FoxNews.com
4/5/2012
Attorney General Eric Holder assured a federal appeals court Thursday that the Obama administration believes judges have the authority to overturn federal laws, after President Obama’s comments earlier this week raised concerns from the bench about his view of judicial power.
Holder, in a three-page letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said “the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute,” though it should only be exercised in “appropriate cases.”
The response capped an unusual dispute between the co-equal branches of government, one which has since reverberated on the campaign trail and beyond. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in prepared remarks for a speech Thursday afternoon, told Obama to “back off” and “let the court do its work.” …
…Holder backed up the president’s remarks in his letter to the appeals court Thursday. While saying the court has the right to review laws, he cited prior opinions that acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional” and said the executive branch has “often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress.”
He wrote that the “principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere,” calling Obama’s comments “fully consistent” with the principles in the letter…
The complete article is at FoxNews.com
Related: Obama’s Latest Big Lie
…Obama also knows that most Americans have not taken a Constitutional law course at a law school. He obviously hoped that his Big Lie would be heard by enough Americans that would adopt the lie and assume that the Supreme Court is overstepping its Constitutional authority.
Users of propaganda also know that the Big Lie has another advantage: When someone points out the absurdity of your lie you can claim that you were misunderstood. After all, no one would say something so absurd on purpose, right? It’s much easier to believe that the Big Liar was misunderstood…
Update: Eric Holder’s Letter to the 5th Circuit, and Photo ID Double Standards
It can be summarized in a sentence: The Courts should be deferential and polite to Congress and the President, but expect nothing similar from the Executive branch.
What a snide jackass.
At the same time, from HotAir:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is currently blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, claiming such measures are “unnecessary,” discriminatory and would make it harder for minorities to vote.
But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID…
Also, You’d Think A Supreme Court Justice Would Know This
Somebody pointed me to the New England Journal of Medicine, with an interesting Elena Kagan quote from last week’s oral argument, emphasis mine:
Roberts also noted a mismatch between covered benefits and each person’s potential need. Speaking to the government’s lawyer, he said, “[T]he policies that you’re requiring people to purchase involve . . . maternity and newborn care, pediatric services, and substance [abuse] treatment. It seems to me that you cannot say that everybody is going to need [these services] and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase.”
But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quickly retorted, “If you’re going to have insurance, that’s how insurance works.” “This is especially true,” added Kagan, “because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized.”
Um, how do you know that, Justice Kagan, without being a prophet?…
…If you listen to the clip, Kagan is on about “Federal Dollars”, and wondering at what point below 100% government payment for medical care that the system would become coercive…
And, Health Care Law: Have BOTH Sides Missed this?
I thought the commerce clause dealt with interstate commerce. I know the old 1930s ruling that is really in question here deals with regulating a product that “could” affect interstate commerce had it actually been sold – or because it wasn’t. But – unless I missed something – no one seems to have noticed that health insurance does not fall under the commerce clause because we are not allowed to buy and sell health insurance across State lines. So, like those companies and States getting around Federal gun laws because they manufacture and sell only within their State, health care insurance is actually outside Federal authority for the same reason. Why hasn’t this been mentioned? I’m not a lawyer, but this would seem to be a slam-dunk beat down against the question of the constitutionality of Obama care…
