1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Obama's Justice Department Has To Belly-Crawl

Discussion in 'Government Offices and Programs' started by Cicero, Apr 4, 2012.

  1. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    I assume that it is now common knowledge that the Federal Justice Department was ordered by one of the presiding judges of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit Court of Appeals [headquarters in New Orleans] to produce a three page single spaced document by this Thursday [the 5[SUP]th[/SUP]] stating whether or not the Executive Branch [meaning President Obama] concedes that the Judicial Branch has the power to strike down laws and passages in laws that it finds unconstitutional: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_...bamas-comments-on-health-care-case/?tag=stack

    While it’s amusing for some for the judicial branch to backhand this particular rendition of the executive branch it’s hardly the first time that a president and his hard head has fruitlessly butted against the indomitable brick wall that is the judiciary. Nor will it be the last.

    Now this would be more impressive were the chief justice in question [on this particular three judge panel] not been a republican, but it gains legal significance in that at the time these judges were hearing arguments between the Obama Justice Department and privately owned hospitals on . . . the Health Care Reform bill. So this is actually going to be part of the legal record, assuming that the Justice Department has got the sense to reply to the judge’s order.

    The irony is that President Obama was a Constitutional scholar and so could not possibly have been as ignorant of the role and the power of the judicial branch as he appeared to be in that now infamous political speech of his the other day. He was playing gotcha politics with the Supreme Court, by tossing raw granola to his base and trying to court those independents that turned their backs on him a couple of years ago, assuming that since the study of history and government are given short shrift in colleges nowadays, few graduates any longer have the educational background to know that he was trying to blow political smoke up their kilts.

    Well, all’s fair in love, war, and politics but either President Obama or his campaign advisers forgot or overlooked that the Judicial Branch is not constrained in the same manner as is the legislative branch. Appointees do not have to run for office and therefore they do not have to court the media and satisfy a sometimes ignorant public that can be swayed one way or the other by surface clever political speeches. Having finally grasped the general principles of the bully pulpit [after three full years in office] President Obama can play and influence the legislative branch to some degree, but the same tactics won’t work with the judicial branch . . . because they are the shepherds of the law.

    Now President Obama can take comfort in the obvious fact that the mainstream media will do their very best to ignore this incident, but the Internet won’t ignore it and more and more voters are using the Internet on a routine basis. No, it won’t be anything more than a very minor and momentary stumbling block for this president. So, really, the only disturbing thing about it is that this Constitutional scholar and canny politician so miscalculated this situation in the first place. He needs to get better campaign advisers and remember the difference between being the Chief Executive and being a politician on the campaign trail.

    In any event, long, long after President Obama is a historical footnote in textbooks the belly crawl admission by his Justice Department that the Executive Branch [meaning President Obama] concedes that the Judicial Branch has the power to strike down laws and passages in laws that it finds unconstitutional will be part of the permanent record of a legal ruling; and that’s both amusing and comforting.
     
  2. Old Ridge Runner

    Old Ridge Runner Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Likes Received:
    338
    This shows the unmidigated gull of the left. Even though Obama knew what he was saying was an out right lie, he challenged the high court anyway thinking that the court would back down. However, instead of backing down, the Supreme Court jumped back into Obama's face and told him and his Justice Department to prove it. I for one want to see them do it.
     
  3. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    Well to be fair, it was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court, but it was also done because the president's ill-advised politically-based rant of the other day actually affected the case they were hearing on that very same law.

    What interests me are all those practicing lawyers who once had professor Obama as a Constitutional Law professor. A goodly number of them must now be reflecting on how much money they or their parents ultimately paid for their law degree and are wondering how much of what Obama told them during that one course was nothing more than the wishful thinking mutterings of a radical nutter.
     
  4. Old Ridge Runner

    Old Ridge Runner Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Likes Received:
    338
    Thanks for correcting my error on which court it was, I have no idea why I assigned it to the Supreme. Perhaps Obama was talking about the Communist Constitution of the United States, inwhich case he would probably be right. I know one think, if my kids were going to college today, they would be going some place like Hillsdale, where they would get a good education for the money
     
  5. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    Yep . . . it's beginning to look like some of the big name colleges and universities are no longer worth the money . . . not, that is, if you actually value education for its own sake.
     
  6. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    Belly crawl?

    Is that what the headline said? Or are you just adding a little color Cicero?

    Anyway, on the substance, first, I do not think that the circuit court can "order" the Administration to do anything in a general sense (which is what you seemed to imply). Now, if in the context of the case that they are hearing the court wanted a clarification of a DoJ argument, I suppose that that is technically correct (though I am not sure why it is relevent to the case at hand.) I do think that the three Republican justices are being blatantly political and are attempting to suppress or hinder legitimate political speech by the Administration. I think that that is extremely high-handed. It might be unprecedented for the judiciary to do that. I can only imagine what would have happened if a circuit court and "democratic" judges had done something like that to a Republican president. Republicans would be screaming bloody murder and Newt Gingrich would be calling for impeachment. (I am glad that the Chief Justice didn't play this kind of game. I wonder if Scalia, Alito, and Thomas put their compatriots in the 5th district up to it. That would not surprise me - though we will never find out.)

    As to Obama's remarks, it was POLITICAL speech rather than a LEGAL argument. There is a big difference and you know it. The President expressed his belief that the Supreme Court SHOULDN'T overturn the law rather than asserting that they do not have the power to overturn it. This is exactly the case that the solicitor general made before the Supreme Court last week. He was also repeating the assertion that overturning the mandate/and Obamacare would be a radical break with the precedents of the modern Supreme Court. That is what unprecedented meant (and the article that you linked to made that clear.) I happen to agree with that. As I have said before on this board, completely overturning Obamacare will likely lead to striking down Romneycare as unconstitutional as well based on the principle that Romneycare leaves open the possibility that Massachusetts could establish a mandate that citizens buy broccoli. (Saying that enumerated powers gives the states the power to crush individual liberties guaranteed by the U.S. constitution would be a radical break with jurisprudence since the passage of the fourteenth amendment - which banned slavery. I presume that you are not suggesting that "enumerated" powers would allow states to reestablish slavery within their boundaries.)

    Nevertheless, as is usual for the Karl Rove crowd and the Romney SuperPac money men, righties are going to try to make a stupid case and will - in their own inimitable way - attempt to suppress, crush, and silence their opponents. That is par for course for righties.
     
  7. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    Spoken like a disciple of Newt Gingrich.

     
  8. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    I thought that belly-crawl evoked the right sort of image.

    Pretty much if a fifth circuit court judge feels that something may affect the case and therefore needs to be done it is done or bad things happen to the obstructing party. Personally I hope that the Justice Department tells the judge to get stuffed. Things would bound to get amusing after that.
     
  9. gabriel

    gabriel Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,244
    Likes Received:
    32
    almost as amusing as nixon stating that if the president does it, it aint illegal!! hahahahah
     
  10. Zam-Zam

    Zam-Zam Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,363
    Likes Received:
    5,274




    That was well-written, concise, informative, insightful and witty. It seems sadly out of place in this forum.

    I enjoyed it. Thank you.
     
  11. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    As I said, you attempted to add a little color. No surprise there. Spinning is spinning.

    As to what happens, we shall see. Like I said, the Fifth Circuit sounds like a bunch of partisan Republican judges trying to score political points. They chose to publicize the request. They could easily have gotten an answer in a more discrete manner. That "non-judicial" and partisan behavior was all too apparent to anyone paying attention. These judges demeaned the bench as much as that Republican judge from Montana who e-mailed the joke about Obama's mother. Judges need to meet a very high standard. I think that this pack of judges very much pushed the boundaries.

    If anyone should be doing a retraction and an apology, I think that it is these REPUBLICAN stooge judges.

     
  12. fairsheet

    fairsheet Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    23,036
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    "Belly crawl" is a rather silly and pathetic allusion, in that contrary to how Fox is making their dupes feel about this one, the Judge has no power whatsoever, to enforce his seemingly drunken outburst. So, by employing "belly crawl" in this instance, the top-poster is displaying his rather profound ignorance of not just the law, but the fundaments of America civics.

    Anyway...this - sober or drunk - looks to be trying to take the Fox/GOPian partisan politic into his own hands. It will be very interesting to see how the Obama/Democrats play it. They may choose to give it the consideration it deserves, which is absolutely none. But...I kinda like to see them run with this one. The best way to do that, is to not let the Judge wriggle himself off his own hook. I think it would be fun to watch the Obama/Democrats FORCE this silly buffoon to try an' force them to do shit.
     
  13. JackDallas

    JackDallas Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    26,015
    Likes Received:
    4,548
    I doubt that Obama will know this, being the dumbass he is; but Andrew Jackson totally ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court, when he was President. Jackson wanted to relocate the Cherokee Indians from Florida to Oklahoma. The indians sued, the suit went to the high court and they won. Jackson said, they've made their decidion; noe let them enforce it.

    Which brings up a question. Suppose the Court overturns Obamacare and Obama just says to hell with it and he goes right on with it, just like nothing had happened. What happens then? I never would have imagined such a thing might happen in the USA until Obama got in office. WHO would enforce the Court's decision?
     
  14. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    Heh-heh . . . today the Justice Department humbly agreed to fulfill the judge's requirements -- belly-crawled in other words.
    :yo:
     
  15. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    Thanks Zam-Zam. I don't have much time for writing like that anymore, and so I put a bit of effort into it when I have the opportunity.
     
  16. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    Alas, it turns out that the Justice Department hit the ground and wriggled most humbly before the judge today in abject agreement that the justice's will shall be done. Are we having fun yet?
    :lol:
     
  17. Cicero

    Cicero Mayor

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    174
    JD, it would be interesting if Obama defied the Supreme Court. Most likely though there are a few educated and qualified people who would be willing and able to override either a rogue president or his radical kitchen cabinet advisers.

    Now what might happen is that the idiot would try to piece meal the thing with executive orders . . . in which case he would probably be impeached.
     
  18. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    Cicero,

    You are entitled to spin any way you want. I never said that the DOJ would not respond. I just said that your language was "colorful" and your imagery is inaccurate. We can agree to disagree on how to characterize the DOJ response.

    My basic point - in addition - to commenting on adding color and spin (which is a fine and much-practiced political tactic) is that the fifth circuit upped the stakes and runs the risk of inserting itself into politics in an unjudicial manner. These two commentaries provide opinions (or "spin" if you prefer) than I find more persuasive.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-judges-obama-obamacare-20120404,0,4173554.story

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/opinion/toobin-court-assignment/

    Using the words of the LA Times editorial board, the fifth circuit was grandstanding. Using Toobin's words they threw a "hissy fit." The DoJ will produce a perfectly unobjectionable document that outlines a position that was never in question. The President will continue to express his opinion. It is not like your rightie's don't complain about the SCOTUS or Roe versus Wade. If Republican stooge judges want to show that they are political hacks who are not above inserting themselves into political debate, that is fine with me.



     
  19. JackDallas

    JackDallas Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    26,015
    Likes Received:
    4,548
    These assholes are Marxists; Obama thinks he can be Hugo Chavez. I can envision his impeachment and subsequent refusal to leave, and the military raiding the White House and perp-walking the dirty SOB over to Union Station with 4 tickets to Chicago.
     
  20. imreallyperplexed

    imreallyperplexed Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,763
    Likes Received:
    53
    JD,

    You do realize that an impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. It is a formal accusation of malfeasance. If a bill of impeachment is passed by the House of Representatives, a trial must be held in the Senate and the office holder must leave office. However, unlike an indictment for a felony, the accused is not arrested and held in custody pending trial (or posts bail). There is no "perp walk."

    In other words, your "whimsical" imaginings seem to be getting the better of you again.

     

Share This Page