SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Bottom line to “Constitutional law professor (BS) Barack Obama”
Rule 101 of Rules of Federal Civil Proceedure: “Don’t F with the Courts.”
Transcript and audio: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/04/03/dojs-homework-assignment-tell-fifth-circuit-whether-it-supports-judicial-review/
Why is everyone surprized? Obama HUSSEIN LOVES CHAVEZ, CASTRO, STALIN and every other Communist Despot! They are HIS HEROS! Obama HUSSEIN Depises America and Her Freedoms!
Remember, Farrakkon stated in a Large Address that “OBAMA wasn’t ELECTED, but rather, HE was selected by US!” Farrakkon also stated that: Obama HUSSEIN is OUR PROPHET sent directly from ALLAH!” Sure doesn’t sound like Obama HUSSEIN is one of Us American Christians!!!
Obama HUSSEIN is an absolute FRAUD who has Torn apart American from within America’s Most Hallowed and Honored OFFICE!! WAKE UP!! AMERICANS and also the Brain Dead Republican Party Leadership and All Republicans and Independents!! even Thinking Democrats! if there are ANY????
Events like this helps me restore faith that maybe this country isn’t on its deathbed. Kudo’s to the judge for challenging the arrogant and narcisist Obama.
The Fifth Circuit is now my favorite U.S. Court of Appeals. Don’t back down!
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Some are predicting at least five justices may strike down Obama’s unconstitutional law. Does this mean the other four are political activists willing to circumvent our Constitution?
If so, what does this infer regarding the integrity of the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t this mean the Supreme Court has been compromised by political activism? Where maybe five are willing to adhere to the Constitution, and the other four are willing to proscribe the US Constitution as a condemned writ.
I think we have a right to expect the USSC to be politically blind. Yet, each POTUS election we hear many arguments how one will appoint conservative justices, and the other liberal justices. Justices should be neither conservative nor liberal. Justices should be politically blindfolded.
My interpretation of the USSC is that this entity is by law required to form it’s decisions based on the US Constitution. Which begs the question, what has led to this misalignment of the stars? How has political activism infiltrated the sanctity of the USSC? Where it is now predicted at least four members may vote the Obama(could really)Care(less) as Constitutional?
Nancy who routinely Peesonselfsi states Obama(could really)Care(less) is Constitutional since it follows the pursuit of happiness concept set forth in our US Constitution. How on earth could any reasonable Justice argue with her interpretation of our US Constitution? /s
Meanwhile, Obama declares the Supreme Court Justices as invalid since they are unelected officials.
Beam me up Scottie! Please hurry!
I was going to wonder if the Justices were really serious about the rule of law or just for Bush.
The law is arrogant as OBama, but, still, this guy is a joke.
To tell you the truth, it does not matter. Obama has the media like Clinton did. All cover up and the left has the re-education so most of the public has not a clue about the constituional form of government.
With the GoP backing progressive Romney and staying silent as obama moves to communism, that is what is going to happen. We are kicking against the pricks; wasting our emotions and mental energy. It’s all b.s.
Amazing indeed.
Someone should write a children’s book:
“The Little Dictator that Couldn’t”
Audio of the relevant portion of the hearing (2.7 MB):
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/JudgeSmithDOJOrder.mp3
The MSM has done there best to botch the context and bury the lead, even pave it over.
This is transcript in full context:
Justice Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?
Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.
Justice Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.
Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –
Justice Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.
*
Just checked out some of the comments on the article itself and was stunned at the Obama supporters! thank God for the sanity of free republic.
Obama is an arrogant POS