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.
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.
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.
Don’t forget rule Rule 101 (See Post 65)
Make that # 85
Well...the courts need to take a stand in Obama’s political war against the constitutional authority of the courts. If they are silent, they lose their power as a co-equal branch of government to a Marxist.
Mr. Obama is playing with fire. The courts can scalp him if judges and attorneys see their power slipping away. They are as power hungry as he is.
What Obama did was perfectly legal, but unethical. Thugish. We would never see George Bush try to spin a court case while judges are contemplating its outcome. He had respect for the American system and those with opposing ideas.
These courts, these judges, have every right to throw a brush back pitch in the presidents face. I'm getting sick and tired of everyone giving this jack wagon whatever he wants because it's racist not to.
This spoiled brat, gangsta A-hole in the oval office has played the race card for 50 years. It's high time it come to an end.
The SOB is owed no more respect than Hugo Chavez. Obama earned this slap in the face.