Supreme Court ObamaCare

FredHayek wrote: Think Justice Kagan leaked the decision to her old boss Barack?

It will be interesting to see what Justice writes up in response to the Reagan era judge's demands.

Do you think that Scalia, Thomas, Alito leaked their decisions to the Teabaggers before the case was even heard?

Yes, it will be interesting.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Think Justice Kagan leaked the decision to her old boss Barack?

It will be interesting to see what Justice writes up in response to the Reagan era judge's demands.

Do you think that Scalia, Thomas, Alito leaked their decisions to the Teabaggers before the case was even heard?

Yes, it will be interesting.

teabagging - the insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual act.

Slut - Someone who provides a very needed service for the community and sleeps with everyone, even the guy that has no shot at getting laid and everyone knows it.

Rush slandered one private citizen, Lady Jazzer slanders thousands of private citizens. Birds of a feather. Lady "Rush" Jazzer.

This GOP appointed judge has just made President Obama's case for him in regard to activist judge. It is one thing for a politician to engage in partisan politics but federal judges are supposed to be well above such actions as this judge injecting himself into the discussion about the role of activist judges.

Something the Dog Said wrote: This GOP appointed judge has just made President Obama's case for him in regard to activist judge. It is one thing for a politician to engage in partisan politics but federal judges are supposed to be well above such actions as this judge injecting himself into the discussion about the role of activist judges.

If you are talking about Judge Smith in the 5th...

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.[/i]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/

The DOJ lawyer was speaking for the Obama administration. Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to the question "asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law." The DOJ opened up the line of questioning and Judge Smith did not inject himself into the discussion about the role of activist judges, the DOJ lawyers answer required that Judge Smith get a clarification from the DOJ.

And Obama has already back tracked from his comments that he made the other day about the Supremes. And now, we hear from AJ Holder that his answer to the court will also be a backtrack from Obama's statements.

The judge was simply doing his job.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This GOP appointed judge has just made President Obama's case for him in regard to activist judge. It is one thing for a politician to engage in partisan politics but federal judges are supposed to be well above such actions as this judge injecting himself into the discussion about the role of activist judges.

If you are talking about Judge Smith in the 5th...

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.[/i]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/

The DOJ lawyer was speaking for the Obama administration. Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to the question "asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law." The DOJ opened up the line of questioning and Judge Smith did not inject himself into the discussion about the role of activist judges, the DOJ lawyers answer required that Judge Smith get a clarification from the DOJ.

And Obama has already back tracked from his comments that he made the other day about the Supremes. And now, we hear from AJ Holder that his answer to the court will also be a backtrack from Obama's statements.

The judge was simply doing his job.

your selective editing omitted the context of the judge's remarks which had nothing to do with the case before the appellate court which is constrained to the record of the instant case, not political headlines. It matters not what the president had to say about an unelected group of people.

"Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people.""

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: This GOP appointed judge has just made President Obama's case for him in regard to activist judge. It is one thing for a politician to engage in partisan politics but federal judges are supposed to be well above such actions as this judge injecting himself into the discussion about the role of activist judges.

If you are talking about Judge Smith in the 5th...

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.[/i]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162- ... care-case/

The DOJ lawyer was speaking for the Obama administration. Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to the question "asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law." The DOJ opened up the line of questioning and Judge Smith did not inject himself into the discussion about the role of activist judges, the DOJ lawyers answer required that Judge Smith get a clarification from the DOJ.

And Obama has already back tracked from his comments that he made the other day about the Supremes. And now, we hear from AJ Holder that his answer to the court will also be a backtrack from Obama's statements.

The judge was simply doing his job.

your selective editing omitted the context of the judge's remarks which had nothing to do with the case before the appellate court which is constrained to the record of the instant case, not political headlines. It matters not what the president had to say about an unelected group of people.

"Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people.""

You're selectively reading it.

Very entertaining to find that on the one hand Obama is arguing that a bunch of unelected judges shouldn't be taking the unprecedented step of overturning laws passed by a majority of democratically elected officials and on the other hand he has representatives before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that this "unprecedented" action of having federal judges strike down legislation passed by large majority of democratically elected officials should be taken that same branch of unelected judges. So it appears that Obama, using his own definition of judicial activism mind you, is both for and against it all at the same time.

Something the Dog Said wrote:
[snip]

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people.""

You lefties are a laugh. Where were you over the last 10 years when the GOP was pointing out all the judicial activism coming out of the liberal circuit ccourts around the country. You were imitating crickets. :can't hear

FredHayek wrote: Think Justice Kagan leaked the decision to her old boss Barack?

I heard that rumor in the news too, its seems like a plausible explanation that Obama got the word that the preliminary vote was thumbs down, so he went out and publicly demanded the SC not overturn his law. Definitely makes sense, just a simple phone call.

Do you think that Scalia, Thomas, Alito leaked their decisions to the Teabaggers before the case was even heard?

Yes, it will be interesting.