How dare they. Appeals court questions Obama's comments.

[IronWing]

Obama was wrong, whether knowingly or not, beats me. Judge Smith's demand should be answered then appealed immediately. The precedent the judge is setting is appalling and can not be allowed to stand.

Edit: On second thought, the DoJ should appeal the order immediately and request a stay pending the outcome of the appeal and answer Judge Smith's demand only if the appeal/stay request is not granted.

 

[Craig234]

To add to my criticism of Obama claiming the right's argument as his, I'll make an analogy about what he's doing.

Imagine he got universal healthcare passed for children - and then decided to use that as a backdoor to get all pregnant women covered, with the right objecting.

Imagine his argument was, 'for decades right-wing commentators have claimed that life begins at conception and fertilized eggs are humans with rights.

We accept that position, and that clearly makes fertilized eggs children, covered by the healthcare law. [Gotcha!]'

Ya, sure, you got them - but in so doing you have undermined your legal position on other issues such as abortion rights to do so. It's 'too cute'.

And that's what he's done here, said 'all those right-wing attacks, well, I accept their position and use it for my own law in this case'.

In so doing he's wrongly undermined the correct attacks on that right-wing position.

 

[theeedude]

Judge is a political activist craving attention. He already had an attorney representing the DOJ who already answered his question, but he wanted to abuse his position to interfere with free political speech.

 

[Double Trouble]

Who is going to enforce it if the DOJ does not comply voluntarily?

There is nothing voluntary about it, you are suggesting the DoJ simply doesn't have to follow the law if they don't want to. Unless you think there's about to be a constitutional crisis of epic proportions with the US system of government going down in flames, the DoJ has to follow the law like everyone else, and so does the president.

 

[Double Trouble]

Judge Smith's demand should be answered then appealed immediately. The precedent the judge is setting is appalling and can not be allowed to stand.

Actually, the request from the judge is not at all unusual, and isn't any kind of "precedent". Where do you guys come up with this stuff? This kind of stuff happens all day, every day at every level of the legal system. It's only news because they took a shot at Obama's statements, otherwise it's not news at all and just SOP.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have, and I also watched as he chastised the court in the state of the union address. I find his comments to be generally unbecoming of his position. If someone else makes those comments, I have no problem with them, but I don't think they are appropriate for the head of the executive branch. By the same token, I would not find it appropriate for one of the justices to make blatantly critical remarks about the president.

The president should not be telling the justices and judges how to do their job, as they should not be telling him how to do his.

You're making attributions that simply aren't reasonable, given what Obama actually said, and the fact that the Court has issued no opinion at this point. He expressed confidence that the Court will do what he believes to be the right thing- how is that chastisement other than in the doublespeak of the Right?

As I've pointed out, his detractors do not quote him directly, but rather infer & project meaning from his remarks to suit their own agenda, keeping Obama's remarks hidden in the process. Obama's remarks do not mean what they want you to believe they mean, at all, and any open minded reading of the actual things he said would reveal that to be true.

 

[IronWing]

Actually, the request from the judge is not at all unusual, and isn't any kind of "precedent". Where do you guys come up with this stuff? This kind of stuff happens all day, every day at every level of the legal system. It's only news because they took a shot at Obama's statements, otherwise it's not news at all and just SOP.

Judge Smith stepped well outside of the bounds of the case to use judicial power to attack political speech by the President. The case before Judge Smith was not testing the powers of the courts vs. powers the executive and legislative branches. Judge Smith chose to drag that unrelated issue into the case before him. Pure political hackery and judicial mischief.

 

[Craig234]

There was a DOJ lawyer in court who answered his question. The judge already has DOJ's position, since the lawyer is representing the DOJ.
This is an activist judge injecting himself into the political arena by interfering with the presidents political free speech rights. If judges are given the right to demand explanations for people's political speech, the freedom of speech is unduly burdened. Judge should be impeached for incompetence and lack of impartiality.

From Wiki:

In writing Article II, Section Four, George Mason had favored impeachment for "maladministration" (incompetence), but James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, carried the issue.[3] Hence, cases of impeachment may be undertaken only for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." However, some scholars, such as Kevin Gutzman, have disputed this view and argue that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was intended to have a much more expansive meaning.

The Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases; the House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

Actual impeachments of 19 federal officers have taken place. Of these, 15 were federal judges: Thirteen district court, one court of appeals (who also sat on the Commerce Court), and one Supreme Court Associate Justice. Of the other four, two were Presidents, one was a Cabinet secretary, and one was a U.S. Senator. Of the 18 impeached officials, seven were convicted. One, former judge Alcee Hastings, was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives after being removed from office.

 

[Craig234]

You're making attributions that simply aren't reasonable, given what Obama actually said, and the fact that the Court has issued no opinion at this point. He expressed confidence that the Court will do what he believes to be the right thing- how is that chastisement other than in the doublespeak of the Right?

As I've pointed out, his detractors do not quote him directly, but rather infer & project meaning from his remarks to suit their own agenda, keeping Obama's remarks hidden in the process. Obama's remarks do not mean what they want you to believe they mean, at all, and any open minded reading of the actual things he said would reveal that to be true.

I guess the person you quoted, who doesn't like Obama expressing concern with the impact of a a Supreme Court decision, has also posted criticizing every Republican President who has said anything bad about abortion, much less suggesting Roe v. Wade should be changed.

And every other Republican who has said anything about disagreeing with or not liking the impact of a Supreme Court decision even while enforcing it.

 

[theeedude]

From Wiki:

The judge is burdening Obama's Constitutionally protected political free speech. And intruding on the Constitutional separation of powers. He is in violation of the highest law of the land.

 

[Craig234]

The judge is burdening Obama's Constitutionally protected political free speech. And intruding on the Constitutional separation of powers. He is in violation of the highest law of the land.

I wouldn't say he's 'burdening the president's free speech' or even that it's 'intruding on the separation of powers' any more than for Obama to say what he thinks they should rule.

But there is a question about the process for legitimate legal issues being used for 'we saw the President say this on TV, we want his government to clarify his remarks'.

They do appear they might have crossed a line, I just don't think it's the ones mentioned.

 

[sactoking]

Judge Smith stepped well outside of the bounds of the case to use judicial power to attack political speech by the President. The case before Judge Smith was not testing the powers of the courts vs. powers the executive and legislative branches. Judge Smith chose to drag that unrelated issue into the case before him. Pure political hackery and judicial mischief.

Not really. The Department of Justice is an Executive Branch department and the President heads the Executive Branch. The DoJ is in those judge's courtroom under the pretense that the court has the authority to preside over the case. While that is happening the President has made a public statement which, through certain interpretations, would directly counter that pretense. The court is asking for DoJ to clarify the official position of the Executive Branch on the matter.

The Presidency is not a 9-5 M-F job; many of the times the President makes a public appearance or a public statement he is doing so as a representative of the American People and the head of the Executive Branch. In certain regards, he is not afforded normal "political speech" or "free speech" rights as they are traditionally interpreted. In the interview/statements in question he was clearly speaking as the President and his words carried the weight of such representation. The end result was that a reasonable person might question the veracity of either the President's statement or the pretense of his DoJ representatives.

I'm sure that if in any other case in the United States an attorney said "Your Honor, we do not intend to plead not guilty by means of insanity" and then immediately held a press conference to declare how his client was innocent due to insanity or some other equally contradictory scenario the judge would be hauling that attorney in to 'clarify' his position and possibly censure him for his public statement.

 

[theeedude]

I wouldn't say he's 'burdening the president's free speech' or even that it's 'intruding on the separation of powers' any more than for Obama to say what he thinks they should rule.

But there is a question about the process for legitimate legal issues being used for 'we saw the President say this on TV, we want his government to clarify his remarks'.

They do appear they might have crossed a line, I just don't think it's the ones mentioned.

Obama was offering his own personal opinion, not administration policy. There was no order or directive to ignore SCOTUS ruling, only an opinion that such a ruling was unprecedented. This judge is interfering with the President's Constitutionally protected political free speech, but burdening it with the requirement that the president submit an explanation of his remarks. This judge simply confirmed that under this SCOTUS, the judiciary is becoming a political body, not an impartial one.

 

[Craig234]

When we want to find outrageous judicial activism, a lot better picks are the usual 5-4 votes taking our elected president away putting Bush in office and Citizens United.

 

[monovillage]

Somebody needs to tell Obama it's called the "Bully Pulpit" not the "Bullshit Pulpit"

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. The Department of Justice is an Executive Branch department and the President heads the Executive Branch. The DoJ is in those judge's courtroom under the pretense that the court has the authority to preside over the case. While that is happening the President has made a public statement which, through certain interpretations, would directly counter that pretense. The court is asking for DoJ to clarify the official position of the Executive Branch on the matter.

The Presidency is not a 9-5 M-F job; many of the times the President makes a public appearance or a public statement he is doing so as a representative of the American People and the head of the Executive Branch. In certain regards, he is not afforded normal "political speech" or "free speech" rights as they are traditionally interpreted. In the interview/statements in question he was clearly speaking as the President and his words carried the weight of such representation. The end result was that a reasonable person might question the veracity of either the President's statement or the pretense of his DoJ representatives.

I'm sure that if in any other case in the United States an attorney said "Your Honor, we do not intend to plead not guilty by means of insanity" and then immediately held a press conference to declare how his client was innocent due to insanity or some other equally contradictory scenario the judge would be hauling that attorney in to 'clarify' his position and possibly censure him for his public statement.

What statement of Obama's questioned judicial review? Be specific.

The 5th circuit is embarrassing itself.

 

[sactoking]

What statement of Obama's questioned judicial review? Be specific.

The 5th circuit is embarrassing itself.

Even though I don't owe you a specific response because, well, I don't:

Ultimately, 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.

Supreme Court overturning a law passed by Congress is "unprecedented" and "extraordinary"? No, it's not, and asinine statements like that deserve to be questioned when made by the head of a branch who also happens to be an attorney and said orator's representatives are pleading a case in front of you at that vary moment under the pretense that such action is in fact the exact opposite of what was said.

Like I said in the thread created when Obama made the statement on Monday:
It's clear to me that he was making the statement ironically and throwing the judicial activism card back in the faces of the conservatives. It's also clear to me that conservatives who latch onto the statement are grasping.

That being said it was an incredibly stupid thing to say with really no constructive purpose. All it did was make the President appear childish and open himself and his representatives up to criticism and questioning.

Do I agree that the 5th Circuit judges should, ethically/morally/politically, ask the clarification they did? Maybe, maybe not. Do I agree that the 5th Circuit judges have the right to ask the clarification? Most certainly. Under a reasonable person standard the comments made by the President could easily be (mis)construed to be in direct opposition to the stated goals of the case before them.

Is this potentially a case of judicial politicism? Of course; and the likely result will be those on the left decry it as "activism" and those on the right support it as proper. It perpetuates the exact same cycle that the comments by Obama were (I believe) intended to bring to light.

Of course, there is further politicism beyond that. The very heart of Obama's statement was "I think the law is fine, but if it's not then I reserve the right to cry 'activism'". The underlying tone, then, is "You conservative judges better rule in my favor or you lose credibility". In fact, there was an Op/Ed piece on CNN recently where the author said basically the same thing: If the ruling is in favor of keeping the ACA then the SC looks fine but if the ruling is against the ACA 5-4 the SC looks partisan and loses credibility so the 5 potential conservative votes should vote the other way in order to maintain a veneer of impartiality. The problem is that it's a two-way street: if the ruling ends up being 5-4 against the ACA and if the SC is worried about losing credibility, maybe one or two of the dissenting judges should switch sides and vote with the majority. Wouldn't a 7-2 ruling against the ACA be just as "impartial" as a 5-4 ruling for? But, clearly the President and this Op/Ed author don't want the ACA defeated so it's perfectly impartial of them to only present half the story when they speak on impartiality.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually such a move would be relatively unprecedented in our lifetimes. Despite that however, nothing in Obama's quote questions judicial review. Absolutely nothing.

That's of course my entire point, everyone here knows that nothing in Obama's statement questions judicial review, and the justices asking for such a statement know it better than anyone. It's a transparent attempt by the 5th circuit to score some political points and you know it.

This is sad for everyone because not only does the 5th circuit embarrass itself, but they undermine the impartial reputation of the judiciary by doing it. It was incredibly foolish, something they are sure to regret.

 

[pcgeek11]

This is not correct. Courts can only rule on matters brought before them in cases. They most certainly can not intervene at will.

They didn't " Intervene ". They want clarification.

 

[theeedude]

They didn't " Intervene ". They want clarification.

What entitles them to one? Who has what standing to require the DOJ to clarify the President's opinions? An activist judge looking to make a name for himself by playing for his political team?

 

[monovillage]

Any tactic that is successfully used by one side in a conflict will eventually be used by the opposing side.

 

[theeedude]

Any tactic that is successfully used by one side in a conflict will eventually be used by the opposing side.

Obama is just pointing out that judges are politicians playing for their sides. This fifth circus idiot is just confirming it.

 

[monovillage]

Obama is just pointing out that judges are politicians playing for their sides. This fifth circus idiot is just confirming it.

Activist liberal judges have long been a hallmark and a power in the Democratic Party, get used to activist conservative judges making rulings of comparable divisiveness in the future.

It's just my opinion of course.

 

[Craig234]

The very heart of Obama's statement was "I think the law is fine, but if it's not then I reserve the right to cry 'activism'". The underlying tone, then, is "You conservative judges better rule in my favor or you lose credibility...

It's surprsing to me how the right can call out a behavior clearly at times, and yet be obliviously hypocritical and pretend they don't speak the language when they do it.

It shows the massive amount of 'team bias' that they can see a behavior easily if they think the other side does it and not see it however clearly it's pointed out they do it.

That's why, for example, Republicans scream murder if Democrats don't approve a judicial nominee, shortly after after they blocked dozens or hundreds. The outrage!

 

[drebo]

We all know the Attorney General has absolutely no idea what's legal and what's not. This exercise is useless and pointless and a complete waste of money.