Obama administration heeds judges' health care order-with link to Holder letter

CNN ^ | April 5, 2012 | By Bill Mears

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Eric Holder Response

(CNN) -- The Justice Department obeyed a federal appeals court's unusual order Thursday in a legal and political spat over the health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

Administration lawyers met their deadline and filed a three-page, single-spaced letter -- following the specific instructions of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing a challenge to the health care law. The letter affirmed the government's stance that federal courts indeed have the authority to decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- and any other law Congress passes.

A dispute involving the court and the executive branch has elevated the political stakes over whether the law will survive various legal challenges, including a pending a Supreme Court decision. The high court's ruling, expected in June, would take precedence over any other courts hearing similar appeals.

Excerpt

[Texas Songwriter]

Judge Smith asked specifically for explaination and 'be specific'. I do not see any specifics in the letter. Holder seems indifferent to this demand by Judge Smith. Sort of a left handed FU.

[Sergio]

So basically Holder is saying, “The Judical branch does have the right of review, but not in the case of obamacare.”

This administration reminds me so much of the old coin toss joke. Heads, I win...Tails, you lose.

[JennysCool]

As noted, it wasn’t an apology he ordered, more of a “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”

[Jacquerie]

Read Holder’s letter. In legal-speake, it is the big FU you asked for.

[ichabod1]

I expect that the decision has already been taken, and that the time between now and June is for the Justices and their clarks to write their majority opinions and dissent.

[treetopsandroofs]

“As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous “unprecedented” remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.”

If you LOOK at and READ the letter, Holder on his behalf did exactly that for you, not to worry.

[3rdcoastislander]

At lunch today msnbc or some network had Obama’s puppet on (can't remember his name). He said that “everyone knows that the president was talking in short talk about the SCOTUS and that he knows constitutional law.” It's amazing how much these people lie, but during an election year they lie like crazy! It's insane how people believe this garbage.

[MyronCopacetic]

The problem was that the legality of judicial review was never an issue in the case. The judge raised it himself.

That’s the unprecedented part of this; a judge raising an issue that’s not before the judge.

I can’t even come up with a good analogy.

I guess it would be like a judge in a 2nd Amendment case demanding one party to clarify their position on the limitations of political speech or their view on illegal search and seizure.

[kroll]

I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.

I agree with samtheman that Justice Smith doesn't have a lot of authority to force the administration to do much here. But I have made remarks elsewhere that this is just an election year strategy by Barry to malign the conservative SCOTUS judges. Barry Knows that Obamacare was passed with a wafer-thin majority and that SCOTUS has every right to strike down unconstitutional laws. He was just fibbing to rile the base against the SCOTUS. And it was perhaps a bit ill-advised of Justice Smith to use the moniker 'Obamacare' and just fall into Zero's strategy of baiting conservative judges. Everyone at FR thinks we have won some big victory by making himself look like an idiot, I am just not so sure.

[In Maryland]

"1. The power of the courts to review the constitutional ity of legislation is beyond dispute.

Attorney General Holder - would you be so kind as to explain that to the President? Thank you, and have a nice day.

[In Maryland]

"Tnx for posting. What a snarky response. The order was with specific reference to Barky’s comments. Methinks the DOJ under Holder is going to have a tougher time in many Federal courts after this. ~snicker~

You never know - after this some court might find that someone DOES have standing to challenge Obama's eligibility to be President.

[Winstons Julia]

..otherwise the next thing we’ll ask you to do is write “I cannot overrule the Supreme Court” 100 times on Glen Beck’s chalkboard.

[treetopsandroofs]

He’s “energized” his base, that’s for sure.

All the leftist freaks I know are REAL MAD at the Supreme Court.

Next, they’ll be demanding that their messiah ignore the Supreme Court, unless they get their jollies again by posting the justices’ addresses.

[itsahoot]

The problem was that the legality of judicial review was never an issue in the case.

How can you say that, he was after all, a student of Zero.</sarcasm>

[Chuckster]

Obama is no Jackson. In fact, Zero wouldn’t be fit to shine Jackson’s boots.

[AJFavish]

I agree. Holder did not do what Judge Smith requested, which was to specifically address the substance of Obama’s statement. Listen here http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx?prid=257724 at 17:50 into the oral argument.

[dead]

As much as I hate Obama, and as wrong as he was with his now infamous “unprecedented” remark, I think he should have said a big FU to the court’s request for a letter of apology.

As others have pointed out, the judge asked for a clarification, not an apology.

That said, I think the Administration could have ignored it to little effect.

I think they looked at it as a way to "reposition their position" because Obama's little veiled threat provoked a much bigger backlash than they expected.

They put the letter together in a way that they can claim they were clarifying, while they were actually sending a big FU to the judge.

We've seen this juvenile M.O. before from The Fresh Prince of BillAyers.

[Centaur]

Just for clarification, hardly anything gets mailed in the federal system. It’s all filed electronically. ECF is electronic case filing.

[IrishPennant]

Just for clarification, hardly anything gets mailed in the federal system. It’s all filed electronically. ECF is electronic case filing.

I'm with ya...but that popped in my head immediately when I saw it...

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Hey, a vote for the GOP is a vote for less reliable weather forecasts. How do I know this? The Kenyan said it!

How anyone can vote for this failed community organizer thug is beyond me.