Posted on 04/05/2012 5:11:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On Wednesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams accused a federal judge of bringing politics into the judicial process simply by ordering the Justice Department to explain controversial comments President Obama made against the Supreme Court: "Politics are ideally supposed to stay out of the nation's courtrooms, but that's not what happened this week in a federal courtroom in Texas."
In report that followed, correspondent Pete Williams proclaimed: "The political controversy spilled into a Texas federal court, where the rules are designed to filter out politics, interrupting arguments about a challenge to part of the Obama health care law." Williams noted how Judge Jerry Smith "put a Justice Department lawyer on the spot" to explain the President's attack on the court system and made sure to point out that Smith was "a Reagan appointee."
Williams explained: "On Monday, asked about predictions that the Supreme Court might strike down the health care law, the President used terms normally invoked by conservatives to attack decisions they don't like." After playing a clip of the comments in question, Williams did mention: "The President did dial back his remarks yesterday, saying simply the courts have shown restraint in overruling acts of Congress..."
With the President's comments stirring controversy, Williams tried to bring the story to an end: "...some say everyone should now cool it." A sound bite followed of American University Washington Law School professor Stephen Wermiel, who concluded: "President Obama really stepped into a controversy by criticizing the judicial activism of the court, but I can't imagine the circumstances under which a federal judge would then order the Justice Department to explain the President's views."
Professor Wermiel is also the author of "Justice Brennan, Liberal Champion."
NBC largely ignored the fact that President Obama injected politics into the Supreme Court proceedings with his Monday comments. The only coverage of the misstep on the network prior to Wednesday night was a single news brief by Savannah Guthrie on Tuesday's Today: "President Obama predicted Monday that the Supreme Court will uphold his health care reform law when that ruling is announced in June. The President seemed to challenge the justices directly when he warned that overturning the law would hurt millions of Americans and amount to an overreach by the court."
Here is a full transcript of the April 4 Nightly News report:
7:09AM ET
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Politics are ideally supposed to stay out of the nation's courtrooms, but that's not what happened this week in a federal courtroom in Texas. One of the judges took issue with some of what President Obama said this week at the White House about the big health care case that's now in the hands of the Supreme Court. Our justice correspondent Pete Williams has more.
PETE WILLIAMS: The political controversy spilled into a Texas federal court, where the rules are designed to filter out politics, interrupting arguments about a challenge to part of the Obama health care law. Jerry smith, an appeals court judge, put a Justice Department lawyer on the spot yesterday about a comment earlier this week from President Obama.
JERRY SMITH: I'm referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect, and I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress.
WILLIAMS: On Monday, asked about predictions that the Supreme Court might strike down the health care law, the President used terms normally invoked by conservatives to attack decisions they don't like.
BARACK OBAMA: For years, what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, it's a good example.
WILLIAMS: He said it would be unprecedented to overturn a law passed by a majority in Congress. Judge Smith, a Reagan appointee, demanded a letter from the government by noon tomorrow stating its position on the power of the courts to strike down laws. Republicans in Congress pounced too. The Senate's Minority Leader Mitch McConnell circulated a list of 169 times the Supreme Court has struck down federal laws in part or completely. The President did dial back his remarks yesterday, saying simply the courts have shown restraint in overruling acts of Congress, but some say everyone should now cool it.
STEPHEN WERMIEL [PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW]: President Obama really stepped into a controversy by criticizing the judicial activism of the court, but I can't imagine the circumstances under which a federal judge would then order the Justice Department to explain the President's views.
WILLIAMS: Unknown in all of this is whether the justices were listening. Most legal experts say even if they were, it won't make a difference in what they do. Pete Williams, NBC News, at the Supreme Court.
oh, so now we’re not even supposed to question Obammie.
Bullsh*%!
Why Are you surpried,someone should ask Mr. Williams ,why is Obamas Justice dept. In Court Right Now as I write this trying to Overturn a Law Duly Passed By Congress called the Defense of Marriage ACT? Thsi is a Law that the Marxist has Ordered his Justice Department not to Defend in Court, A DULY PASSED LAW FROM CONGRESS ,He ordered them not to defend it,and Now they are asking a COURT? To overturn a DULY PASSED LAW?How can this Be Mr. Williams ,POLITICS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO INJECT ITSELF IN COURT.
Judicial Activism is not when you throw out a Law that was Not Debated and Considered rationaly,but was shoved down the Throats of The American People by Reconciliation and the Speaker of the House Stated that we Have to pass it to see what was in it, Judicial activism is when you find something in the Constitution that is not there and make it the Law Of the Land,like ABORTION,I dont remeber seeing that in the Constitution and I dont remember having a Chance to Vote on that issue either,But Mr. williams I am Sure you Know all this
“Professor Wermiel is also the author of “Justice Brennan, Liberal Champion.” “
While on the Court, Brennan told his first-year clerks, “With five votes, you can do anything around here.”
Williams did mention: "The President did dial back his remarks yesterday, saying simply the courts have shown restraint in overruling acts of Congress..."O'Reilly ?!?
I guess the (cough-BS) 'esteemed Law Professor' (cough) and then Senator, Barry O'DUmmie, never heard of 'Lopez' or 'Casey'. Especially 'Lopez'.
Oh .. hold on ... wait! Sure he did. That's why the RATs grilling of Roberts then Alito during their confirmation hearings was so lowdown STOO-PID™ and utterly EMBARRASSING!
It was all about ...... ta-da .... The Commerce Clause!!! And that legal mumbo-jumbo called 'starry decide-us'(/s). As the RATs were still fuming about the 'Rehnquist Court' striking down Congress' little, teeny, over-reach with first 'Casey' and then Di-Fi's pet law: The Gun Free School Zone Act with 'Lopez'.
That old broad is so DUMB that on her senate web-page she had a screed up for years that said, "Even if the law was unconstitutional it shouldn't have been struck down as it was - 'For The Children'."
Uh.... hold on again??? Didn't Barry just say basically the same thing about ObamaDeathCare?
Uh, yep. He sure did.
(I pity his past students who are now flipping burgers or are Shoe Store Managers)
NBC: Editors of the Zimmerman tape
You said....
“It wouldn’t be preposterous to assume that these guys at the Peacock Network (Williams, Matthews, Schultz, etc) actually “fantasize” about Obama at night.
Their flagrant public displays of Obama worship and affection are very abnormal.”
I’ve wondered the same thing.
Their reporting on and any discussions they have when discussing BHO is borderline sexual
Wait a minute. This judge IS a right-wing extremist Conservative nominated by a Republican President, isn't he?
Maybe the Panel of Judges should SUBPOENA Brian Williams into their Court to repeat his Claims under oath. Seems to me since he willfully interjected himself into this case the Court has every Right to bring him in as a Witness, and then LOCK HIM UP FOR CONTEMPT.
To avoid the constitutional requirement that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;" the Senate democrats took an unrelated bill that the House had passed and as part of the "amendment" process, stripped the entire contents of that bill and inserted ACA.
Then once the Senate passed the bill, the democrats couldn't get it passed in the House, and so crafted a "reconciliation" bill with changes, and in passing that bill "deemed" that the Senate bill had been passed by the House (even though it wasn't). They had to play these shenanigans because if the Senate bill had actually gone back to the Senate, it would have been filibustered (since one of Massachusetts' seats had gone from Dem to Pub in the meantime).
Is this is the bill the President was claiming was "... a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."?
Curiouser and curiouser ... I think I just saw the March Hare run by.
“Rush is right: Obama and his media minions are going for the stupid vote.”
A very large vote thanks to democrats like Obama over the last 50+ years.
“Maybe if NBC did some investigation they would discover that the rulings of this particular court, the 5th Circuit, have been ignored by the Obama Administration in the past. They are the ones that ruled the drilling moratorium to be unconstitutional and the Administration continues the moratorium to this day.”
You know it is ironic in that the Obama administration has check and ballances backwards. Obama seems to think the checks exist to be sure goverment has all the power it needs.
Whereas they were quite explisicly edesigned to help prevent the exterize of power not consented to.
That means when a judge says no you can’t do something, you cant do it. but when a judge says you must do something you don’t have to comply.
This is really the buried but true story of Marbury v. Madison. Madison(working under Thomas Jefferson’s direction) never complied with the Federal judge’s order to act & issue Marbury his commission. The Federal supreme court recognized this fact and the fact that they lacked the power to force Madison to issue the commission. Instead they insisted that the Federal court was bound to disregard unauthorized acts.
In other-words an Action by Thomas Jefferson or the Congress must be nullified by the Federal court when it comes before them if it is outside the bounds of the Federal Constitution. This is judicial review as apposed to judicial command.
Note: The responsibly & power for this came from the same oath which congress, the president, and our State Officials take to uphold & defend the Federal Constitution.
Contrary to what Obama has said, The Federal court(federal employees) DOES NOT have the first or the last word on the Federal Constitution. If they did, then as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, their discretion, not the Constitution would be “the supreme law of the land”.
“Maybe if NBC did some investigation they would discover that the rulings of this particular court, the 5th Circuit, have been ignored by the Obama Administration in the past. They are the ones that ruled the drilling moratorium to be unconstitutional and the Administration continues the moratorium to this day.”
You know it is ironic in that the Obama administration has check and ballances backwards. Obama seems to think the checks exist to be sure goverment has all the power it needs.
Whereas they were quite explisicly edesigned to help prevent the exterize of power not consented to.
That means when a judge says no you can’t do something, you cant do it. but when a judge says you must do something you don’t have to comply.
This is really the buried but true story of Marbury v. Madison. Madison(working under Thomas Jefferson’s direction) never complied with the Federal judge’s order to act & issue Marbury his commission. The Federal supreme court recognized this fact and the fact that they lacked the power to force Madison to issue the commission. Instead they insisted that the Federal court was bound to disregard unauthorized acts.
In other-words an Action by Thomas Jefferson or the Congress must be nullified by the Federal court when it comes before them if it is outside the bounds of the Federal Constitution. This is judicial review as apposed to judicial command.
Note: The responsibly & power for this came from the same oath which congress, the president, and our State Officials take to uphold & defend the Federal Constitution.
Contrary to what Obama has said, The Federal court(federal employees) DOES NOT have the first or the last word on the Federal Constitution. If they did, then as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, their discretion, not the Constitution would be “the supreme law of the land”.
What the Federal court has, is a veto
It occurs to me perhaps 5 Supreme Court Justices could stage a coup and rule as dictators. If Congress tries to impeach they could declare Congress unconstitutional.
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.