Article, also # 25 , 60 , 61.
Thanks, justiceseeker93.
Posted on 04/03/2012 2:10:13 PM PDT by mwilli20
... 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 ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
The serious part of the federal judiciary are still burned up about Marbury v. Madison (1803), that while it was the first time in which the Supreme Court asserted the right to overturn a federal law as unconstitutional, just as importantly, it ordered the president to comply with their order, and he *refused*.
This was a huge increase in the power of the office of the presidency.
This obviously hit a serious nerve with this judge. By Obama challenging the right of the SCOTUS to find a law unconstitutional, he is threatening the balance of power in Washington between the three branches.
Essentially this would mean that the POTUS is supreme and can ignore the SCOTUS. And that is throwing down a gauntlet, big time.
I agree that this is a horrible move. However, it is one I am glad they made. If you do not fight these things early, they are lot harder to fight later on.
They only had to look at Venezuela where Chavez got a law passed that expanded their Supreme Court from 20 to 32. Whom do you think the extra 12 supported?
Also, do not fall for this “he did not say he will not abide by the ruling” pap. This is not about the here and now. This is about whipping his Occupy supporters into an anti supreme court frenzy for the battles that are to rage later on.
Jesus Be With Us. Is their actually JUSTICE in justice?
This is splendid courage on the part of this AWESOME judge and his two sitting and silent marvelous coordinates beside him!!
HOORRRRAAAAYYYY!!!!!
Federal court jurisdiction is limited in part by the "case or controversy" requirement of the Constitution; federal courts may not render mere advisory opinions (as some state courts may). If a court does not have the authority to order a remedy to the prevailing party in a case, it doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case.
In this instance (assuming the CBS claim bears some semblance to the truth), if a party has suggested that the court is without jurisdiction, the court must address that claim, or the party withdraw it.
Maybe this poser will manage to tick the USSC off enough that they not only unanimously toss Obamacare, but they then decide to take up the issue of eligibility, and toss Obama out with the Obamacare.
Please ping me on your search results. AND THANK YOU!!!!
GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!!
>>If you think The 0’s actions are “shameful”, just wait until Holder and his apparat get into the deal.
I can see these America-hating communists making a statement like “How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?” I can see Obama/Holder deciding to ignore the SCOTUS for “good of the people”.
>>Does ANYONE really believe that 0bama is a ‘Constitutional Scholar’?
He’s a liberal constitutional scholar. That means that he doesn’t read the document. He just makes up contents based on his ideology.
Yes, my FRiend, without an objective press, Obama gets to create whatever propaganda of revisionism he wants, from one day to the next.
Generally, racial and ethnic minorities take Obama at his word, and so he is creating the foundation for mayhem.Thats his job and his greatest calling.
Good Read:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
While they are at it, they should ask to examine DumBO;s birth certificate.
Article, also # 25 , 60 , 61.
Thanks, justiceseeker93.
Looks like he got his butt kicked indirectly today.
Mark my words, Obama will win the argument placing Federal authority over Constitutional, State's and individual rights. This bill has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with extending Federal power and concentrating it in the Executive Branch. Obama might just issue a executive order, declare martial law, or something, which will make sure this totalitarian document become the law of the land.
It's only a matter of time after the 'Rat's steal a second term for Imam Obama. Then you will finally see Obama for who he really is and the war on Christians and Jews will begin. Islam will provide the sword and those who refuse to bow down and worship will lose their heads. Of course, the educated class of leaders won't be given the option to convert, because they only want worker bees.
Some of you are aware of Zero's deep involvement in the occult. He's carried or wore an amulet on his person since family photos of him living in Indonesia or the Philippines first appeared in print. This amulet bears the image of a hindu deity, or superman who goes by the name of Hanuman. This immortal demon's most important gift is removal of obstacles for those who worship him. In fact he's got a shine in every Hindu, Buddhist and Asian temple Obama has visited.
However, many clues are present from both historians and the worship of his feast days to properly identify exactly who both Hanuman and Barack Obama really represent in context to Western theology. In fact, if you examine Greek, Roman, Islam and Babylonian religions in depth, you will discover a similar pattern to that of the Holy Bible. Perhaps, the best example is that of the fish god Dagon and his triune family.
There's always a Father figure, a counterfeit like Zeus, a savior Apollo and a feminine deity. Whatever counterfeit you examine, the more connected you realize we are to these characters that were created by our ancient enemy to fool mankind into worshiping false gods, such as satan himself. In the case of the monkey god of Obama, he plays the role of the warrior king Jesus Christ who will someday come to purge this world of evil.
You may recall that the occult calendar tells us that 'the Beast' is worshipped at the end of March and the first three weeks of April. Hanuman likewise is worshipped by his followers during this exact same time. Fasting, prayers, special dietary laws are enforced all over Asia. His statutes adorn every temple and he's anointed with a fresh coat of honey and vermillion. The high priest who carries away our sins and paints them upon a scapegoat. Sound familiar?
Below I'm posting pictures of young Obama wearing his amulet. I also need to explain why I think the Regime has hidden all documents, including his kindergarten records from public scrutiny. I sincerely believe that his real birthday coincides with April 20th 1961 during the period of worship of both the monkey god and the Beast reaches a climax. Why else would somebody hide their kindergarten records?
BTW, mohammed, Adolph Hitler and Jewish calamities all fall within a two day period of April 19-20. That's what they're desperate to hide Kindergarten records from the public. Evidence, Obama's mother Stanley Durham arrived home to Seattle 4 days after giving birth to Barry and then immediately began taking a full load of classes at university. Remember, this was her
first born SON
Re: Well, maybe Obama will just cut to the chase and sign an executive order seizing everyone’s assets and call it a day.
I think the XO he is shooting for is to declare himself president for life
Don’t be too shocked if the DOJ challenges the Judge’s authority to demand such an explanation and/or demands the Judge’s recusal for his open show of hostility to the administration (and because he must be a racist if he defied the Obamessiah).
As much as I blasted the Administration for its statements (check my posts) this is a bad move by the 5th Circuit. The President is a politician. While his comments were horribly wrong, they are still in a political context, and he did not say he would refuse to follow a decision. This looks like the judges are taking sides in a purely political rhetorical war, and I think that’s a bad move.
I understand your concerns, but I disagree that it was an inappropriate question or assignment. Obama is the Chief Executive of DOJ and they are defending Obamacare in the courts. Obama’s statements as the head of DOJ are relevant to the case in front of the 5th Circuit (and SCOTUS). The courts understand their constitutional place much better than the media and administration.
Furthermore, the Judges can use DOJ’s brief when ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare. In that sense, it was brilliant because DOJ has insinuated throughout the court battles on Obamacare that the courts must consider that legislation was passed by elected officials. I am sure they made the same submission to this court so it is in fact part of their argument.
The Judge could have softened his question by not specifically mentioning the President, but this is one Judge that clearly, and appropriately in my humble opinion, wanted to get a clear statement from DOJ on the role of the courts.
Kudos to this Judge for demanding a specific answer and it will be interesting to read the response from DOJ. I won’t be surprised to see the written response in the SCOTUS decision for the majority.
I saw this on Foxnews. Get the popcorn ready......
I wonder if there is anyone in Holder’s Department of “Justice” who is literate enough to compose a three page explanation. Probably not.
Obama did not say he would refuse to follow the decision, and even if he did, it's not an executory decision. It's based on the power to tax, which requires courts to enforce and collect, etc.
Obama stepped in it with this comment, and was getting blasted. He even issued a "clarification" earlier today. When your opponent is willing to hang himself, the best tack is to hand him the rope, and stand back.
Obama was trying to claim that an adverse ruling by SCOTUS would be pure politics. He looked like a fool in saying that. But by leaping headlong into a clearly political move of it' own, the Fifth Circuit made itself a much better target of charges of political bias than SCOTUS ever did.
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.