Posted on 04/03/2012 5:18:52 AM PDT by SoothingDave
Word For The Day, Tuesday, April 3, 2012
In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of "Word for the Day".
skosh [skohsh]
-n
a bit; a jot
[< Japanese sukoshi a little (bit) ]
So they are pissed-good. Are they also trying to hold him up to public ridicule by demanding s9omething that obvious-I hope?
Obama was taunting and threatening the courts, SCOTUS, I thought, but this lower court is hearing a case on the healthcare bill as well. 3 pages single spaced...OMG. There is speculation that they had no right to demand it, but they are and this court gets to rule on the mandate, so it wouldn’t be prudent to tick them off further.
pass the popcorn....
this was the most delicious thing ever. though i feel for the attorney who was blindsided with it. I have a Third Circuit argument coming up in 2 weeks and i am keenly aware of how she would have felt getting that bomb dropped in her lap. i am listening to that oral argument here at my desk. Haven’t gotten to her yet, am listening to the Petitioner still. There is no guarantee that the DOJ atty would even have known that Obams opened his yap about this, depending on whether she was just politically attuned or not. It’s a mistake to think that everyone at DOJ is political. There are career attorneys who work there under whichever Atty General happens to be in the job at any given time. There are 3 Republican appointees on this particular panel of the 5th Cir., the one who requested the TREATISE is a Reagan appointee.
There’s gotta be some middle manager attorneys out there contemplating whether to run this request up to Holder or not for comment, eh?
CONTEMPLATING? are you kidding? there was no way this wasn’t going to the top of the food chain or at least his inner circle from the get-go. Agencies do NOTHING without the political types weighing in.
Still gotta be awkward. Hey, Boss, do we still believe in Marbury v Madison or not?
the “front ofc” will draft that, the mainline attys will have little involvement.
It’s still pretty absurd isn’t it? I would think there would be boilerplate on judicial review included on just about any petition asking for a law to be struck down.
This is like a teacher asking a student to write an essay on something really basic because the student is a bit thick.
of course, there was boilerplate and she tried to direct him to it, but he wasn’t having any of it. he wants SPECIFICALLY the DOJ to address OBAMA’s ACTUAL COMMENTS in re authority of the fed judiciary to overturn unconsitutional laws. He was very clear about that. So it’s not regurgitating precedent. they are going to have to invent out of whole cloth, what Obams was trying to say and to square that up with actual precedent.
so this isn’t absurd at all, clearly this judge, and a number of others as well, was FROSTED at his effrontery and outright WRONGNESS, and found a way to call someone to account for it. Because the case in question had some toenail nexus to ACA, he could do it here.
and the boilerplate on judicial review is one of the very first sections of EVERY court of appeals brief, not just ones asking for laws to be struck. the circuit court rules routinely require you to outline what the standard of review is for the case in question.
She’s a fashion icon XS, we appearantly have no fashion sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.