Court of Appeals Demands Obama's Lawyer Answer Whether Courts Have Power To Strike Down Federal Law Or Not

This is real escalation.

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.

Thanks to commenters for reminding me!

Posted by: Ace at 04:18 PM



Comments

1 Liars lie

Posted by: Vic at April 03, 2012 04:20 PM (YdQQY)

2 When lawyers lie to the court though they better look out.

Posted by: Vic at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (YdQQY)

3 Of course they do, with Obama's blessing. Absent that the ratchet is expected to click once again.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (gxCRt)

4 That's not being benchslapped, that's another level entirely. Frankly, that is a judge saying "We are co-equal, motherfucker, nowadmit it."

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)

5 Sucker of cock.

Posted by: toby928© at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (GTbGH)

6 Love it!


Yesss!

-Take Obam the Communitariat to the hoops!

Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (r2PLg)

7 Alright, if that's the way you want it, that's the way you're going to get it!

Posted by: Justice Lennie Pike at April 03, 2012 04:21 PM (PMGbu)

8 Take Obama the Communitariat to the hoops!

Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:22 PM (r2PLg)

9 Is this unprecedented?

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 03, 2012 04:22 PM (w/anX)

10 What goes around, comes around.

Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (i6RpT)

11 The 5th Circuit doesn't take any shit.

Posted by: Dr Spank at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (Sh42X)

12 May God have mercy on their souls, for I shall have none!

Posted by: Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (GTbGH)

13 5th Circuit--

Give 'em hell!

Off to go look that Court up.

Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:23 PM (r2PLg)

14 >>U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

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)

15 Pay them no mind. They're just some weird fraternity that wears black togas.

Posted by: Veep Joey Biden at April 03, 2012 04:24 PM (JEpGb)

16 This is kinda like: "Oh yeah, well meet me behind the gym after the 3:00"

Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:24 PM (i6RpT)

17 All of you moron asshats should be more deferential towards our fearless constitutional law professor cum president cum unicorn shepherd.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (kqGWM)

18 As long as there is no sugar or fat involved, it's all good.

Posted by: Supreme Court of Food at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (71LDo)

19 This just in: Grapefruit sized shitballs struck the White House today as a shit storm of gigantic size has engulfed the Obama administration.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (Hx5uv)

20
The feces is now authentic.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 03, 2012 04:25 PM (jUytm)

21 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in case citations, 5th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

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)

22 Shit just got real?

Posted by: Weimdog at April 03, 2012 04:26 PM (SwPvC)

23 It's just the Principle of Shifting Principles: do as I say today, not as I will do yesterday (the MSM will pretend that you didn't). Next thing you know, Sarah Palin will be putting bullseyes on Congressional districts after the Democrats did it.

Posted by: mallfly at April 03, 2012 04:26 PM (bJm7W)

24 Dear Administration,

FYNQ.

Love,
Us

Posted by: 5th Circuit at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (Zs83Q)

25
That really got out of hand quickly

Posted by: Ben at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (wuv1c)

26 Wait... Roe vs. Wade was striking down a law, by the courts...

Its a Trap!

Posted by: Abdulh Ackbar, Lawyer, Justice dept. at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (lZBBB)

27 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (7W3wI)

28 Pay no attention to the man behind the podium.

Posted by: huerfano at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (bAGA/)

29 The Chief is a woman appointed by Reagan.


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)

30 I love the south!

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at April 03, 2012 04:27 PM (DGIjM)

31 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (8y9MW)

32 Well. I'm not dead. So things must be more or less okayish.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (8y9MW)

33 That really got out of hand quickly

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)

34 Never start a war with the judiciary.

Posted by: Benson at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (qzcNU)

35 Real the shit has become. Yes.

Posted by: Yoda Martin Lawrence at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (RD7QR)

36 Come on Obitchma, got any other badass remarks?Bitch.

Posted by: USS Diversity at April 03, 2012 04:28 PM (vpe0k)

37 I think, if this was a plan to intimidate or influence the court, it worked. Just not in the direction the SCOAMT had hoped.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:29 PM (8y9MW)

38 Obama 2012: Because you honestly have a hard time deciding if I'm manipulative or stupid .... and isn't mystery exciting?

Posted by: Heralder at April 03, 2012 04:29 PM (/Mxso)

39 Stool just got real.

Posted by: Kensington at April 03, 2012 04:29 PM (H84UO)

40 I mentioned it the other day, but this petty thug does not realize just how jealously the courts hold their position as a co-equal branch of government.

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)

41 Edith Jones.

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)

42
Houston, we have genuine poop.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (jUytm)

43 Reap the whirlwind, Bammy. Reap it.

Posted by: William H. Bonney at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (XxAYS)

44 I won! Why the Hell do you people keep refusing to do what I want?

Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (H84UO)

45 I've been watching politics for over 40 years. While crap like this happened occasionally, I don't remember the constant drumbeat of fuckups from the Executive like we see now.

Posted by: minuteman (formerly trainer) until Juggy is gone at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (Rojyk)

46 Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?

Posted by: SCOAMT at April 03, 2012 04:30 PM (4FyKt)

47 Dear Administration,

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)

48 Oh my, this is hilarious!

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)

49 I love it. But, I believe there's a caveat to this. I think this regime 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?

Posted by: Soona at April 03, 2012 04:31 PM (J4dzh)

50

>>>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)

51 Again I have to ask, how do we ever lose to these cretins?

Posted by: toby928© at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (GTbGH)

52
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)

53 "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."

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)

54 Dear 5th Circuit,

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)

55 The 5th Circuit has a reputation of calling shit out... Love it that the judge asked for a letter from the Justice Department on if the courts can overturn laws... and their rep in court quoted Marbury v. Madison the benchmark for judicial review...

Bam is gonna get bytch slapped for his flame war...

Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (Jls4P)

56 3 pages?
That's like an ace review of a Short.

Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 04:32 PM (+CrrB)

57 But hey, the 5th Circuit is unelected, so Holder will ignore this entirely.

Posted by: Marmo at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (I8GNk)

58
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)

59 >>>I love it. But, I believe there's a caveat to this. I think this regime
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)

60 Most competent administration evah.

Posted by: Y-not at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (5H6zj)

61 >>Listen up --you namby pamby Mitt Romney--if you win this is your Supreme Court nominee.

She could have been Bush41's, instead of Souter. Sigh.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:33 PM (ZKzrr)

62 If this keeps up, a bunch of U of Chicago law grads will be asking for refunds.

Posted by: Y-not at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (5H6zj)

63 Is the battle for America being waged right now? Sure feels like.it.

Posted by: tsj017 at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (ORHaw)

64 We are inscrutable and Platonic, but not that inscrutable and Platonic.

Posted by: Federal Appeals Court Justices at April 03, 2012 04:34 PM (DQHjw)

65 La merde est vrai-or some thing.

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)

66 no 'Here come The Judge', yet?
fo shame.

Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (+CrrB)

67 One other thought to consider. We all now think that 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)

68 Second sock fail of the day. I blame Robitussin and white-hot rage.

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (RD7QR)

69 How the fock is this not Flaming Skull worthy?

Posted by: The Flaming Skull at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (d4vjp)

70 If this keeps up, a bunch of U of Chicago law grads will be asking for refunds.

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)

71 It's on.

Posted by: Warden at April 03, 2012 04:35 PM (HzhBE)

72 like Donkey Kong

Posted by: Warden at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (HzhBE)

73
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)

74 Wonder where W's house is in Dallas?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (UOM48)

75 >>Listen up --you namby pamby Mitt Romney--if you win this is your Supreme Court nominee.


Nah, go with someone safe.

Posted by: John Sununu at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (5H6zj)

76 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."
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)

77
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)

78 61>> Listen up --you namby pamby Mitt Romney--if you win this is your Supreme Court nominee.
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)

79 Oops. Wrong thread.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (UOM48)

80 why do republican judges hate women !!111!!!!!!1???

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)

81 With the nomination of Romney now assured (and shit like this going down), I can now put this blog back on my toolbar!

Posted by: @ParisParamus at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (KunEa)

82 Can anyone find a link to the actual order?

I went to the 5th Circuit website...can't find it.

Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (r2PLg)

83 >>How the fock is this not Flaming Skull worthy?


Flaming Skull needs a black robe.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (ZKzrr)

84 Shit level: real
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)

85 Prepare for the most dishonest election ever.

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)

86
This shit just gotreal andit's SPECTACULAR!

Posted by: What would Hitch do? at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (WGfPe)

87 "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.""

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)

88 This, this is an atomic wedgie followed by a swirly with the whole school watching.

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)

89 But, sniff, I'm the President!

Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (8g9qq)

90 Liberals love legislating from the judicial bench only as long as it suits their purposes. Go courts!

Posted by: Cato at April 03, 2012 04:38 PM (DqkgM)

91 La merde est vrai-or some thing.

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)

92 Posted by: Romeo13 at April 03, 2012 04:37 PM (lZBBB)


We are all Chicago now.

Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (DGIjM)

93 This is a fluke.

Posted by: What would Hitch do? at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (WGfPe)

94 The SCoMF has been attacking the Judiciary since the beginning. Even my sister, a Liberal Lawyer, thinks this is a BAD idea.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (sl3x6)

95 Nice White House you got there. Shame if anything were to happen to it.
- The Judge with the big ass hammer

Posted by: Roy at April 03, 2012 04:39 PM (VndSC)

96 Posted by: Zharkov at April 03, 2012 04:36 PM (SI30P)

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)

97 Oh BTW, as the one true conservative out there (tm), I would like point out that we cons are also perfectly happy (or would be if we had leadership with balls) in calling out the courts when they go what we perceive to be crazy.

Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:40 PM (QxSug)

98 We all now think that 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.

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)

99 The "constitutional scholar" getting schooled!

Fucking epic!

Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at April 03, 2012 04:40 PM (Jls4P)

100 >>>"Mr. Roberts has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

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)

101 I love the "3 page, single spaced" part. Its like Obama wrote swear words on his homework and the teacher is demanding that he write a paper about why he shouldn't do that.

Posted by: Thomas Lyons at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (9EwDm)

102 Apparently the President is the law.

Posted by: Charles Dickens at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (qwK3S)

103 @83 Now that would be a beautiful thing...since the opportunities for us to see blago toupee' flaming skulls are so rare.

(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)

104
This is an attempt by a fifth white quart to obviate health kare.

Posted by: Toure at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (Fx8df)

105 Here you go Soothsayer


"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)

106 Veni, Vedi, Cacata!

Posted by: Gaius Baraka Obamicus at April 03, 2012 04:41 PM (JEpGb)

107 61 >>Listen up --you namby pamby Mitt Romney--if you win this is your Supreme Court nominee.

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)

108 How the fock is this not Flaming Skull worthy?
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)

109 #97

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)

110 Dear 5th Circuit,

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)

111 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)

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)

112
Thank you, Mr Pink!

And there you have it. Obama fancies himself to be king.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (jUytm)

113 I would like point out that we cons are also perfectly happy (or would
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)

114 77 Here ya' go. http://tinyurl.com/3wwro8d

Posted by: no good deed at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (mjR67)

115 Why didn't you come to me like a fucking man and tell me about Marbury v. Madison?

Posted by: Obama to Kagan at April 03, 2012 04:43 PM (qwK3S)

116 >>>I would like point out that we cons are also perfectly happy (or would
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)

117 Are there any constitutional lawyers here. Is this a big deal? Or are we reading to much into this? There are no headlines of this on Fox or Drudge?

Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:44 PM (i6RpT)

118 MFM war on the judiciary will commence this evening with all the major networks parroting the exact li(n)es. The Journolist V2.0 commands it!

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston would be forever alone without AoS at April 03, 2012 04:44 PM (KCvsd)

119
brb, usurpin the checks and balances

Posted by: lolobama at April 03, 2012 04:44 PM (jUytm)

120 "Apparently the President is the law."

L'État, c'est moi.

Posted by: Preznit O'Shizzle at April 03, 2012 04:45 PM (PMGbu)

121 Why didn't you come to me like a fucking man and tell me about Marbury v. Madison?
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)

122 The judge also told the lawyer to write 1000 times "I will not mock the Judicial Branch" and bring that back with the other report.

Posted by: Roy at April 03, 2012 04:46 PM (VndSC)

123 "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?"

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)

124 Dear Courts,

I WON!!!!

Posted by: Barky O'dipshit at April 03, 2012 04:46 PM (DGIjM)

125 We grow bored of this charade, and ponder having you louts rounded up and thrown in the Atlantic.

Posted by: #OccupyResoluteDesk at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (Orvm4)

126 Why didn't you come to me like a fucking man and tell me about Marbury v. Madison?

Posted by: Obama to Kagan


Thread Winner.

Posted by: toby928© at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (GTbGH)

127 **Do you have an example of Reagan/Bush making such disparaging remarks about a case yet to be decided? Attempting to bully the court?**

only in my dreams, alas.

Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:47 PM (QxSug)

128 [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 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)

129
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)

130 .It's got everything!?

******

Yes according to that comment Kagan has everything.

Posted by: tasker at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (r2PLg)

131 This could have serious implications vis-a-vis pudding.

Posted by: dananjcon at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (8ieXv)

132
" 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)

133 **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.**

yup.

Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (QxSug)

134 I mean, I appreciate the shades of gray, but just saying...Mark Levin has a book called Men in Black.

Posted by: joeindc44 the bluff caller at April 03, 2012 04:48 PM (QxSug)

135 Y'know, we really dodged a bullet with that Chillbilly Chick when we got us a genuine U of Chicago Law Perfessor to be our Presnident.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain (Formerly Abdominal Snowman) at April 03, 2012 04:49 PM (BY55s)

136 Hey, Bammy, you wanna diss us in a State of the Union speech? Take a look at my fickle finger of fate.

Posted by: Justice Kennedy at April 03, 2012 04:50 PM (okXo7)

137 Meh...at least it seems we have some grown-ups involved now.

Posted by: dananjcon at April 03, 2012 04:50 PM (8ieXv)

138 Marbury and Madison were typical white people.

Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 04:51 PM (H84UO)

139 Status Update: Real.

Mmph....bwahahaha. .....I love it.

Posted by: wheatie at April 03, 2012 04:51 PM (+5U+B)

140 Marbury vs. Madison? Never heard of it.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at April 03, 2012 04:51 PM (+XVQe)

141 Reality just got shitty.

Posted by: irright at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (RzLbD)

142
Hey O'Fuckface,
How's myass taste?
Sincerely,

Posted by: 5th Circuit at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (NBj0d)

143 "This could have serious implications vis-a-vis pudding."
==========

Pudding futures are through the roof!

Posted by: Kensington at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (H84UO)

144 Malcolm X is on Cable
I'm watching
Know thy enemy

Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (i6RpT)

145 Hey, AllenG.....glad to hear you're okay. Hope your house is undamaged too.

Posted by: wheatie at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (+5U+B)

146 11
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)

147
The Turd is Word!
The Poo is True!
This Crap is Fap!

Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 04:52 PM (vJ9tV)

148 If he didn't think he had the power, that would be the total of his defense.

Posted by: nickless at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (MMC8r)

149 Wow, the courts are finally calling out the man-child.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (WDRA0)

150 Judicial cage match!
Sunday, Sunday, Sunday ... be there when the robes fly!

Posted by: Max Entropy at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (MwDbZ)

151
Baracky went a'courtin'.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (8iIu0)

152 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)

---------------------------------------

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)

153 Holder will ignore. He will then be impeached, creating a constitutional crisis due to Senate indifference.

Posted by: Jay Bee at April 03, 2012 04:53 PM (Xwgt3)

154 Damn. Meant to sock that as teh won.

Posted by: irright at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (RzLbD)

155 AllenG -- glad to hear it.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (i0App)

156 "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


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)

157 *ziiiip, flop, schhwiiing*

Suck it, Obama.

Posted by: 5th Circuit at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (JIDLg)

158 or are they scared of Obama because he's black?

****
Don't Trayvon Obama!

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 03, 2012 04:54 PM (Hx5uv)

159 Re: Obama's jokes about his whispered promises to Medvedev: I wish we couldrequire all his toadys in the WH Press Corpse to write a three-pager on who the fuck they think his bosses are. Mofo's gonna find outcome November.

Posted by: sherlock at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (6rLSO)

160 Dear 5th Circuit,

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)

161 Hey, OBeigeMan, guess what I just changed my vote to...

Posted by: Justice Breyer at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (okXo7)

162 OK I see the story on Drudge now. Very interesting. Yes it is a DIRECT shot at obama. Good for them. Great for them.

Posted by: nevergiveup at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (i6RpT)

163 153
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)

164 Sounds like somebody stepped on a hornets nest of his own breeding,LOL LOL LOL.

Posted by: Rich K at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (X4l3T)

165 Yo, Baraka! Tell me, how's my @$$ taste?

Posted by: The Judicial Branch at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (GBXon)

166 Edith Jones. 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)
.
I second that.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at April 03, 2012 04:55 PM (WDRA0)

167 Hope your house is undamaged too.

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)

168 I would be alive today if Dick Downgrade didn't think I was the son he and Reggie never had.

Posted by: Trayvon at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (WUWb9)

169 IF I HAD A ROBE, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE MEEEEEE!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (vJ9tV)

170 This has cheered me like nothing since the 2010 elections. Pudding now in the fridge, ready to go at a moment's notice.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (IlZPo)

171 5th Circuit = awesome.

Posted by: The Underhills at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (I1icO)

172 Barky really doesn't know jack about law does he?? Was he ever a practicing attorney? Seems to me that this isLawyer shit 101.

Posted by: dananjcon at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (8ieXv)

173 SCOAMF is lazy and stupid and he stupidly and lazily thinks he's moving teh needle.

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)

174 President Obama,

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)

175 Baraka Obama in...

A Clusterfuck in the 5th Circuit's Court

Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 03, 2012 04:56 PM (JEpGb)

176 It is kinda funny. Affirmative action is an insidious an evil idea that exacts payment for past sins on current persons. Equally evil is that is distorts the perception that people, especially those benefitting from the intellectual largesse of affirmative action and the credentials they receive. It is becoming apparent in real time as you see the problem with having a president who was given all of the credentials and rewards of being a master of three dimensional chess as a result of affirmative action playing against someone or someones who achieved their titles the hard way - through winning three dimensional chess tournaments. a full blown psychotic is in the offing right here, right now when zero's reality and reality collide. it is like antireality and reality

Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 04:57 PM (Z9EHQ)

177
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)

178 Was he ever a practicing attorney? Seems to me that this isLawyer shit 101.

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)

179 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?

Posted by: Heorot at April 03, 2012 04:57 PM (Nq/UF)

180 Posted this on the wrong thread:

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)

181 Property can be replaced, people cannot.

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)

182
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)

183 What would it take to strike down the voting rights act?

Posted by: Cast Iron at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (EL+OC)

184 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.



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)

185
Reading the comment at the CBS site they libtards rather talk about other things.

Posted by: YIKES! at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (Fx8df)

186 Is Obama still ignoring that court order?

I think so. I know he's still in Contempt of Court.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 03, 2012 04:58 PM (8y9MW)

187 >>>Holder will ignore. He will then be impeached, creating a constitutional crisis due to Senate indifference.

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)

188 Your Grandmother is wrong... and a whore

Posted by: MichelleO at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (OhYCU)

189
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)

190 Give him a break. Derrick Bell never taught him about this shit.

Posted by: nickless at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (MMC8r)

191 179
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)

192
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)

193 Is this thread about Barack? or the Illegal Uncle? or the illegal Aunt?

Posted by: cherry at April 03, 2012 04:59 PM (OhYCU)

194 GO AHEAD -- HAND ME OFF TO THE SPACE TRADERS IN NOVEMBER!

*sob*

Posted by: Baraka Obama at April 03, 2012 05:00 PM (H84UO)

195 To those of you who expose yourself to leftist media and programming to report on it... I thank and admire you! I couldn't do it what you do.

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)

196 Leave Obama alone, he invented White Hispanics!

Posted by: Websters at April 03, 2012 05:00 PM (OhYCU)

197
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)

198 I'm picturing a bumper sticker with the President's smiling face and
"Transmit THIS to Vladimir 2012"

Posted by: tmitsss at April 03, 2012 05:01 PM (V4Pya)

199
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)

200 I will save this sucking administration of cock some time on their little homework assignment by the 5th Circuit -- there have been 1315 laws struck down as unconstitutional since our founding.

You're welcome, pricks.

http://tinyurl.com/73csldm (directorblue link)

Posted by: GnuBreed at April 03, 2012 05:01 PM (ccXZP)

201 When I stated that your President was the Law, it was my sincere hope that you would remember what I considered the Law. Afterall, it is but a silly syllogism. Cheers!

Posted by: Charles Dickens at April 03, 2012 05:02 PM (qwK3S)

202 Nobody puts Barky in a corner!

Posted by: president say stuff at April 03, 2012 05:03 PM (GTbGH)

203 I am the Law!

Posted by: Judge Dredd at April 03, 2012 05:03 PM (MMC8r)

204 GO AHEAD -- HAND ME OFF TO THE SPACE TRADERS IN NOVEMBER!

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)

205 President Algae has no fucking idea what he's doing. He's reading blogs and making them into speeches. His entire admin is based on Kos commenters.

Posted by: dagny at April 03, 2012 05:04 PM (CMM9V)

206 Holy shit! He's unleashed the Kraken!

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)

207 When deciphering MSM spin, believe ideological 180 degrees opposite whatever their spin is and you will have the truth.

Posted by: Justice Breyer at April 03, 2012 05:04 PM (okXo7)

208 Don't make me call my bluff!

Posted by: The Won at April 03, 2012 05:05 PM (qwK3S)

209
I am the Law!

Dredd/Matrix 2012

Posted by: Heorot at April 03, 2012 05:05 PM (Nq/UF)

210 Why am I getting mental images of the final scene from 'Scarface' when I think about this crap?

Posted by: Brother Cavil, in Cylon hell at April 03, 2012 05:05 PM (GBXon)

211 Odd coming from me, yes, but even us Progressives sometimes have eye-openers.

Posted by: Justice Breyer at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (okXo7)

212 The thing is, I think King Barry grew up a spoiled, entitled, child. He isn't use to being told no. He is use to getting whatever he wants by intimidation, playing the race card, shaking down, and playing dirty. I honestly think he is going to have a meltdown of epic proportions in the coming months. We are going to see that vaunted "world class temperment" go down in uncontrollable, destructive flames, and he will take down everything with him. 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. He is a petty, vindictive, small, little man with a huge chip on his shoulder.

Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (vJ9tV)

213 If this is the case, I fully anticipate a Scalia smackdown in the SCOTUS opinion.

I can't wait to read the opinion.

Posted by: WisRich at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (hdpay)

214 When will the long national nightmare be over?

Posted by: the 99% at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (OhYCU)

215 "I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."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)

----------------------------------------------

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)

216 , I think King Barry grew up a spoiled, entitled, child. He isn't use to being told no. He is use to getting whatever he wants by intimidation, playing the race card, shaking down, and playing dirty. I honestly think he is going to have a meltdown of epic proportions in the coming months. We are going to see that vaunted "world class temperment" go down in uncontrollable, destructive flames, and he will take down everything with him. 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. He is a petty, vindictive, small, little man with a huge chip on his shoulder.
Posted by: runningrn at April 03, 2012 05:06 PM (vJ9tV)

yep .

Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:07 PM (Z9EHQ)

217 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.


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)

218 I only shudder to think what he will decree by executive order and who he will pardon before he is out of office

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)

219 he would be well advised that the sc has been very generous in handling challenges to his citizenship.


Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (Z9EHQ)

220 Always loved Edith Jones more than Roberts or Alito when the SC vacancies names came up- she makes Scalia look like a wuss.
Romney would never pick her, sadly.

Posted by: jjshaka at April 03, 2012 05:09 PM (8Vub4)

221 If this is the case, I fully anticipate a Scalia smackdown in the SCOTUS opinion. I can't wait to read the opinion.
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)

222
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)

223 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)

224 219
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)

225 I love the fact that they specified single spaced.

Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:10 PM (Z9EHQ)

226 Determining whether a specific piece of legislation is Constitutional based on the text of the Constitution is different than interpreting the Constitution outside of it's text to fit your desired outcome, whether upholding or disposing of said legislation.

Posted by: polynikes at April 03, 2012 05:11 PM (IiDIW)

227
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)

228 >>>submit a three-page,
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)

229
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)

230 Flash: The letter is in...


"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)

231 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:

* 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)

232 As much as I like it from a political standpoint, it is not the place of the Courts to demand an opinion from the President.

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)

233 The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday

Oh, it's a perfect insult to the Adjunct Lecturer in Chief.

Posted by: garrett at April 03, 2012 05:12 PM (+CrrB)

234 He's just a real sack of shit, but that's no news.

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at April 03, 2012 05:13 PM (a5ljo)

235 On the top of Bam's playlist on his iPod
"I fought the law, and the law won!"

Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at April 03, 2012 05:13 PM (Jls4P)

236 231
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)

237
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)

238 Not appropriate? Of course not, except when the administration consistently and totally ignores the courts and balance of powers. Do we just say its not appropriate when someone makes their attempt at a dictatorship?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 03, 2012 05:15 PM (JIDLg)

239 232 As much as I like it from a political standpoint, it is not the place of the Courts to demand an opinion from the President. 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)

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)

240 53 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.

---

Write it 500 times on the AfricanAmericanBoard bitchz.

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at April 03, 2012 05:16 PM (SO2Q8)

241 I think it would be funnier if he reacted the way the main Cavil did during the BSG finale.

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)

242 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.

****

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)

243
@177: "Property can be replaced"

Are you sure about that?

Posted by: Port Authority of NY/NJ at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (FsqHK)

244 Hot damn, I love the "homework assignment" aspect of this story.


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)

245 It's a --

Oh, Mr. Holder, do I really have to spell it out for you?

Posted by: Admiral Ackbar at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (a5ljo)

246 Holder was confirmed 75-21

Posted by: polynikes at April 03, 2012 05:17 PM (IiDIW)

247 The Man Who Would Be King spends the rest of his life in a mental ward, heavily sedatedAh...sweet, sweet fantasy...
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)

248 <<<<One other thought to consider. We all now think that
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)

249 And what happens when Holdbama doesn't comply with the order? Nothing. I'm sure of it.

Posted by: Paul Revere at April 03, 2012 05:18 PM (iqtXM)

250 Dear Holder,

We are no longer afraid.

Posted by: SCOTUS at April 03, 2012 05:18 PM (OhYCU)

251 How would you have liked to have been a fly on the wall when new of the homework assignment hit the white mosque? Complete bolt out of the blue, no one anywhere saw this coming. I wonder if anyone on the sc had the idea of having the 5th do this?

Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:19 PM (Z9EHQ)

252 Jerry Smith for SCOTUS and POTUS!

Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at April 03, 2012 05:19 PM (SO2Q8)

253 I wonder if anyone on the sc had the idea of having the 5th do this?

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)

254 Bold words, Madam Justice. But remember, you are only appointed for life.

Posted by: Franz Sanchez from License to Kill, Guest White House Spokesman at April 03, 2012 05:22 PM (FsqHK)

255 I AM THE LAW

Posted by: Judge Jerry Smith at April 03, 2012 05:22 PM (SO2Q8)

256 "Court of Appeals Demands Obama's Lawyer Answer Whether Courts Have Power To Strike Down Federal Law Or Not"

Pretty. Fucking. Awesome.

Posted by: Doodad Pro at April 03, 2012 05:22 PM (BB0/w)

257 >>>>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)
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)

258 240 53 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.

---

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)

259 Why are comments so poorly formatted on this site?

Is there something I can do to get them to format correctly?

Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 03, 2012 05:23 PM (sOx93)

260 I cannot stress how freaking funny it is that a Fed. Court has to demand of a President who is a former Constitutional Law Prof. that he demonstrate he understands what courts can and can't do.

Posted by: drawandstrike at April 03, 2012 05:26 PM (iGKkt)

261 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)

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)

262 That Dolly Madison was a handsome woman. Mrs. Marbury, not so much.

Posted by: Elena Kagan at April 03, 2012 05:27 PM (SO2Q8)

263 I guess the Bammer, Nan, Harry Palm, Sheriff Joe and Holder fell asleep during Civics class in high school:

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)

264 Why are comments so poorly formatted on this site?

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)

265 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?

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)

266 This letter, combined with numerous articles at the American Thinker blog about how racist and dangerous Holder is to our country, may be the beginning of the take down. At least I see it that way. just like a dyke failure starts with small cracks, the failure of this administration will, too.

Posted by: Chilling the most at April 03, 2012 05:29 PM (6IV8T)

267 hot yummy schadenfreude!

Posted by: Cicero at April 03, 2012 05:29 PM (QKKT0)

268 And while you're at it, please be a peachexplain that entire 'arming Mexican drug lords' thing too. Thanks.

Posted by: stuff the 5th court of appeals said at April 03, 2012 05:29 PM (6kE8K)

269 246 Holder was confirmed 75-21
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)

270
@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)

271 Barack Obama starring in

"The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest "

Posted by: AMC Theaters at April 03, 2012 05:30 PM (SO2Q8)

272 dyke failure starts with small cracks

Posted by: the noticer at April 03, 2012 05:30 PM (OhYCU)

273 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.

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)

274 186 Is Obama still ignoring that court order?I think so. I know he's still in Contempt of Court.
---
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)

275 Is he trying to fire up his base by starting a fight with, literally, EVERYONE?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at April 03, 2012 05:33 PM (X/+QT)

276
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)

277
Holder was confirmed 75-21

Confirmed, yes, but not elected. Big difference.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 03, 2012 05:35 PM (JuTti)

278 With the nomination of Romney now assured (and shit like this going down), I can now put this blog back on my toolbar!
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)

279 It is a wonderful blue-on-blue moment and quite a dilemma for spock. he is going to have a meryl streep moment here.

Posted by: yankeefifth at April 03, 2012 05:38 PM (Z9EHQ)

280 And touted to restore the DOJ's "lost honor" by many Republicans despite their knowledge of his conduct with Marc Rich and many others.

Posted by: ejo at April 03, 2012 05:38 PM (slp7M)

281 "unelected" you say?

Posted by: cherry at April 03, 2012 05:38 PM (OhYCU)

282 @Barry (274)

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)

283 Barack Obama starring in

"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)

284 275 Is he trying to fire up his base by starting a fight with, literally, EVERYONE?
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)

285 Does "Federal Courts have the power to review laws for compliance with provisions of the Constitution." repeated single spaced and for three pages qualify as completing the assignment, your honor?

Posted by: MTF at April 03, 2012 05:40 PM (JOnLy)

286 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)

287 112 Thank you, Mr Pink! And there you have it. Obama fancies himself to be king general secretary.

--------

FIFY

Posted by: Anachronda at April 03, 2012 05:42 PM (FzhYM)

288 Number of SCOTUS justices asking for reserved seats at the next State of the Union address: 2

Posted by: Cicero at April 03, 2012 05:43 PM (QKKT0)

289 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)

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)

290 Edith Jones. Listen up --you namby pamby Mitt Romney--if you win this is your Supreme Court nominee.
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)

291 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)

Me too.

Posted by: LGoPs at April 03, 2012 05:45 PM (+Uv5V)

292 Edith Jones! Yes!

Posted by: I AM NOT TREYVON at April 03, 2012 05:45 PM (GdalM)

293 286
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)

294 And, really, I'm not certain SCOTUS really is the best place for this power to reside.
---------------------------



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)

295 Me and Justice Jones, we got a thing goin' on. . . ."

Posted by: President Obama at April 03, 2012 05:51 PM (qwK3S)

296 DoJ response:

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)

297 Appointing Edith Jones to replace Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg would be sweet payback, but that would require Newt to be nominated or Willard to grow a pair, neither of which seems likely.

Posted by: some dope at April 03, 2012 05:53 PM (+kznc)

298 Oh great my lovely state has decided that Obama's illegal alien uncle, which was just convicted for ramming a police car while drunk, can keep his driver's license. WTF!

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston would be forever alone without AoS at April 03, 2012 05:55 PM (KCvsd)

299 Nontroversey. The head of the court was appointed, not elected. Also, it's not like she is a Wise (non-white) Latina so you know that anything she says is like teh stupid. By the way you are all banned. And racist.

Posted by: Little Green DoucheBalls at April 03, 2012 05:58 PM (Q2Ne0)

300 test of bold text.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 03, 2012 05:58 PM (PMGbu)

301 What a teachable moment for presidunce.

Posted by: Jimmah at April 03, 2012 05:59 PM (UpwlP)

302 "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."

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)

303 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.

****

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)

304 Is there something I can do to get them to format correctly?
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)

305 I love MediaMatters!

Posted by: cum filled asshole at April 03, 2012 06:05 PM (1kwr2)

306 BAM! Say the black robed ones.
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)

307 What does the 50 IQ constitutional scholar thinkwe have courts for if they only have the power to affirm legislation.

Posted by: Jimmah at April 03, 2012 06:09 PM (UpwlP)

308 298 Oh great my lovely state has decided that Obama's illegal alien uncle, which was just convicted for ramming a police car while drunk, can keep his driver's license. WTF!

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)

309 I thought it was BS, some judge inserting himself into this stupidly.

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)

310
Nobody messes with Texas.......or Edith Jones. Word.

Posted by: Chuck Norris at April 03, 2012 06:36 PM (hBsU9)

311 Well it is a balance people.

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)

312 Ouch. Well this is what happens when you anger judges. They've got a ... well developed self esteem, let's say.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 03, 2012 06:43 PM (r4wIV)

313
... 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)

314
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)

315 Only have one thing to say: Two men enter, one man leaves. Thunderdome!

Posted by: Aunty Entity at April 03, 2012 06:53 PM (UURP1)

316 If I took a crap, it would look like him

Posted by: TexasJew at April 03, 2012 06:54 PM (z8HSj)

317 225
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)

318
[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)

319 Do italics work like this?

Posted by: Boston12GS at April 03, 2012 07:36 PM (kJHCT)

320 Yeah, so it's like HTML, just use the [ and ] instead of the . At least for italics.

Posted by: Boston12GS at April 03, 2012 07:37 PM (kJHCT)

321 Well, instead of the "lesser than" and "greater than" symbols. :-)

Posted by: Boston12GS at April 03, 2012 07:37 PM (kJHCT)

322 I think I love the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals right now.

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)

323 272
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)

324 Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress's power under the commerce clause.

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)

325 Too bad the republican legislators don't have the nerve that the judges do, or they would have done something about illegal campaign contributions, Justice Ginsberg, Kagan being recused, etc etc etc.

Posted by: Justamom at April 03, 2012 08:18 PM (Sptt8)

326 The Fifth Circuit has an axe to grind, y'all:

"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)

327 Wow, the courts do have integrity! He claims to be a constitutional professor-I suspect he means Kenya's.. I guess he had daily prayer during class. Finally all you koolaid drinkers are starting to see that this idiot has no business ruining our country. I hope sheriff Joe's efforts are seen in time. I am starting to really worry that a false flag will happen before the elections and he will suspend both the elections and constitution and usher in martial law-the stage is set.

Posted by: Grid at April 03, 2012 10:18 PM (FHQxx)

328 You step on the bear... you get the claws.

Posted by: Chaz at April 04, 2012 01:07 AM (oJGIR)

329 This should have the flaming skull, ewok, and pudding cup thrown in, this is the story!

Posted by: lou's a girl at April 04, 2012 02:07 AM (fHyXI)

330 About time somebody intimidated the SCOAMF back!

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at April 04, 2012 11:05 AM (exvgC)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0632 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0149 seconds, 339 records returned.
Page size 155 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

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)
News/Chat