Wednesday, April 04, 2012

"Think Marbury Didn't Happen? Then Show Us!!"

The Fifth Circuit is a bit feisty--and definitely Conservative.  So when Obozo denied the existence of Marbury,.....

...a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to "answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law."

The response is to be three pages long, single-spaced, according to an unnamed lawyer who was in the courtroom.

I love it.

"For your homework, Mr. US Attorney General, please demonstrate that our 150++ strikedowns of un-Constitutional Federal laws did not happen.  Show your work."

And tell your Statist-in-Chief to shove it, too.


Jim said...

This is hilarity in the extreme!

Barack Obama repeats the "activist, non-elected" judges overturning laws enacted by the legislature elected by the people meme used by you and GOP for decades and all of a sudden you have your bowels in an uproar.

IOW: "We hate it. We hate it. We hate it. What? Obama hates it? Never mind. We love it. We love it. We love it." And the converse.

Jim said...

This is but one reason why old Etch-a-sketch is the perfect nominee for the Republican party.

Billiam said...

Jim, it's not activist for the court to find this un-Constitutional. It's what they do. You know, decide the Constitutionality of cases brought before them? By your definition, they were being activist when they've stricken parts of the Patriot Act where they were actually correct to do so. So don't be to Etch-a-sketchy yourself.

Jim said...

it's not activist for the court to find this un-Constitutional

You complain about judges "making law" from the bench every time they rule against something that an elected legislature passes if YOU like what they passed.

It's only activist when they strike down something YOU don't like. You guys complain all the time about activist judges. You've never given a crap about precedent. You've never embraced the concept of judicial review until PPACA came along.

Billiam said...

That's bullsh*t and you know it. True judicial Activism would be Roe v Wade. That decision had no basis in the Constitution. THAT is Activism. Man, you sound very petulant tonight. You ok?

Anonymous said...

It's too bad the SCOTUS wasn't able to overturn the decision to invade Iraq.

Billiam said...

From Peter Wehner:

Then there’s Obama’s confusion about judicial activism. It is not, as he insists, simply the act of overturning an existing law; it is when judges allow their personal views about public policy, and not the Constitution, to guide their decisions and often invent new rights out of thin air. For Justices to invalidate a law they deem to be unconstitutional is precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. (“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution, can be valid,” is how Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist #78.) If one takes Obama’s words literally, he believes an unjust and unconstitutional law, if passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, cannot be overturned.

Dad29 said...

Bill, "Jim" is a troll. He knows Democrat talking points--and that's about it.

I don't bother with him any more.

Jim said...

OK, sorry to break up your mutual masturbation society.

Billiam said...

Oh, Jim. You are funny and sad. I asked YOU, not the Democrats. I asked YOUR thoughts. I didn't insult you. When things are so bad you can't put your ... distaste of Conservatives.. aside, we are truly screwed.

Billiam said...

Dad, you know me.. Gotta try..

Anonymous said...

Today is thursday, Homework is due.
I want to see the response of the Justice department.

Jim said...

I didn't insult you.

That's bullsh*t and you know it.

Sorry, but I consider that an insult. Yet my last comment was not directed at you.

When things are so bad you can't put your ... distaste of Conservatives...aside

And I expressed my "distaste" for conservatives, where exactly?

OK, Billiam, here's my response (at the risk of being called a troll because I beg to differ).

I have a long history and education about the Constitution and about judicial review. I'm not a lawyer. and I'm not an expert, but I learned Marbury vs. Madison in high school. I am solid on the concept and totally in agreement with it.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "the Democrats", as you put it.

Thanks for your citation. I'm going to suggest that the president as a graduate magna cum laude of Harvard Law with years of practice and 12 years teaching constitutional law is also quite familiar with Marbury, and not "confused".

The mandate is a conservative/Republican idea. You can find videos of Chuck Grassley (Mr. pull the plug on grandma, of all people) espousing his support of the mandate before it was put into the law. The people who legislated PPACA knew by legal precedent that the mandate was constitutional or they wouldn't have put it into law. Those people, by the way, were democratically elected.

Although several lower courts who have heard the case have ruled differently from judge to judge, some very conservative judges have ruled that the mandate IS constitutional. Are THEY activist judges? Or did they rule based on precedents set by earlier decisions?

Prior to the oral arguments in the SCOTUS, a majority of legal experts and scholars believed the Court would uphold the mandate. Not all, but most. Why? Because previous courts and some of the current justices had ruled in previous cases in ways that indicated that the "commerce clause" was broad enough to allow the mandate.

It was only when the justices started bringing up Republican talking points, injecting their own personal and political views, RATHER than their own precedents that observers began to have grave doubts about the outcome.

The president's point is that the law was written with the constitution and legal precedent in mind. You don't think they just threw the mandate in there and said, "Let's see if they go for it" do you? The law was passed by a duly elected legislature.

The president is well aware that at least three of the justices are proven "activist judges" and he knows what that means. His point is that overturning a law that was based on the Court's own precedent would be judicial activism.

Now, just to let you know, Billiam. I did not consult one liberal or Democratic blog or source to write this post. The words are mine.

Anonymous said...

Jim flunked out of Lawschool so he is an expert.

Anonymous said...

Afternoon, uh, what did he call you? douche bag?

Billiam said...

Thank you, Jim. My bullsh*t comment was directed at the way you used 'you' implying that I am with the monolithic 'YOU' you were attacking. Hence my comment about dem talking points. I think I made it clear that I am not against Judicial Review with my comments on the Patriot Act.

As to the Commerce Clause, if applied too broadly, as in Wickard, and possibly here, would make limitless the power of Government. Don't you think that odd, considering the Founders, at least the Federalist who initially won the day, intended on a small Government? A strict reading of the Constitution didn't produce this sad state. Oh, Happy Easter..

Jim said...


Is healthcare "interstate commerce"?