• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Twelfth unanimous defeat, in 2 1/2 yrs

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
President Obama’s team suffered their twelfth unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court in the legal challenge to the so-called recess appointments made when Congress was not actually in recess, a string of defeats that only represents “the tip of the iceberg,” according to Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah).

“Not every case in which the president has exceeded his authority has made it all the way to the Supreme Court,” Lee, a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, told National Review Online. “The fact that his track record is as bad as it is in the Supreme Court . . . is yet another indication of the fact that we’ve got a president who is playing fast and loose with the Constitution.”

”This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s calls for greater federal executive power,”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrke
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
President Obama’s team suffered their twelfth unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court in the legal challenge to the so-called recess appointments made when Congress was not actually in recess, a string of defeats that only represents “the tip of the iceberg,” according to Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah).

“Not every case in which the president has exceeded his authority has made it all the way to the Supreme Court,” Lee, a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, told National Review Online. “The fact that his track record is as bad as it is in the Supreme Court . . . is yet another indication of the fact that we’ve got a president who is playing fast and loose with the Constitution.”

”This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s calls for greater federal executive power,”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrke

Hypocrit--Be interested to see what 12 cases/rulings Cruz is talking about... Its surprising FAUX News and some of the other right wing media haven't been making hay with them.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
oops, make that 13... :lol:



JUNE 26, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests near abortion clinics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-abortion-clinic-protests.html?_r=0


Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is defending the law with support from the Obama administration.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-15/abortion-clinic-buffer-zone-called-into-question-at-top-court
 

Steve

Well-known member
WASHINGTON — There has been a remarkable outbreak of harmony at the Supreme Court. Of the seven decisions issued in the last two weeks, six were unanimous.

well at least the liberals were able to unite the court.. :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
President Obama’s team suffered their twelfth unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court in the legal challenge to the so-called recess appointments made when Congress was not actually in recess, a string of defeats that only represents “the tip of the iceberg,” according to Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah).

“Not every case in which the president has exceeded his authority has made it all the way to the Supreme Court,” Lee, a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, told National Review Online. “The fact that his track record is as bad as it is in the Supreme Court . . . is yet another indication of the fact that we’ve got a president who is playing fast and loose with the Constitution.”

”This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s calls for greater federal executive power,”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrke

Hypocrit--Be interested to see what 12 cases/rulings Cruz is talking about... Its surprising FAUX News and some of the other right wing media haven't been making hay with them.....

I thought when you weren't busy with your new "ventures", or drunk off your azz and posting you only watched C-SPAN. How would you know what FOX was or wasn't doing?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Hypocrit--Be interested to see what 12 cases/rulings Cruz is talking about... Its surprising FAUX News and some of the other right wing media haven't been making hay with them.....

Are you interested enough to look them up?

Do you know how to google?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
President Obama’s team suffered their twelfth unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court in the legal challenge to the so-called recess appointments made when Congress was not actually in recess, a string of defeats that only represents “the tip of the iceberg,” according to Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah).

“Not every case in which the president has exceeded his authority has made it all the way to the Supreme Court,” Lee, a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, told National Review Online. “The fact that his track record is as bad as it is in the Supreme Court . . . is yet another indication of the fact that we’ve got a president who is playing fast and loose with the Constitution.”

”This marks the twelfth time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama administration’s calls for greater federal executive power,”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381302/obama-suffers-12th-unanimous-defeat-supreme-court-joel-gehrke


The "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority."

Bob Goodlatte on Sunday, June 29th, 2014 in comments on "Fox News Sunday"



GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

False


Bob Goodlatte said, "The 9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority."


President Barack Obama received a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court last week for his attempt to make appointments when Congress was still technically in session.

The 9-0 decision in National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning came just as Speaker John Boehner announced plans to sue Obama for executive overreach.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who defended Boehner’s lawsuit, said the Supreme Court’s ruling was emblematic of Obama’s term. Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."

Has Obama really had such a tough time with the high court? We decided to review the record.

Goodlatte isn’t the only person to make this argument. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made a similar claim in a press release last week and it was also the subject of a column in the National Review, a conservative news website.

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte gave us a list of the 13 cases he referenced. We reviewed the evidence his office offered enlisted the help of a few experts to help us parse through the legalese.

Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach.

"That’s a fair case of the president’s use of executive authority getting rejected," she said.

But the rest of the claim? "It’s a total overstatement," Bloch said.

Why?

For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.


Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.

But that isn't really what Goodlatte claimed. He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that Obama defended executive overreach.

Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn’t really even at issue. For example, in United States vs. Jones, the court was ruling on whether the FBI had the power to use a GPS to track a suspect and gather evidence.

Technically, the FBI is a federal department under the Justice Department, a department in the executive branch. But the court was not reeling in an administration that was abusing power. Rather, "it gave us some guidance about how new technology and the Fourth Amendment should interact," Bloch said. "It has nothing to do with presidential authority."

Another case on the list, Arizona vs. United States, surprised our experts. Why? Because many saw it as a partial victory for Obama.

This is the case surrounding Arizona’s tough immigration laws that many civil rights groups said amounted to racial profiling. In 2012, the Supreme Court released a complicated 5-3 ruling, in which the court actually sided with the Obama administration on three of four counts. On the fourth provision, which allowed Arizona authorities to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, the court basically said it’s too soon to tell, and unanimously decided to send the issue down to the lower courts to monitor for further challenges.

"The Supreme Court struck down three of the four because they interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which was defended by the Obama administration to advocate for the laws passed by Congress," Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.

Another case on the list was last week’s ruling in United States vs. Wurie, which was decided along with Riley vs. California. The court ruled that police could not search your cell phone without a warrant if you were arrested.

Wermiel said it was "absurd" to include the Wurie case on the list. It also originated prior to Obama taking office and was the result of a Boston police effort. Like the Jones case, it dealt with technology issues, not executive overreach.

Another case on the Goodlatte’s list and decided last week, McCullen vs. Coakley, dealt with state laws, particular whether a Massachusetts law that put no-protest zones around abortion clinics was constitutional. While the Obama administration filed a brief supporting the Massachusetts law, the issue decided had little to do with executive authority.

The last case included, Sekhar vs. United States, did originate under the Obama administration. It’s complicated, but basically the FBI sought extortion charges against a Massachusetts venture capitalist, who was accused of trying to force a legal adviser to the New York state comptroller to persuade the comptroller to invest in his company. The Supreme Court said the FBI couldn’t arrest him under federal extortion laws.

In all, how does Goodlatte’s assertion hold up? Not well, our experts said.

"This is a concocted statistic," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog.com. "It's just saying that the government lost cases unanimously. The government participates in roughly 60 cases a term. Every administration loses cases unanimously."

"It's true that the Obama Administration's views have been rejected repeatedly in the Supreme Court. But this way of putting it overreaches considerably."

Our ruling

Goodlatte said, the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration.

We rate Goodlatte’s statement False.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/


For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

Maybe that's the reason I couldn't find the rulings as I was looking under rulings on Obama decisions/actions- not under GW's... :wink:

So where is our supposed "hypocrite exposer" when folks are putting up false, misleading and biased info ???????
Putting up the false, misleading and biased info- of course ....... :wink: :p :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-06/why-obama-keeps-losing-at-the-supreme-court


In cases before the Supreme Court last year, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power. That posture led to unanimous losses in three very different areas of law: religious liberty (Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC), criminal procedure (U.S. v. Jones) and property rights (Sackett v. EPA).

Yep- all cases that began as actions occurring during GW's watch...

The Jones case is a case that began with an FBI investigation in 2004 and subsequent arrest in 2005...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
In cases before the Supreme Court last year, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power. That posture led to unanimous losses in three very different areas of law: religious liberty (Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC), criminal procedure (U.S. v. Jones) and property rights (Sackett v. EPA).

So lemme get this straight. The Messiah's administration is relying on Bush administration legal theories in their cases?

How's that Hope & Change workin' out for ya there fatboy? :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
In cases before the Supreme Court last year, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power. That posture led to unanimous losses in three very different areas of law: religious liberty (Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC), criminal procedure (U.S. v. Jones) and property rights (Sackett v. EPA).

So lemme get this straight. The Messiah's administration is relying on Bush administration legal theories in their cases?

How's that Hope & Change workin' out for ya there fatboy? :lol:

Actually goes back further than that- the PPL CORP. ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE case involves a 1997 income tax filing and subsequent litigation....
But they definitely are not on decisions/actions made by Obama as the Tea Party spokesmen- including Hypocrit put them out to be....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-06/why-obama-keeps-losing-at-the-supreme-court


In cases before the Supreme Court last year, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power. That posture led to unanimous losses in three very different areas of law: religious liberty (Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC), criminal procedure (U.S. v. Jones) and property rights (Sackett v. EPA).

Yep- all cases that began as actions occurring during GW's watch...

The Jones case is a case that began with an FBI investigation in 2004 and subsequent arrest in 2005...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Hosanna-Tabor Church case was dismissed by the Federal Court soon after it was filed and the "Federal Lawyers" (under Bush) sided with the plaintiff.

Please tell us what Bush had to do with this case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-06/why-obama-keeps-losing-at-the-supreme-court


In cases before the Supreme Court last year, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power. That posture led to unanimous losses in three very different areas of law: religious liberty (Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC), criminal procedure (U.S. v. Jones) and property rights (Sackett v. EPA).

Yep- all cases that began as actions occurring during GW's watch...

The Jones case is a case that began with an FBI investigation in 2004 and subsequent arrest in 2005...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Hosanna-Tabor Church case was dismissed by the Federal Court soon after it was filed and the "Federal Lawyers" (under Bush) sided with the plaintiff.

Please tell us what Bush had to do with this case.

In 1999, Cheryl Perich started teaching at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. While Perich led students in prayer and taught a religion class several days a week, her job primarily consisted of teaching grade school art, science, social studies and music. In 2004, Perich left on disability and was diagnosed with narcolepsy. In 2005, after being cleared by her doctors to go back to work, the school told her that they already hired someone else. Perich then threatened to file suit, so the school promptly fired her for "insubordination and disruptive behavior."

The action/issue being litigated took place during Bush's watch ....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep- all cases that began as actions occurring during GW's watch...

The Jones case is a case that began with an FBI investigation in 2004 and subsequent arrest in 2005...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Hosanna-Tabor Church case was dismissed by the Federal Court soon after it was filed and the "Federal Lawyers" (under Bush) sided with the plaintiff.

Please tell us what Bush had to do with this case.

In 1999, Cheryl Perich started teaching at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. While Perich led students in prayer and taught a religion class several days a week, her job primarily consisted of teaching grade school art, science, social studies and music. In 2004, Perich left on disability and was diagnosed with narcolepsy. In 2005, after being cleared by her doctors to go back to work, the school told her that they already hired someone else. Perich then threatened to file suit, so the school promptly fired her for "insubordination and disruptive behavior."

The action/issue being litigated took place during Bush's watch ....

You're still stupid:
The Family Research Council expressed support for the decision. In a press release, a spokesperson for the organization stated, "We are pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration's profoundly troubling claim of power over churches, and glad to see that the Supreme Court has stayed out of the Lutheran Church's affairs and allowed its internal rules as a body of believers to stand." Five days following the decision, Mitt Romney praised the decision saying, "We are very fortunate [to have people] who are willing to stand up for religious tolerance and religious liberty and the First Amendment of this Constitution in this country."

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court decided against the Obama administration today on what many have called the most important religious freedom case in decades. The case pitted the rights of religious organizations to choose their own ministers against the government's interest in preventing discrimination in the workplace. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court unanimously acknowledged the existence of a "ministerial exception" that bans the government from interfering with religious organizations' right to choose their own ministers.

The court rejected what Chief Justice John Roberts called the "extreme position" of the EEOC to limit the ministerial exception to only those employees who are engaged in "exclusively religious functions." Although lower federal courts had recognized the ministerial exception for four decades, this is the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue.

The decision has impact on practically every religious organization in America -- addressing questions related to religious freedom and the self-governance of churches as well as defining the reach of employment discrimination claims against religious employers.

UNANIMOUS

Hannah Clayson Smith, is senior counsel at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which, along with Professor Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia Law School, successfully represented the Hosanna-Tabor church and school in this case. "You saw a unanimous Supreme Court saying that the government has no business interfering with who a church chooses to be its minister," Smith said. "It rejected the administration's view of churches as inherently discriminatory. Basically the administration's position was 'We can't trust these churches to not discriminate.'"

"I was surprised that the decision was unanimous," said Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. "The fact that not even the most liberal justices on the court regarded that position as tenable just shows you how wildly out of bounds the Obama administration's position was."

Gregory M. Lipper is senior litigation counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church and State , which filed an amicus brief on the side of the teacher who was fired. Lipper was also surprised at the unanimous decision. He said the justices seemed more closely divided at the oral arguments. "It was surprising that it was so unanimous and that it was so broad," Lipper said. "Many of the justices seemed taken aback by the government's position. ... But the government is often a plaintiff in employment discrimination lawsuits, so you can understand why they were arguing for little or no exception."

A FIRED MINISTER/TEACHER

The facts of the case revolved around Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a small Lutheran church and school called Hosanna-Tabor in Redford, Michigan. The church hired "called" teachers at its school -- educators who have gone through extensive religious instruction and are believed by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to have been called by God through a church congregation.

Perich worked as a called teacher or minister at Hosanna-Tabor. But then she fell ill and was on disability leave for what was later diagnosed as narcolepsy. The school hired a replacement, but Perich refused to accept a "peaceful release" and monetary settlement. The congregation fired her outright after she threatened a discrimination lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The EEOC's resulting case on her behalf was rejected by the District Court because it fell under the ministerial exception -- Perich was a minister and the government couldn't interfere.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, said the ministerial exception didn't apply because Perich was a secular teacher because the majority of her time was spent teaching non-religious subjects.

When the Supreme Court accepted the case for review, the question was mainly thought to be about the extent of the exception; about deciding who was a minister under the exception. But then the Obama administration's Justice Department, arguing for the EEOC, said the ministerial exception virtually didn't even exist under the Constitution.

IS THERE A MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION?

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. He quoted two clauses from the First Amendment where it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." These two clauses -- the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause -- are often in tension with each other in cases before the court. "Not so here," Roberts wrote. "The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own."

Michael W. McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School said it is particularly significant that the court looked at both clauses. "The Establishment Clause is about separation of church and state," said McConnell. "Usually that is interpreted as a bar to governmental assistance to religion. This is only the second time in the Supreme Court's history where it is used in order to protect the independence of a religious body."

The court rejected the Justice Department's "remarkable" arguments that the Religion Clauses have nothing to do with a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers.

"Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision," Roberts wrote. "Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs."

WAS THE TEACHER A MINISTER?

The Sixth Circuit didn't argue against the existence of a ministerial exception, but it didn't think Perich was one for the purposes of discrimination law.

"We do support a ministerial exception," said Lipper at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "but we argued in our brief the exception should only apply when the employment decision was motivated by some sort of religious reason. We argued, for example, that if the boss at the religious organization just didn't like women, the exception shouldn't apply because there isn't a corresponding benefit to religious liberty."

But the court didn't agree.

Roberts said, "The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church's decision to fire a minister only when it is made for religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful -- (is) a matter 'strictly ecclesiastical.'"

For McConnell at Stanford, it is a question of what parts of life the government gets to regulate.

Roberts said the Sixth Circuit made three mistakes in saying Perich was not a minister. First, it ignored the fact that Perich was a commissioned minister. Second, it gave too much weight to the fact that lay teachers performed the same duties as the minister teachers -- ignoring that lay teachers were only hired "because commissioned ministers were unavailable. Third, it emphasized Perich's secular duties too much -- looking too much at the relative amount of time she spent on secular versus religious duties. "The issue before us, however," Roberts wrote, "is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch."

The court said Perich was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception. Her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer, Hosanna-Tabor, must be dismissed.

"This is encouraging that the court is moving in the right direction when it comes to appreciation of the important Constitutional values that are at stake," said George at Princeton University.

"There are legitimate religious liberty interests," said Lipper at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "but we think the opinion was much broader than it needed to be to protect those interests."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Hosanna-Tabor Church case was dismissed by the Federal Court soon after it was filed and the "Federal Lawyers" (under Bush) sided with the plaintiff.

Please tell us what Bush had to do with this case.

In 1999, Cheryl Perich started teaching at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. While Perich led students in prayer and taught a religion class several days a week, her job primarily consisted of teaching grade school art, science, social studies and music. In 2004, Perich left on disability and was diagnosed with narcolepsy. In 2005, after being cleared by her doctors to go back to work, the school told her that they already hired someone else. Perich then threatened to file suit, so the school promptly fired her for "insubordination and disruptive behavior."

The action/issue being litigated took place during Bush's watch ....

You're still stupid:
The Family Research Council expressed support for the decision. In a press release, a spokesperson for the organization stated, "We are pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration's profoundly troubling claim of power over churches, and glad to see that the Supreme Court has stayed out of the Lutheran Church's affairs and allowed its internal rules as a body of believers to stand." Five days following the decision, Mitt Romney praised the decision saying, "We are very fortunate [to have people] who are willing to stand up for religious tolerance and religious liberty and the First Amendment of this Constitution in this country."

The "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority."

Bob Goodlatte on Sunday, June 29th, 2014 in comments on "Fox News Sunday"



GOP leader: Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority

False


Bob Goodlatte said, "The 9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority."


President Barack Obama received a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court last week for his attempt to make appointments when Congress was still technically in session.

The 9-0 decision in National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning came just as Speaker John Boehner announced plans to sue Obama for executive overreach.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who defended Boehner’s lawsuit, said the Supreme Court’s ruling was emblematic of Obama’s term. Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."

Has Obama really had such a tough time with the high court? We decided to review the record.

Goodlatte isn’t the only person to make this argument. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made a similar claim in a press release last week and it was also the subject of a column in the National Review, a conservative news website.

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte gave us a list of the 13 cases he referenced. We reviewed the evidence his office offered enlisted the help of a few experts to help us parse through the legalese.

Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach.

"That’s a fair case of the president’s use of executive authority getting rejected," she said.

But the rest of the claim? "It’s a total overstatement," Bloch said.

Why?

For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.


Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.

But that isn't really what Goodlatte claimed. He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that Obama defended executive overreach.

Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn’t really even at issue. For example, in United States vs. Jones, the court was ruling on whether the FBI had the power to use a GPS to track a suspect and gather evidence.

Technically, the FBI is a federal department under the Justice Department, a department in the executive branch. But the court was not reeling in an administration that was abusing power. Rather, "it gave us some guidance about how new technology and the Fourth Amendment should interact," Bloch said. "It has nothing to do with presidential authority."

Another case on the list, Arizona vs. United States, surprised our experts. Why? Because many saw it as a partial victory for Obama.

This is the case surrounding Arizona’s tough immigration laws that many civil rights groups said amounted to racial profiling. In 2012, the Supreme Court released a complicated 5-3 ruling, in which the court actually sided with the Obama administration on three of four counts. On the fourth provision, which allowed Arizona authorities to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, the court basically said it’s too soon to tell, and unanimously decided to send the issue down to the lower courts to monitor for further challenges.

"The Supreme Court struck down three of the four because they interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which was defended by the Obama administration to advocate for the laws passed by Congress," Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.

Another case on the list was last week’s ruling in United States vs. Wurie, which was decided along with Riley vs. California. The court ruled that police could not search your cell phone without a warrant if you were arrested.

Wermiel said it was "absurd" to include the Wurie case on the list. It also originated prior to Obama taking office and was the result of a Boston police effort. Like the Jones case, it dealt with technology issues, not executive overreach.

Another case on the Goodlatte’s list and decided last week, McCullen vs. Coakley, dealt with state laws, particular whether a Massachusetts law that put no-protest zones around abortion clinics was constitutional. While the Obama administration filed a brief supporting the Massachusetts law, the issue decided had little to do with executive authority.

The last case included, Sekhar vs. United States, did originate under the Obama administration. It’s complicated, but basically the FBI sought extortion charges against a Massachusetts venture capitalist, who was accused of trying to force a legal adviser to the New York state comptroller to persuade the comptroller to invest in his company. The Supreme Court said the FBI couldn’t arrest him under federal extortion laws.

In all, how does Goodlatte’s assertion hold up? Not well, our experts said.

"This is a concocted statistic," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog.com. "It's just saying that the government lost cases unanimously. The government participates in roughly 60 cases a term. Every administration loses cases unanimously."

"It's true that the Obama Administration's views have been rejected repeatedly in the Supreme Court. But this way of putting it overreaches considerably."

Our ruling

Goodlatte said, the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration.

We rate Goodlatte’s statement False.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

Doesn't matter how many ways you try to spin it - the incidents happened long before Obama took office and have absolutely nothing to do with Obama exceeding constitutional authority as the false statements Goodlatte and Cruz try to make people believe ....
 

Steve

Well-known member
"I was surprised that the decision was unanimous," said Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. "The fact that not even the most liberal justices on the court regarded that position as tenable just shows you how wildly out of bounds the Obama administration's position was."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Doesn't matter how many ways you try to spin it - the incidents happened long before Obama took office and have absolutely nothing to do with Obama exceeding constitutional authority as the false statements Goodlatte and Cruz try to make people believe ....


I thought you said the President has the duty to decide whether a law is Constitutional and act accordingly.


Why did he defend them and not DOMA?
 

Mike

Well-known member
It certainly doesn't implicate Bush as you so stupidly try to say. His appointees weren't even involved in the case because they don't become involved until the appellate level. Buckwheat took this case a whole different level trying to push his Federal authorities:

Of course, these lower-level administrative actions probably didn’t reach the radar screens of actual Bush-era political appointees and policy makers – bureaucrats will do their own thing, trying to expand their own power regardless of who’s in the White House – and DOJ lawyers who actually represent an administration’s legal policy typically aren’t involved until the appellate stage (under Obama in these cases). But even if they had here, that doesn’t somehow excuse Obama’s Justice Department, which made dangerous legal arguments betraying an incredibly expansive view of federal power, ones that didn’t gain a single vote at the Supreme Court. Bush attorney generals John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and Michael Mukasey (or solicitor generals Ted Olson, Paul Clement, and Greg Garre) weren’t the ones filing these briefs.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top