Buckwheat Stirs Pot

[Mike]

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals escalated the increasingly public battle between President Barack Obama and the judiciary on Tuesday, ordering the Department of Justice to write and submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon on Thursday explaining whether the administration acknowledges that the courts have the right to overturn federal laws.

The order, CBS News reported, follows the president's historically inaccurate claim Monday that a Supreme Court decision striking down the so-called "individual mandate" in his health care overhaul law "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress." Obama suggested that because of this, the Supreme Court would opt not to overturn the law. (RELATED: Full coverage of Obamacare)

A Tuesday opinion essay in the Wall Street Journal corrected the president's history, noting the famous Marbury v. Madison case.

"In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review," the Journal's editors wrote. "In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a 'democratically elected' legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by 'strong' majorities."

Noting that Obama "is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago," the essay adds that the president's remarks "suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law."

The Fifth Circuit court was hearing a separate case, brought by physician-owned hospitals, against the health care law's "individual mandate" provision.

According to CBS, after Appeals court Judge Jerry Smith — a Reagan appointee — pushed DOJ lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang to admit that that the court did have precedent on its side, Smith grew "very stern" and said that the Obama's remarks left "many of us" unclear about whether Obama agrees.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/03/federal-judge-fires-back-after-obama-health-care-comments/#ixzz1r2sJyr4l

 

[Tam]

I pray the Justices take Obama back to school and teach him and his whole administration about what the powers of the Supreme Court really are. :roll:

BTW Obama wasn't just stirring the pot he must have been smoking it to make a threat like he did against the Supreme Court when they hold so many cards. Obamacare, Birth Certificate and eligibility to the Oval Office, Voter Fraud cases filed against Demscraps to name a few. :wink:

 

[Steve]

the essay adds that the president's remarks "suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law."

who will really pay the political price.. 62% of the voters want the law struck down..

Since the law's passage by Congress in March 2010, most voters have favored repeal in virtually every survey, with support running as high as 62%.

 

[Tam]

the essay adds that the president's remarks "suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law."

who will really pay the political price.. 62% of the voters want the law struck down..

Since the law's passage by Congress in March 2010, most voters have favored repeal in virtually every survey, with support running as high as 62%.

Obama and the Democraps have paid the political price and are in denial as the 2010 election results showed everyone what the voters really thought about Obamacare. They lost from Coast to Coast because they thought they knew better than the voters to what they wanted. If the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down as Unconstitutional Obama and the Dems will pay again in 2012, as the only way the 62% of voters that want it repealed will get rid of the offending bill is to VOTE for the party that WILL REPEAL IT.

 

[Larrry]

Remember when obama said the voters just weren't informed enough. That is where their thinking is now, they are going to inform(lie to) the voters to get them to believing his bs. And so many lazy voters do just that.

 

[backhoeboogie]

It still doesn't make a lick of sense of how that lying weasel got elected in the first place.

When he qualifies things with, "We are looking in to that but......." He is avoiding saying, "I don't have a clue".

 

[Tam]

It still doesn't make a lick of sense of how that lying weasel got elected in the first place.

When he qualifies things with, "We are looking in to that but......." He is avoiding saying, "I don't have a clue".

One has to wonder just how many of his 2008 supporters see through his crap claims of being smart now that he has proved he is nothing more than a mouth piece for a speech writer. Without his teleprompter he is useless. For a Contitutional Professor he stuck his foot so for into his mouth these week, he is kicking his own butt from the inside out. Talk about backtracking on the Supreme Court comment :shock: I would love to see what Holder comes up with to fill up those three single spaced pages since he has come out claiming Obama was right. I doubt the Justices are going to like what he has to say. :roll:

 

[backhoeboogie]

It still doesn't make a lick of sense of how that lying weasel got elected in the first place.

When he qualifies things with, "We are looking in to that but......." He is avoiding saying, "I don't have a clue".

One has to wonder just how many of his 2008 supporters see through his crap claims of being smart now that he has proved he is nothing more than a mouth piece for a speech writer. Without his teleprompter he is useless. For a Contitutional Professor he stuck his foot so for into his mouth these week, he is kicking his own butt from the inside out. Talk about backtracking on the Supreme Court comment :shock: I would love to see what Holder comes up with to fill up those three single spaced pages since he has come out claiming Obama was right. I doubt the Justices are going to like what he has to say. :roll:

Maybe someone should let him know there are only 50 states? How do you vote for someone who is this stupid?

 

[okfarmer]

is Holder's term paper available yet?

 

[ranch hand]

It was suppose to be three pages and no less. He turns in two and a half, kinda saying we dnot follow Orders. I say flunk him!!!

 

[Faster horses]

It was suppose to be three pages and no less. He turns in two and a half, kinda saying we dnot follow Orders. I say flunk him!!!

By now we should know that the Obama administration thumbs their
nose at the law because it doesn't apply to them. And so far, they've
gotten away with it.

So what is going to happen now that he only turned in 2 1/2 pages?
Anything????????????

 

[Tam]

S*it I'm surprised he didn't use size 24 font bolded to fill up the two and half pages he did turn in. :roll: