Editor’s Note – The only thing SUA would add to this well crafted dissection of the President’s recent challenge to our Supreme Court and the co-equal Judicial Branch of government is that the regularity of lies, mis-statements, mis-leading statements, twisted data and facts, blame, obfuscations, omissions by choice, cherry-picking, and blatant demagoguery is unprecedented. It is beyond the pale and demeans the office to which he holds.
Remember, this is the “most transparent” administration led by a “constitutional scholar.” It’s clear he is trying to influence the decision in the court of public opinion…tainting the process for sure!
Typical Obama move, typical Saul Alinsky move, typical ‘Chicago Politics!
BOOYAH…The FACTS Behind Obama’s Judicial Statement
By Craig Andresen
It was a thing of beauty yesterday. A Judge, Jerry Smith, from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of 3 Judges on that bench, had had enough. Judge Smith had had enough of Obama’s arrogance and his ideology.
Enough.
The Court had a federal Department of Justice in front of him while hearing a case related to Obamacare and to that attorney, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, Judge Smith let it be known that he indeed, had had quite enough.
“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 managed to utter a “yes” to the question but, Judge Smith wasn’t through.
“I am 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 has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority. And that’s not a small matter.”
It was Obama arrogant statement in the Rose Garden in front of his piers from Mexico and Canada on Monday which brought about Judge Smith’s ire.
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that 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, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Judge Smith then told Kaersvang that she had 48 hours to obtain a letter, no less than 3 pages in length, single spaced, from her boss, Attorney General Eric Holder, specifically addressing HIS stance on Obama’s statement and position.
BOOYAH!!!
This is where nearly everybody is leaving this story, with the clock ticking. Not me. There is of course much more to this.
What WILL Holder do?
If Holder complies and writes the letter in accordance to the Constitution, he will be in direct opposition to Obama’s statement. This would of course place Obama in a very tight spot and Obama would either have to admit he was way off base in his statement or, he will have to open the door to direct conflict with his own Attorney General.
If Holder complies and writes the letter taking Obama’s position, he will be in direct opposition to the Constitution. Doing this would have the effect of turning federal judges, whether liberal or conservative, against the administration as they DO know the law and realize they indeed DO have the authority to overturn congressional laws on Constitutional grounds.
If Holder complies and writes a letter trying to meld Obama’s statement with the Constitution, he will be rewriting history. There is a long list of precedents of the Supreme Court overturning laws passed by Congress and to suggest in any way that doing such with Obamacare is unprecedented, is simply a lie.
If Holder doesn’t comply, doesn’t write any letter at all, he will be defying the direct order of a Federal Judge. This could well lead to contempt of court charges against Holder AND the attorney to whom Judge Smith had before his bench yesterday.
Let’s dissect Obama’s statement.
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
“Unprecedented and extraordinary step?” Really?
It is neither unprecedented nor extraordinary for the Supreme Court to find laws passed by congress to be unconstitutional. The last year that figures have been compiled is 2002 and those numbers could and probably will be updated sometime this year.
Here is a quick look at just how “Unprecedented and extraordinary” overturning Obamacare would be.
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
- 1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional – 158
- 1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional – 935
- 1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional – 222
- 1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws – 224
- Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional – 1,315
- Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws – 224
Total Laws Overturned, all governments – 1,539
Unprecedented and extraordinary indeed.
“…a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Really?
In the senate, on Christmas Eve 2009, Obamacare passed 60-39 with not a single republican voting in favor of it. From there it fell to the house to either pass it or not. House members wanted to read it but then Speaker Pelosi told them, and the American people, the bill would have to be passed to find out what’s in it.In lockstep, hand in hand, Pelosi of the Giant Gavel’s vote in the House regarding Obamacare was 219-212.
Obamacare passed into law by 7 votes and apparently, in Obama’s mind, 7 votes constitutes a:
“strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
In context…According to Obama, it would be “Unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to do something for the 1,540th time but a mere 7 votes constitutes “A strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
Wow.
“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint…”
That’s crap…Obama knows it and so do liberal/socialists parroting him.
What “Conservative Commentators” have had a problem with, and justifiably so, are judges who, from the bench, create law. For the Supreme Court to strike all or even part of Obamacare would be an exercise of Judicial Restraint. To uphold Obamacare would be to allow, for the first time in our history, congress to create commerce to regulate it and, for the first time in our history, to allow congress to regulate inactivity.
Now THAT would be unprecedented and extraordinary.
“…that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
The reason this group of people are unelected, is to protect the judicial branch, as much as possible, from the constant ebb and flow of political partisanism. By making such an absurd statement, Obama is essentially saying that the Constitution, which sets the 3 branches of government, is unconstitutional.
“And SOMEHOW…overturn…” One would think, or at least hope, that a former teacher of Constitutional Law would understand that the very REASON for the existence of the United States Supreme Court is to judge the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws.
Putz.
“Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
This is the full statement made by Obama in the Rose Garden on Monday to which Judge Jerry Smith, of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Eric Holder to respond, in a no less than 3 page, single spaced letter, explaining HIS (Holder’s) position.
Now, YOU know the FACTS regarding that absurd statement.
What is yet to be seen is whether or not Holder complies with the Judges order and if he does, HOW he will respond.
As to the final sentence of Obama’s statement:
Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
It is a good example OF 3 things. Obama’s spewing of lies, spin and bullshit…His total disregard for the constitution and the separation of powers spelled out in it…And a primary reason why those who sat in “Professor” Obama’s Constitutional Law class at Harvard should immediately demand their money back.
