped the SCOTUS live and in livin', lovin' color right to their faces. The one where CJ Roberts shook his head at the comment.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (d0Tfm)
yup.
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain (Formerly Abdominal Snowman) at April 03, 2012 04:49 PM (BY55s)
Posted by: Justice Kennedy at April 03, 2012 04:50 PM (okXo7)
Posted by: dananjcon at April 03, 2012 04:50 PM (8ieXv)
Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 04:51 PM (H84UO)
Posted by: wheatie at April 03, 2012 04:51 PM (+5U+B)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at April 03, 2012 04:51 PM (+XVQe)
Posted by: irright at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (RzLbD)
Posted by: 5th Circuit at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (NBj0d)
==========
Pudding futures are through the roof!
Posted by: Kensington at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (H84UO)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: wheatie at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (+5U+B)
The 5th Circuit doesn't take any shit.
The 5th Circuit hasn't been happy with SCOAMF for around 2 years, ever since he and Salazar kept playing games with the permitoreum in the Gulf.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (vJ9tV)
Posted by: nickless at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (WDRA0)
Sunday, Sunday, Sunday ... be there when the robes fly!
Posted by: Max Entropy at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (MwDbZ)
Baracky went a'courtin'.
Posted by: Dr. Varno at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (8iIu0)
Posted by: Benson at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (qzcNU)
---------------------------------------
Unfortunately, I don't think the SCOAMT or his regime care at this point. They know they're chances for re-election is slowly but surely diminishing, so they're objective now is to cause as much damage to this nation as possible. These next few months is going to truely test the strength of this nation.
Posted by: Soona at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (J4dzh)
Posted by: Jay Bee at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (Xwgt3)
Posted by: irright at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (RzLbD)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (i0App)
Well protecting the Constitution comes before taking orders from the president so good luck Barky
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: 5th Circuit at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (JIDLg)
Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: sherlock at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (6rLSO)
Feel free to ignore the 2nd highest rule of Honey Badger's: Never go FULL Honey Badger!
Smack BHO like I would a cobra!
Posted by: i'm the Honey Badger, BITCH! at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (Wy05x)
Posted by: Justice Breyer at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (okXo7)
Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (i6RpT)
Holder will ignore. He will then be impeached, creating a constitutional crisis due to Senate indifference.
I'm not so sure about that... Do you see how many Senate Dems are up this year?
I don't think this is the hill that many of them want their careers to die on, having seen what happened in 2010.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Rich K at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (X4l3T)
Posted by: The Judicial Branch at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (r2PLg)
.
I second that.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (WDRA0)
According to my wife, my house is fine.
My brother's however, was right in the storm-path. He doesn't know it's status, currently. However- all those important to me in the area have checked in, so I'm calling that a win.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Trayvon at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (WUWb9)
Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (vJ9tV)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (IlZPo)
Posted by: The Underhills at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (I1icO)
Posted by: dananjcon at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (8ieXv)
oh, his braindead instant acquisition hate disciples will follow his lead but no one else will. He's pissing into the wind now, he's already a lame duck.
True, a lame duck with a trillion dollar annual stash thanks to Harry Reid, but thems the brakes.
Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (QxSug)
STFU! You don't know jack shit about "constitutional law". I wrote the book on it, bitch!
Signed,
Posted by: Chief Justice John Marshall at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (Jls4P)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (JEpGb)
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 04:57 PM (Z9EHQ)
My brother's however, was right in the storm-path. He doesn't know it's status, currently. However- all those important to me in the area have checked in, so I'm calling that a win.
Wow, that's huge! Glad to hear you and your family are all ok! Property can be replaced, people cannot.
Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 04:57 PM (vJ9tV)
He passed the bar but the only record of him ever handling a case was him shaking down a bank as part of an ACORN racket.
From what I've heard, his supervising attorney at the law firm, which was coincidentally Moochelle, did most of his work.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 04:57 PM (e0xKF)
since he and Salazar kept playing games with the permitoreum in the
Gulf.
Is Obama still ignoring that court order?
Posted by: Heorot at April 03, 2012 04:57 PM (Nq/UF)
I don't think you understand.
Obama is a wannabe dictator. Of course the courts can strike down other federal laws. But this is different. This is *his* law. He is the ultimate authority, and how dare they challenge him.
No inconsistency, see?
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at April 03, 2012 04:57 PM (21lBC)
That's my take, as well. I can't get the news very reliably where I am, so I don't know the extent of the damage across the area, yet.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (8y9MW)
Barky really doesn't know jack about law does he?? Was he ever a practicing attorney? Seems to me that this isLawyer shit 101.
****
Obama doesn't practice law. He is law.
Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Cast Iron at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (EL+OC)
single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive
Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
Lol! Sounds like a high school AP history teacher putting the smack down.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (tKFT6)
Posted by: YIKES! at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (Fx8df)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (8y9MW)
No the 5th will threaten to dismiss any case brought before them where the US is a party to the case in favor of the other side.
To which Holder will immediately respond "No problem we'll just appeal to the . . . . uh here's that paper you asked for"
Posted by: MikeTheMoose now with dark clouds! at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: MichelleO at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (OhYCU)
Dear 5th Circuit,
How many divisions did you have again?
Love,
His Supremity, The One
And exactly how many do you think you have, Your Supremity?
Posted by: The Military at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (JuTti)
Posted by: nickless at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (MMC8r)
The 5th Circuit hasn't been happy with SCOAMF for around 2 years, ever
since he and Salazar kept playing games with the permitoreum in the
Gulf.
Is Obama still ignoring that court order?
Last I heard, the permitoreum is "officially" lifted but Dept. of the Interior is taking their sweet time approving any actions not involving BP.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (e0xKF)
From what I've heard, his supervising attorney at the law firm, which was coincidentally Moochelle, did most of his work.
I have read in numerous places that both he and she surrendered their law licenses. Now doesn't anyone find that a little odd and newsworthy? Certainly not our fabulous, curiously incurious MFM.
Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (vJ9tV)
Posted by: cherry at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 05:00 PM (H84UO)
My brain has to try and make sense of it, or even translate their lies or rants into some honest criticism. Its quite helpful in dealing my wife when she gets upset but it makes lefty bubble talk an exhausting exercise. Speaking of, I keep meaning to donate to Newsbusters. Thats some yeoman's sewer labor right there.
Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at April 03, 2012 05:00 PM (RfvTE)
Posted by: Websters at April 03, 2012 05:00 PM (OhYCU)
But hey, the 5th Circuit is unelected, so Holder will ignore this entirely.
So by what margin did Holder win his seat?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 03, 2012 05:01 PM (JuTti)
"Transmit THIS to Vladimir 2012"
Posted by: tmitsss at April 03, 2012 05:01 PM (V4Pya)
Give him a break. Derrick Bell never taught him about this shit.
MoMo, I don't think we're in Chicago any more...
Posted by: The Wizzer of Id at April 03, 2012 05:01 PM (vJ9tV)
You're welcome, pricks.
http://tinyurl.com/73csldm (directorblue link)
Posted by: GnuBreed at April 03, 2012 05:01 PM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Charles Dickens at April 03, 2012 05:02 PM (qwK3S)
Posted by: president say stuff at April 03, 2012 05:03 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Judge Dredd at April 03, 2012 05:03 PM (MMC8r)
What, are you nuts? They'll drop a half-dozen asteroids on us in retaliation, for sure...
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at April 03, 2012 05:04 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: dagny at April 03, 2012 05:04 PM (CMM9V)
The third branch has awakened. (And joined the fight?).
<-----The line for the preference cascade begins here.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at April 03, 2012 05:04 PM (X/+QT)
Posted by: Justice Breyer at April 03, 2012 05:04 PM (okXo7)
Posted by: The Won at April 03, 2012 05:05 PM (qwK3S)
Posted by: Heorot at April 03, 2012 05:05 PM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at April 03, 2012 05:05 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: Justice Breyer at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (okXo7)
Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (vJ9tV)
I can't wait to read the opinion.
Posted by: WisRich at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (hdpay)
Posted by: the 99% at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (tf9Ne)
----------------------------------------------
I know I'm like many other military people here that took that oath. Even though I haven't been active for a long time, I never signed anything or said anything to retract that oath. I still honor it.
Posted by: Soona at April 03, 2012 05:07 PM (J4dzh)
Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (vJ9tV)
yep .
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:07 PM (Z9EHQ)
single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive
Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
What is this, Remedial Government? If one questions a branch to this extent, the interrogation ought to be under oath in the witness stand, I would think.
Shit just got pathetic.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 03, 2012 05:08 PM (X3lox)
Thankfully, the limits of his pardon powers are for people facing or convicted on federal charges.
That means he could pardon shit-stains like Bradley Manning or release the Gitmo terrorists but he can't do anything to people convicted or charged at the state level.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 05:08 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (Z9EHQ)
Romney would never pick her, sadly.
Posted by: jjshaka at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (8Vub4)
Posted by: WisRich at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (hdpay)
---------------------------------------
I can only hope. I'm not placing any bets on it, though.
Posted by: Soona at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (J4dzh)
The US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit chick is treading on very dangerous ground with our progressive movement, and we know how to make amends. It doesn't end well.
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (TkGkA)
single-spaced letter by noon Thursday
Will it be graded?
Posted by: Teacher at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (OhYCU)
he would be well advised that the sc has been very generous in handling challenges to his citizenship.
Good point.
Maybe they could fast-track a challenge to it before the election.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 05:10 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:10 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: polynikes at April 03, 2012 05:11 PM (IiDIW)
The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page,
single-spaced letter by noon Thursday
Will it be graded?
Posted by: Teacher at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (OhYCU)
No red ink!
Posted by: Eric Holder at April 03, 2012 05:11 PM (TkGkA)
single-spaced letter by noon Thursday<<<<
I laughed at that too. Do this make up work if you want credit for this class.
Posted by: 5th Circuit at April 03, 2012 05:11 PM (JIDLg)
So by what margin did Holder win his seat?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 03, 2012 05:01 PM (JuTti)
IIRC, it was 97-0.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at April 03, 2012 05:11 PM (7+pP9)
"Dear Racist Misogynists,
We believe the Constitution is stained, and you are racists.
Bow to your Lord Barack."
Posted by: Headline at April 03, 2012 05:11 PM (OhYCU)
decree by executive order and who he will pardon before he is out of
office.
Brother Cavil's Post-Election Fantasy:
* B.O. goes down in electoral flames
* Fully intending to take America with him, he issues a slew of Executive Orders and pardons that amount to national suicide
* The President's doctor says "to hell with this" and certifies that he's gone nuts and is no longer competent to carry out the duties of the office
* Slow Joe becomes caretaker Acting President, with a number of very stern warnings on the way in
* The Man Who Would Be King spends the rest of his life in a mental ward, heavily sedated
Ah...sweet, sweet fantasy...
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at April 03, 2012 05:12 PM (GBXon)
Do we want liberal judge's demanding all that republican presidents answer all kinds of political questions?
This is not appropriate and the Justice Department should refuse to respond. It is an abuse by the judges on this panel.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 03, 2012 05:12 PM (sOx93)
Oh, it's a perfect insult to the Adjunct Lecturer in Chief.
Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 05:12 PM (+CrrB)
Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at April 03, 2012 05:13 PM (a5ljo)
Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at April 03, 2012 05:13 PM (Jls4P)
If he loses this next election, I only shudder to think what he will
decree by executive order and who he will pardon before he is out of
office.Brother Cavil's Post-Election Fantasy:
I think it would be funnier if he reacted the way the main Cavil did during the BSG finale.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 05:13 PM (e0xKF)
Well hello, Judge Fancy-pants. Say, while we're just chatting here, how's John Roll doing these days? Shame about that. Tragic, really. Makes you think, though, doesn't it. Here today, tomorrow....poof. Yup. Life - it is uncertain.
Posted by: Prezidizzle Obizzle at April 03, 2012 05:15 PM (FsqHK)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 03, 2012 05:15 PM (JIDLg)
Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 03, 2012 05:12 PM (sOx93)
Understand your point and tend to agree. However, Dick Downgrade has verbally attacked the court on several occasions and specifically ignored 5th Circuit rulings. If a Republican President did the same thing I would hope the courts would act as the 5th has in this case. The difference is the provocation by Dick.
Posted by: Ammo Dump at April 03, 2012 05:16 PM (WUWb9)
---
Write it 500 times on the AfricanAmericanBoard bitchz.
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at April 03, 2012 05:16 PM (SO2Q8)
I've been on the record as expecting a fatal OD if he ever wound up cornered with no way out. Odds are going up every day at this rate.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (GBXon)
the Gitmo terrorists but he can't do anything to people convicted or
charged at the state level.
****
He could probably pardon cop killer Leonard Peltier but probably not Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Port Authority of NY/NJ at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (FsqHK)
Is this common, and we just don't hear about it often because the stories are usually boring? Or is this, in and of itself, a big part of the smackdown?
Posted by: reason at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (sPO/s)
Posted by: Admiral Ackbar at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (a5ljo)
Posted by: polynikes at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (IiDIW)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at April 03, 2012 05:12 PM (GBXon)
.
I always pictured him in 2013lying on a dirty matress in a crack house on the south side of Chicago, muttering tohimself, "This wasn't supposed to turn out this way."
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (WDRA0)
SCOTUS overruling <<<<laws is common now. But when Marbury was first
decided the common <<<<feeling was that the States were the ultimate
authority for deciding is a law <<<<was Constitutional or not.
<<<<Jefferson openly scoffed at Marshal.
<<<<Posted by: Vic at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (YdQQY)
Too true. And, really, I'm not certain SCOTUS really is the best place for this power to reside. Imagine a court with one more extreme liberal that believes the constitution means "anything we think it means".But, the reality is that it is the left that has used the courts to push its agenda, undo democratically enacted legislation, and create new "rights" nowhere to be found in the constitution. I think it is incredibly disingenuous for Obama to claim the court can't do the same when it his his ox being gored. But of course, this fits right in with Alinsky's rules - make the other side live by their own rules. He thinks he can force us into accepting unconstitutional laws by arguing "judicial activism". The left really does not have any understanding of what "judicial activism" actually means. they think "judicial activism", when used by the right, simply means the courts ruling a law unconstitutional. That is not what it means. It means interpreting things into the constitution and statutes that are clearly not there.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 03, 2012 05:18 PM (sOx93)
Posted by: Paul Revere at April 03, 2012 05:18 PM (iqtXM)
Posted by: SCOTUS at April 03, 2012 05:18 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:19 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at April 03, 2012 05:19 PM (SO2Q8)
Possibly, but doubtful.
The 5th already doesn't like POUTUS much because he and Salazar blatantly ignored their rulings in the past two years. This just gave them an opportunity to give a middle finger to him.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 05:21 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Franz Sanchez from License to Kill, Guest White House Spokesman at April 03, 2012 05:22 PM (FsqHK)
Posted by: Judge Jerry Smith at April 03, 2012 05:22 PM (SO2Q8)
Pretty. Fucking. Awesome.
Posted by: Doodad Pro at April 03, 2012 05:22 PM (BB0/w)
Dick Downgrade has >>>>verbally attacked the court on several occasions and
specifically ignored 5th >>>>Circuit rulings. If a Republican President did
the same thing I would hope the >>>>courts would act as the 5th has in this
case. The difference is the provocation >>>>by Dick.
>>>>Posted by: Ammo Dump at April 03, 2012 05:16 PM (WUWb9)
I would have to know more about why this question came up. If the court is merely asking DOJ to brief something relevant to the issue at hand in the appeal, then ok. But, if it isn't relevant and is just the Court playing games - it is not proper, regardless of what Obama said. If the Gov't is ignoring 5th circuit rulings, the court should hold someone in contempt.
Look, we on the right have been running against the Courts for decades. Our politicians (and presidents) have been much more nuanced about attacking decisions or courts then Obama is, but this is hardly a new phenomena. I get at least one fund raising letter a day from the GOP or a GOP politician railing against liberal courts.This simply politicizes the Courts further and is grabbing a power that the Court does not have (i..e, to require the Executive to "answer" to the Court if the Court is unhappy with something the Executive says or does). It is not right regardless of what Obama has said or done.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 03, 2012 05:23 PM (sOx93)
---
Write it 500 times on the AfricanAmericanBoard bitchz.
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at April 03, 2012 05:16 PM (SO2Q
I was wondering about those things also. I suppose they would hold him in contempt if he pulled any of those things.
It would be funny if they marked it up and said "you have clearly only read the cliff notes. we advise you to read the full text of the Constitution and appropriate cases and try again."
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:23 PM (Z9EHQ)
Is there something I can do to get them to format correctly?
Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 03, 2012 05:23 PM (sOx93)
Posted by: drawandstrike at April 03, 2012 05:26 PM (iGKkt)
The 5th already doesn't like POUTUS much because he and Salazar blatantly ignored their rulings in the past two years. This just gave them an opportunity to give a middle finger to him.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at April 03, 2012 05:21 PM (e0xKF)
I am not arguing for or against sc involvement, however, having so specific an assignment made so close to zero's comment so on the court is interesting.
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:26 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Elena Kagan at April 03, 2012 05:27 PM (SO2Q8)
The Legislature - writes the laws
The Executive - enforces the laws
The Judicial - interprets the laws
Bammer fucked up... he declared war against the wrong people...
Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at April 03, 2012 05:27 PM (Jls4P)
Some trolltard used the formatting markings to break the site a couple of months back. Pixy burned the comment applet in order to save it, and now we're stuck with limited options.
Better than the alternative, I guess.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at April 03, 2012 05:28 PM (GBXon)
It's not uncommon for something to come up in oral argument or when the court is reviewing the briefs and for the court to give both sides a brief window of time to brief the topic. Fastest I've ever personally seen was something coming up in a witness's testimony and the court taking the lunch recess and giving both sides an hour and a half to look it up. (That got dumped on me to do and thank fuck I'd actually anticipated the issue and had a bunch of notes ready for it)
It is incredibly uncommon for the court to say "Tell you what, mister, you explain to me the last 200+ years of jurisprudence and why you think I can't bitchslap you from here to kingdom come."
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 05:28 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Chilling the most at April 03, 2012 05:29 PM (6IV8T)
Posted by: Cicero at April 03, 2012 05:29 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: stuff the 5th court of appeals said at April 03, 2012 05:29 PM (6kE8K)
Posted by: polynikes at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (IiDIW)
That statement alone is a very sad commentary.
Posted by: Doodad Pro at April 03, 2012 05:29 PM (BB0/w)
@250: "Dear Holder,
We are no longer afraid."
I would hate to see the butchers in the DOJ, SEIU, and Organizing for America - and I must admit we have more than a few - take too great an interest in you. Do you not agree? You would be hard to bring down, but not impossible. When we resubmit the matter to you, we will ask for your support. If you do not answer now, then you will answer....later.
Posted by: Gruppenfuhrer Erich Holder at April 03, 2012 05:30 PM (FsqHK)
Posted by: AMC Theaters at April 03, 2012 05:30 PM (SO2Q8)
Posted by: the noticer at April 03, 2012 05:30 PM (OhYCU)
Actually, it is completely appropriate no matter the line of questioning. DOJ is part of the executive branch and the head of that branch just announced in public that he does not believe that courts have the right to rule on the applicability of laws. That speaks directly to pretty much every single case that will be before the court. It is not unreasonable for a court to demand to know if the lawyer arguing before it accepts the authority of the court to rule on the matter.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 05:31 PM (VtjlW)
---
Contempt of Court
Contempt of Law
Contempt of Constitution
Contempt of Country
did i miss any?
Posted by: Barry at April 03, 2012 05:33 PM (SO2Q8)
Posted by: Tonic Dog at April 03, 2012 05:33 PM (X/+QT)
Don't blame me.I'm never sure what he's talking about.
Posted by: Obama's useless law degree at April 03, 2012 05:33 PM (6kE8K)
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 03, 2012 05:35 PM (JuTti)
Posted by: @ParisParamus at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (KunEa)
Uh, yeah...Now about that "inevitability..."
http://bit.ly/HdJ2E7
Posted by: Palin Takes it in a Brokered Convention! at April 03, 2012 05:37 PM (tQHzJ)
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:38 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: ejo at April 03, 2012 05:38 PM (slp7M)
Posted by: cherry at April 03, 2012 05:38 PM (OhYCU)
I think "ignorance" could easily replace "contempt".
Or, maybe both words should be required.
Posted by: jwb7605 at April 03, 2012 05:38 PM (Qxe/p)
"The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest "Posted by: AMC Theaters *******hot yummy schadenfreude!
Posted by: Cicero******I love this site!
Posted by: Jade Sea at April 03, 2012 05:39 PM (6kE8K)
Posted by: Tonic Dog at April 03, 2012 05:33 PM (X/+QT)
everyone has seen the drunk at the bar who starts swinging at everyone.
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:39 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: MTF at April 03, 2012 05:40 PM (JOnLy)
It's amatuerish for courts to respond to campaign statements made by the president. They're supposed to restrict their focus to the record made in court by the parties. Requiring a brief to address Obama's flapping mouth opens the door to all sorts of similar antics by liberal judges.
But on second thought, go for it.
Posted by: Average Joe at April 03, 2012 05:41 PM (bN5ZU)
--------
FIFY
Posted by: Anachronda at April 03, 2012 05:42 PM (FzhYM)
Posted by: Cicero at April 03, 2012 05:43 PM (QKKT0)
It's amatuerish for courts to respond to campaign statements made by the president. They're supposed to restrict their focus to the record made in court by the parties. Requiring a brief to address Obama's flapping mouth opens the door to all sorts of similar antics by liberal judges.
But on second thought, go for it.
Posted by: Average Joe at April 03, 2012 05:41 PM (bN5ZU)
those were not just campaign statements. you do not strike at the foundations of the nation for a few points in a poll.
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:44 PM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: tasker
Amen. Edith Jones is like Chuck Norris on a bench.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at April 03, 2012 05:45 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Soona at April 03, 2012 05:07 PM (J4dzh)
Me too.
Posted by: LGoPs at April 03, 2012 05:45 PM (+Uv5V)
Posted by: I AM NOT TREYVON at April 03, 2012 05:45 PM (GdalM)
I dunno.
It's amatuerish for courts to respond to campaign statements made by
the president. They're supposed to restrict their focus to the record
made in court by the parties. Requiring a brief to address Obama's
flapping mouth opens the door to all sorts of similar antics by liberal
judges.
But on second thought, go for it.
Posted by: Average Joe at April 03, 2012 05:41 PM (bN5ZU)
It's not if the boss of one set of lawyers before the court is basically calling the court/judiciary illegitimate.
The judiciary does not have money (leg) or guns (exec). They only have the veneer of impartial justice with which to gain/maintain goodwill and legitimacy from The People. Without that, they are literally nothing and the whole system breaks.
They may not have to defend themselves from a local politician spouting off, but the president is another matter. I'm sure they remember the 'switch in time saves 9' threat.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at April 03, 2012 05:49 PM (X/+QT)
---------------------------
I have always thought that it was a major conflict of interest for the federal government to decide what its powers were under the Constitution. Jefferson was right, that power should reside with the States. They formed the original compact.
Posted by: Vic at April 03, 2012 05:50 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: President Obama at April 03, 2012 05:51 PM (qwK3S)
Marbury v Madison was a case about White people decided by White judges who were also slave owners. Ergo, it does not apply to this administration.
s/ Eric (I ain't White) Holder
Posted by: Queequeg the Harpooner at April 03, 2012 05:52 PM (XPlSt)
Posted by: some dope at April 03, 2012 05:53 PM (+kznc)
Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston would be forever alone without AoS at April 03, 2012 05:55 PM (KCvsd)
Posted by: Little Green DoucheBalls at April 03, 2012 05:58 PM (Q2Ne0)
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 03, 2012 05:58 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: Jimmah at April 03, 2012 05:59 PM (UpwlP)
of months back. Pixy burned the comment applet in order to save it, and
now we're stuck with limited options."
If you knew how to code it using regular HTML text tags before the "incident", you can still do it now with an important caveat: You no longer use the < and > characters but instead replace them with [ and ].
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 03, 2012 06:00 PM (PMGbu)
America - and I must admit we have more than a few - take too great an
interest in you.
****
In more pudding dipping news, I see that SEIU is now the defendant in a civil RICO action. Live like a thug, get sued like a thug.
Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 06:02 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 03, 2012 05:23 PM (sOx93)
Formatting is for Closers.
Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 06:04 PM (+CrrB)
Posted by: cum filled asshole at April 03, 2012 06:05 PM (1kwr2)
If he could have, I bet that judge would have liked to have said, "How's my ass taste now Mr. President?"
Posted by: Syracuse1989 at April 03, 2012 06:08 PM (OIIe6)
Posted by: Jimmah at April 03, 2012 06:09 PM (UpwlP)
Well, at least they cracked down on the EBT cards. Now they can't used in strip joints, anymore.
No, now you have to first go to an ATM, withdraw (taxpayer) cash, and THEN you can go to the strip joint.
Those hard-hearted bastards! What about the CHILLLLDREN!!!!
Posted by: Boston12GS at April 03, 2012 06:24 PM (kJHCT)
But I see it is actually DOJ lawyers arguing an ObamaCare defense in front of the court so it's entirely relevant. In other words, the judge is inserting himself into this smartly.
Obama is a lying ass. Water is wet. Women make me feel funny.
All universal truths.
Posted by: Random at April 03, 2012 06:27 PM (ZIkmx)
Nobody messes with Texas.......or Edith Jones. Word.
Posted by: Chuck Norris at April 03, 2012 06:36 PM (hBsU9)
The odds must always be in favor of a balance between the the will of the people, the Constitutional laws, and the three branches. Do the courts also have the right to uphold an unconstitutional law?? NO! If the courts sides with the constitution then it sould be struck down! What if the will of the people was in favor of Obamacare... even if it broke the laws of the land?? Then it would be up to the people to make changes to the ammendment via the 2/3's majority. If the prez is trying to force unconstitutional law and the supremes upheld, then the people would be forced to rely on congress to repeal.
it is a balancing act that relys on citizen involvement to the maxium, else it will break down!
Posted by: Tamara at April 03, 2012 06:42 PM (LOHkI)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 03, 2012 06:43 PM (r4wIV)
... I'm wondering if that was three pages single-spaced by noon on Thursday
or
three pages single-space by HIGH noon on Thursday...
Posted by: Stormy is a fan of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals at April 03, 2012 06:47 PM (m+eve)
Your Mouth
A clarification is required as to the limits of the adventurous probings on the part of the party of the second part.
Posted by: Marmo at April 03, 2012 06:51 PM (pcgW1)
Posted by: Aunty Entity at April 03, 2012 06:53 PM (UURP1)
Posted by: TexasJew at April 03, 2012 06:54 PM (z8HSj)
I love the fact that they specified single spaced.
Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:10 PM (Z9EHQ)
Truly amazing. How belittling. How kewl. Methinks war has been declared. Every US Attorney in front of a non-libtard judge has got to be pissed at Barky.
Posted by: eureka! at April 03, 2012 07:11 PM (LQIyD)
[If I took a crap, it would look like him]
TJ, you rawk! Bits of chewed up cheese on my monitor. LOL!
(I can't figure out how to format the italics, so this is my new way of showing it's a quote--lame, huh?)
Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 07:30 PM (vJ9tV)
Posted by: Boston12GS at April 03, 2012 07:36 PM (kJHCT)
Posted by: Boston12GS at April 03, 2012 07:37 PM (kJHCT)
Posted by: Boston12GS at April 03, 2012 07:37 PM (kJHCT)
I saw the literally stuttering SCOAMF on teevee off teleprompter. There were many pauses.......between.....words....with....emphasis....and a big word or two thrown in. He looked to be in a flop sweat. Perhaps George Soros was instructing him in his hidden inner earbuds, but it was a pathetic display. This, dear Democraps, is your Dear Leader at his best. He is doing the best he can. He even called Republicans "radical." It was comic gold.
I also read that today ole Joe Biden had a new gaffe: "Senator" Romney. They need to return him to his padded office near the bunker.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky: ABO 2012 at April 03, 2012 08:05 PM (baL2B)
dyke failure starts with small cracks
Posted by: the noticer at April 03, 2012 05:30 PM (OhYCU)
Is this a pun or are you referring to Kagen?
Posted by: ChristyBlinky: ABO 2012 at April 03, 2012 08:11 PM (baL2B)
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end."
Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), is a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce. All mines were required to pay a 15% tax on coal produced. The act was not mandatory, but mines that complied would be refunded 90% of the 15% tax.
Posted by: Joe The Plumber at April 03, 2012 08:13 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Justamom at April 03, 2012 08:18 PM (Sptt8)
"President Obama sure doesn’t seem to have made a lot of friends in
the Gulf region when he issued his moratorium on deepwater drilling back
in May, in the wake of the huge BP oil spill.
Last month, New Orleans federal judge Martin Feldman granted an injuction blocking the moratorium from taking effect, ruling that, in issuing it, Obama and interior secretary Ken Salazar had trivialized the economic impact of the moratorium.
The administration asked the Fifth Circuit to stay the injunction
pending appeal. And late Thursday, the request was rejected by a
three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit. The panel ruled that Salazar
didn’t prove the U.S. would suffer irreparable harm without an immediate
ban on exploratory drilling in deep waters."
Posted by: ChristyBlinky: ABO 2012 at April 03, 2012 08:40 PM (baL2B)
Posted by: Grid at April 03, 2012 10:18 PM (FHQxx)
Posted by: Chaz at April 04, 2012 01:07 AM (oJGIR)
Posted by: lou's a girl at April 04, 2012 02:07 AM (fHyXI)
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at April 04, 2012 11:05 AM (exvgC)
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0514 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.016 seconds, 339 records returned.
Page size 155 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.
Dale's ECB
Election Projection
Federal Review
Real Clear Politics
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Zogby
FoxNews Polls
Sabato/Crystal Ball
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)