• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

PerfectStorm

PerfectStorm

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
4,184
Reaction score
5,098
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. 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.
Click to expand...

Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case - Crossroads - CBS News

Looks like Holder has some homework to do.
 
Last edited:
PerfectStorm said:
Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case - Crossroads - CBS News

Looks like Holder has some homework to do.
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat confused by the article...excerpt:

(CBS News) 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.
Click to expand...

Ordering the Justice Dept to answer whether the Obama Admin believes.... Is it just me? Does that make sense? Maybe the Justice Dept is part of the Obama Administration? Okay, I admit it. I don't know. But this sounds b.i.g.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
That's good stuff right there. :popcorn2:
Click to expand...

I liked the "three page single spaced" requirement. Sounds like something my 10th grade English teacher would say.
 
Obama's basic argument is that the constitution is obsolete.

It's kind of refreshing to be honest about it for a change. We don't ever amend it anymore, because he is right, whatever the democratically elected majority want they can get.
 
ARealConservative said:
Obama's basic argument is that the constitution is obsolete.

It's kind of refreshing to be honest about it for a change. We don't ever amend it anymore, because he is right, whatever the democratically elected majority want they can get.
Click to expand...

Obama walked his veiled threat back yesterday.... classic!
 
ARealConservative said:
Obama's basic argument is that the constitution is obsolete.

It's kind of refreshing to be honest about it for a change. We don't ever amend it anymore, because he is right, whatever the democratically elected majority want they can get.
Click to expand...

Not obsolete, but never any good to start with. It was written by rich, white slave owners for one, and rugged individualism (the core of American society and the foundation of liberty) never worked.
 
Ockham said:
Obama walked his veiled threat back yesterday.... classic!
Click to expand...

Here's the link, interesting read:

Bruised Obama tries to walk back his attack on the Supreme Court - Right Turn - The Washington Post

He should make a hastey retreat from his initial remarks. Questioning the legitimacy of SCOTUS's decisions, telling the American public what he thinks going on in minds of the justices, saying, in effect, that it would be a mis-use of their powers to rule against him, is wrong. I'm betting that whoever shoved those notes under his nose has some 'splainin' to do.
 
American said:
Not obsolete, but never any good to start with. It was written by rich, white slave owners for one, and rugged individualism (the core of American society and the foundation of liberty) never worked.
Click to expand...

That is one sad commentary
 
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice Department will respond "appropriately" to a federal appellate judge in Texas who demanded a letter recognizing the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress.

"What the president said a couple of days ago was appropriate. He indicated that we obviously respect the decisions that courts make," Holder said at a press conference in Chicago. "Under our system of government ... courts have the final say on the constitutionality of statutes. The courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of the people, Congress, pass."

Holder said he's confident the Supreme Court will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional "given the adequate, able representation" the law had during arguments before the justices. He said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. "did a great job."
Click to expand...

My Way News - Holder: Justice Department will respond to judge

Great job Brownie.
 
Krhazy said:
Seems like a little overkill for what was essentially a gaffe.
Click to expand...

"a gaffe"?
Joe Biden asking the guy in the wheel chair to stand up. That was a gaffe
Candidate Obama visiting 57 states with one more to go. That was a gaffe

The President's pronouncements on this topic, given his MUCH touted Constitutional prowess, hardly qualifies as "essentially a gaffe"
 
bahahaha I love it! The court basically said they have the power to relegate him to a mere 9th grade nobody. This is why you don't pick fights with the Courts, mr. president!
 
snilloctjc said:
"a gaffe"?
Joe Biden asking the guy in the wheel chair to stand up. That was a gaffe
Candidate Obama visiting 57 states with one more to go. That was a gaffe

The President's pronouncements on this topic, given his MUCH touted Constitutional prowess, hardly qualifies as "essentially a gaffe"
Click to expand...
So you think Obama actually believes SCOTUS has no power to strike laws? I think that's more than a little far fetched. If he doesn't, it's a gaffe. Nobody was hurt by Obama's comments. People need to calm down.
 
Krhazy said:
So you think Obama actually believes SCOTUS has no power to strike laws? I think that's more than a little far fetched. If he doesn't, it's a gaffe. Nobody was hurt by Obama's comments. People need to calm down.
Click to expand...

Funny thing happens to people... they start believing their handlers and their own press. Ego's a funny thing and at some level I think Obama thought his words could influence the court. Did he believe they didn't have the power to strike law? Not sure... he may have thought he would or could prevent them from striking the law, until he figured it out the next day and walked it back. Maybe he didn't mean it that way at all.... but it sure came across that way.
 
Krhazy said:
So you think Obama actually believes SCOTUS has no power to strike laws? I think that's more than a little far fetched. If he doesn't, it's a gaffe. Nobody was hurt by Obama's comments. People need to calm down.
Click to expand...

I don't know what he actually believes, but it is clear what he said. Sorry it can't be had both ways. He cannot present himself as a "Constitutional Scholar" and than say the Supreme Court will not take the EXTRAORDINARY and UNPRECEDENTED step of over turning a law passed by an OVERWHELMING majority of elected... Either he has no clue what he is saying, and therefore is no constitutional scholar, or he is a scholar and this is his belief about the role of the SC. Now tell me which is it?

Personally I believe that is what he really thinks ought to be, it would be in keeping with other actions of his while President
 
Ockham said:
Funny thing happens to people... they start believing their handlers and their own press. Ego's a funny thing and at some level I think Obama thought his words could influence the court. Did he believe they didn't have the power to strike law? Not sure... he may have thought he would or could prevent them from striking the law, until he figured it out the next day and walked it back. Maybe he didn't mean it that way at all.... but it sure came across that way.
Click to expand...

Nah. He was just engaging in the not-too-sophisticated game of "it'd be a shame if you guys went down in history as doing something unprecedentedly crappy. A real shame, for sure. You don't want to be those guys, do you?"
 
snilloctjc said:
I don't know what he actually believes, but it is clear what he said. Sorry it can't be had both ways. He cannot present himself as a "Constitutional Scholar" and than say the Supreme Court will not take the EXTRAORDINARY and UNPRECEDENTED step of over turning a law passed by an OVERWHELMING majority of elected... Either he has no clue what he is saying, and therefore is no constitutional scholar, or he is a scholar and this is his belief about the role of the SC. Now tell me which is it?
Click to expand...

It is neither. He is a constitutional scholar who was inarticulate for a moment. Even informed people every once and a while say things they don't mean. The one difference is most scholars don't have every word they utter in public recorded. Enough with the hackery.

What Obama said:

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

The law was passed by a majority of a democractically elected Congress. Overturning the law would be an unprecedented and an extraordinary step, because it would reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. The mistake was in connecting the two points to make it seem as if overturning the law would be unprecedented because it was passed by a majority of Congress.

Taking this remark seriously is just as bad as taking Romney's remark that he doesn't care about poor people seriously. It's stupid hackery. End of story.

Personally I believe that is what he really thinks ought to be, it would be in keeping with other actions of his while President
Click to expand...
You have been watching too much FoxNews.

Also, "thinks ought to be" makes no sense. Luckily, I don't take that to mean you have no grasp of the English language.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Here's the link, interesting read:

Bruised Obama tries to walk back his attack on the Supreme Court - Right Turn - The Washington Post

He should make a hastey retreat from his initial remarks. Questioning the legitimacy of SCOTUS's decisions, telling the American public what he thinks going on in minds of the justices, saying, in effect, that it would be a mis-use of their powers to rule against him, is wrong. I'm betting that whoever shoved those notes under his nose has some 'splainin' to do.
Click to expand...



I believe that's exactly what the admin's press secretary is trying to do. He was being bombarded today by more than Ed Henry. The reporters had smirks on their faces watching that poor guy doing the rope-a-dope, try to "walk back" what President Obama said.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
What Obama said:

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Click to expand...

Sorry but it is no gaff. If it had been then he would not have proceeded to talk about "judicial activism" and "lack of restraint". A gaff is generally one short sentence. Not multiple sentences strung together into a paragraph in order to try and make a point.

Krhazy said:
The law was passed by a majority of a democractically elected Congress. Overturning the law would be an unprecedented and an extraordinary step, because it would reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. The mistake was in connecting the two points to make it seem as if overturning the law would be unprecedented because it was passed by a majority of Congress.
Click to expand...

No it would not reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. For the simple fact that the mandate sets a new precedent. That of allowing the government to force people to buy from private companies. At no other time in our history has the legislative and executive branches ever tried to do that.

Krhazy said:
Taking this remark seriously is just as bad as taking Romney's remark that he doesn't care about poor people seriously. It's stupid hackery. End of story.
Click to expand...

No, the hackery is in trying to dismiss a whole paragraph as a "gaff".

Krhazy said:
You have been watching too much FoxNews.
Click to expand...

I don't know about snilloctjc but I for one don't watch FoxNews. In fact I don't watch the news on TV period.

Edit: You should also note that this was stated during a State of the Union address. Everything he said he had thought about before the address and was put down into his notes. (or teleprompter as the case may be) So its not like he didn't have time before hand to think of what he was going to say. Which shows another part of how gaffs happen...when a person doesn't have forethought....it doesn't happen in prepared speeches.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Sorry but it is no gaff. If it had been then he would not have proceeded to talk about "judicial activism" and "lack of restraint". A gaff is generally one short sentence. Not multiple sentences strung together into a paragraph in order to try and make a point.
Click to expand...
We are only talking about one sentence. Obama's statements about "judicial activism" and "lack of restraint" are not inconsistent with what he really meant. You should read the response the Justice Dep't submitted to the court.

No it would not reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. For the simple fact that the mandate sets a new precedent. That of allowing the government to force people to buy from private companies. At no other time in our history has the legislative and executive branches ever tried to do that.
Click to expand...
Even if the mandate does sets a new precedent (an arguable point), that makes the SCOTUS decision on the matter unprecedented as well. Or as SCOTUS will likely say, an issue of "first impression."

But here is the actual line of precedent Obama was referring to (from Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.):

We, therefore, conclude that the action of the Congress in the adoption of the Act as applied here to a motel which concededly serves interstate travelers is within the power granted it by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court for 140 years.

It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination. But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce *262 may be removed-what means are to be employed-is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress. It is subject only to one caveat-that the means chosen by it must be reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Add that to the fact that SCOTUS has not overturned a law based on the commerce clause since the Great Depression.

Yes, it would be unprecedented.



No, the hackery is in trying to dismiss a whole paragraph as a "gaff".
Click to expand...
No, the hackery is a deliberate attempt to make an obvious mistake into something conniving or demonstrating extreme ignorance.

I don't know about snilloctjc but I for one don't watch FoxNews. In fact I don't watch the news on TV period.
Click to expand...
Good.

Edit: You should also note that this was stated during a State of the Union address. Everything he said he had thought about before the address and was put down into his notes. (or teleprompter as the case may be) So its not like he didn't have time before hand to think of what he was going to say. Which shows another part of how gaffs happen...when a person doesn't have forethought....it doesn't happen in prepared speeches.
Click to expand...
I think we are talking about different things. I'm talking about the comment he made to reporters a few days ago. That's what the court of appeals is talking about as well.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
It is neither. He is a constitutional scholar who was inarticulate for a moment. Even informed people every once and a while say things they don't mean. The one difference is most scholars don't have every word they utter in public recorded. Enough with the hackery.

What Obama said:

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

The law was passed by a majority of a democractically elected Congress. Overturning the law would be an unprecedented and an extraordinary step, because it would reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. The mistake was in connecting the two points to make it seem as if overturning the law would be unprecedented because it was passed by a majority of Congress.
Click to expand...

:roll:

It's not a mistake, because it's what he said. There weren't two points; you're just pulling that out of thin air.

Taking this remark seriously is just as bad as taking Romney's remark that he doesn't care about poor people seriously. It's stupid hackery. End of story.
Click to expand...

The "hackery" comes in because Romney didn't say that. This is what he said:

[“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” Romney told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning after his resounding victory in Florida on Tuesday. “I’m not concerned about the very poor.We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”“I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”
Click to expand...
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom