Obama's Officious Opinions

The American Spectator ^ | 4.4.12 @ 6:11AM | By Ross Kaminsky

[Fitzy_888]

On Tuesday afternoon, in a stunning rebuke of President Obama, Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided he had heard enough of the president's incessant hyper-partisan rhetoric challenging the independence of the federal judiciary.

(...)

He then ordered the Justice Department to respond to the court by noon on Thursday with a letter (minimum three pages, single-spaced) explaining with specificity the DOJ's position on "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation." (Audio of the relevant portion of the hearing can be found here.)

My grandmother - and yours - reminded us that if we don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. My basketball coach - and yours - reminded us not to give the opposition extra motivation by predicting victory before a game, with the importance of that advice being proportional to the importance of the game.

(...)

This is the unnecessary risk that President Obama is taking by spouting off about being "confident" that the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare, with the risk being reinforced by Vice President Joe "Big F-ing Deal" Biden making similar suggestions that the law will not be overturned.

Unless the president believes that he can impact the outcome of the Supreme Court case with his words -- which we all, regardless of our political leanings, must all hope he cannot do -- he is risking much more than he can gain with his unnecessary and overconfident opinions. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit's firm-handed judicial smackdown, demanding the Department of Justice respond in 48 hours with an explanation of Obama's view of judicial review, has turned Obama's confidence into an immediate political loser.

[Fitzy_888]

Justice Smith - Fifth Curcuit Court, relevant transcript in full context:

Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Justice Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress. That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.

[TigersEye]

"Those ding-danged Justices were selected not elected!

Uh, wait, those two I selected are OK, uhhhh."