WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told a federal appeals court that President Barack Obama respects the Supreme Court’s power to rule on the constitutionality of the nation’s laws, a statement that a week ago would have seemed obvious but on Thursday appeared aimed at ending days of White House stumbling over the tricky politics of the Supreme Court.
In a three-page letter, Holder defended Obama’s recent comments about the court and its impending decision on the health care law as “fully consistent” with established judicial precedent. Obama’s remarks had roiled Judge Jerry E. Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Smith made the unusual demand for an explanation from government lawyers in his courtroom after saying that the president appeared to be questioning whether courts have the power to invalidate acts of Congress.
The back and forth underscored the difficulty the president — along with his party — has had when it comes to using the court and its decisions for political advantage. While Republicans have long motivated their base voters by labeling the federal courts as bastions of liberalism and “activist judges,” Democrats have been less comfortable on that turf.
Until recently, that is. Spurred by the Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns, and the perception that the court majority has become more openly aligned with the Republican Party, many Democrats are pushing to take on the court. That prospect increased greatly last week, when oral arguments about the health care law suggested the court may be poised to strike down the president’s signature legislation.
Both the White House and the Obama campaign have been mum on how the president would handle the political fallout of a ruling against his health care law. But Obama seemed to be primed for confrontation in his first remarks on the matter this week in which he declared such a move would be “unprecedented” and noted that the justices were “unelected.”
The statement prompted Smith’s demand and was widely mocked by critics and some legal experts as a misunderstanding of well established judicial precedent. Since 1803, the court has had the power to strike down laws passed by Congress.
Obama’s comments were all the more surprising considering that he is a former constitutional law professor. Even Obama’s law professor at Harvard, Laurence Tribe, told The Wall Street Journal that the president misspoke
Obama on Tuesday sought to clarify the remarks. It had been decades since the court had struck down an economic law based on the commerce clause, the issue at play in the health care case, he said.
Holder further affirmed the position on Thursday, writing “the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute.” White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president’s comments were merely an “unremarkable observation” about court precedent.
But for now, the president’s comments on the court will be closely watched for signs of how the White House is laying the groundwork for a bruising court ruling in an election year. For months, Democratic fundraising, stump speeches and ads have tried to make Citizens United a household name as an example of the court overstepping its bounds.
How much is a ticket to Chicago on a winged greyhound?
Cheaper now than in January ’13-better book now Barry.
Yes, Obama better get a greyhound ticket to Chicago for January 13th because a Conservative Activist judge got his panties in a bunch. Never mind that he is leading his Republican challengers by nearly 20 points and the odds of his re-election are 85%-99%. Never mind that he has created more jobs than GWB did in 8 years. Nevermind that unemployment is lower now than it was when he took office. Never mind that taxes are lower now than when he took office. Never mind that he has deported more illegal aliens than GWB did in 8 years. Never mind that he led our troops who captured and killed OBL, something GWB did not do. Never mind that he has helped displace brutal mid eastern dictatorships without risking an additional soldier. Never mind that in every real way our country is significantly better off now than we were on GWB’s last day. Obama is going back to Chicago.
Congratulations. You succeeded in revising the entire B. Hussein O. presidency in one post. Experience reality much? Must be your Bush Derangement Syndrome flaring up. Better get that checked!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/05/new-york-poll-gop-backs-romney-obama-leads-in-general/
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-25/politics/politics_truth-squad-job-creation_1_job-numbers-job-growth-private-sector-jobs?_s=PM:POLITICS
Reality. It has a liberal bias.
You spin history like President Obama spinning his irresponsible remarks. Most people I know are worse off than they were when President Obama took office due to the high cost of heating oil, gas and food. Those are the issues that matter to most Americans, because taxes go up and down, dictators come and go and wars are endless.
And yet they can’t understand that Obama has really nothing to do with Oil, Gas, or the price of food. Its the free market. We are coming out of our global recession, Hence more oil consumption, hence higher prices. The only way any President can reduce oil prices is to nationalize our oil fields. As it stands the USA is producing more oil and importing less oil, and now oil is one of our top exports.
Oil is priced in the U.S. dollar.
As the Odollar is printed faster than toilet tissue, its value is adjusted down.
The UAE need more Odollars per barrel (they are pretty good at math).
Pump price is adjusted up.
Mr. Obama’s domestic policy does indeed have an affect on the price of gasoline. Every President’s economic policy does- including Mr. Bush’s- as will Mr. Romney’s.
Yes and ignore the single biggest issue of supply and demand. I’m sorry but the printing of the dollar is not the issue. The world is recovering, more and more oil is being consumed. We could stop printing money and the price will not have that much affect. The only way we can have complete control over the price we pay for oil is to nationalize our oil fields.
When Obama was campaigning in 2008, he claimed that Bush and the Republican’s energy policy had led to high prices at the pump. Are you saying that he was being deceitful then, because he obviously knows that a president cannot control gas prices–he has said it repeatedly lately.
Yes, I was smart enough back then not to listen and I am smart enough not to listen today. Its a political football. Like Republicans now hammering about Obama remarks about the supreme court after years of railing against activist judges, and even trying to pass legislation that would make so the supreme court can only see certain cases, IE over turn roe v wade. Gas prices are a function of the world market.
A nice description of the facts! Mr. Obama will be reelected; get over it! It will happen and than the continued march to the left can continue and our country can begin to progress. If Mr. Obama’s healthcare bill gets overturned – no big deal, another can be written, and will pass because the public is going to start dumping republicans and we (the left) will have a strong democratic majority in the Congress. Join the future right wingers or get left behind.
Obama’s comments were an interesting glimpse into how he views politics and his role as President. The guy has always had a messianic complex. I think what he really meant by his comment was that the SCOTUS could not possibly strike down HIS signature law, as if he was just some common, run of the mill President like FDR. He is Obama. Don’t those ninnies over at the Supreme Court know that?
When I heard his comments, my eyebrows hit the car roof. Almost made me go off the road. I don’t care how he tries to spin them, the fact that a guy who attended Harvard Law could say things like that…
What part of his statement demonstrates his messianic complex? Do you really mean when you heard his comments or when you heard some fringe right providing commentary?
Actually, when I heard him say it would be unprecedented for the court to rule unconstitutional a law duly passed by Congress, I immediately said: But they just did it to campaign finance reform. Out loud. Driving, alone, in my van. When he stuck in the “strong majority” aside, I burst out laughing at the complete lack of credibility his statement had. Come on, you cannot possibly justify the tripe that came out of his mouth at that moment. The law was passed by a slim margin, and garnered no bipartisan support. And the Dem leadership had to use lots of gimmickry and back room arm twisting or deals to get it done.
My thought was: How can Obama say something so obviously false? And I’ve watched them spin the past couple days trying to minimize or explain away the comments. I can only conclude that Obama’s ego has become so enlarged that he has forgotten that he is a mere mortal like the rest of us. In that moment in time, when he made those comments, it’s as if he believed that all he had to do was say the words, and they’d be true.
Anything that gets passed now requires a strong majority. It passed with over 60% of the votes.
It still can be unconstitutional.
Only if you don’t actually listen to the people who wrote the Constitution. Considering they required private citizens to purchase firearms and insurance in the 1790’s you would have to be quite the activist to consider this unConstitutional.
Who required the purchase of firearms and insurance? I don’t remember seeing it in the Constitution. Was it a federal law? Or was it state laws? It makes a difference.
In addition, many laws have been passed that might be deemed unconstitutional, if they were ever challenged. The court does not proactively pronounce on passed laws. They must wait until a law is challenged before they can pronounce on its constitutionality. And even then, they do not have to do so. They can refuse to hear the case.
They were both federal laws signed into law by George Washington. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2012/jan/13/einer-elhauge/harvard-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/
And Obama didn’t say otherwise.
The law passed by the House of Representatives was by a vote of 219-212. Not a “strong” majority in my book or anyone else either. One also must remember that the opinion expressed by the president about the court overturning a law passed by congress is that of a constitutional law professor. Should have stuck to being a community organizer.
So you’re going to try and argue that calling something unprecedented, a legal analysis, almost made you go off the road? Burst out laughing? Etc? Talk about hyperbole. It’s people like you that are what’s wrong with this country. It’s that kind of attitude that creates this hyperpartisanship.
“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,” Obama said
on Monday. “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years
what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial
activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of
people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well,
this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will
recognize that and not take that step.”
Your assertions are truly ridiculous. Now “I’m pretty confident” is somehow Obama being a mad man, denying judicial review and just being all around arrogant? Give me a break. I asked you for specific examples from his statement and you just regurgitated talking points of the week — that’s how I know you aren’t being truthful.
I, and people like me, are what is wrong with this country? Educated people, who pay their own bills, keep informed on the issues, and form an opinion that they are not afraid to defend? I disagree.
I am not being hyper-partisan. His comments have been widely recognized as bizarre and false–by both conservatives and liberals. What he claims is simply false. Laws that have been passed by huge majorities have been overturned by SCOTUS.
“what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed
by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”It would not be unprecedented, nor even extraordinary. It has happened since Marbury v Madison established the power of the SCOTUS to declare laws unconstitutional.As I said: the ACA did not pass with a strong majority. It got exactly 60% in the Senate,but not one Republican vote. It passed by only 7 votes in the House, again without a single Republican vote, and with about 30 Democrats voting against it. The House and Senate never reconciled their separate versions of the bill because the election of Republican Scott Brown lost the Senate that crucial 60th filibuster proof majority.
You’re not acting like a responsible educated person though. You’re acting like a partisan hack, simply regurgitating the commentary you heard.
You’re literally slamming the President for something he didn’t say. Actually read the full statement and then read the letter that Holder wrote. What you’re saying is all irrelevant because your basis for those statements are not in reality. Obama said the repeal wouldn’t be precedented (precedent refers to legal precedent) and that the bill passed with a majority. That’s obviously not the same thing as saying that it would be unprecedented to repeal a law passed by a majority. Obivously.
What’s also obvious is that you didn’t listen to the full statment and you didn’t read the letter, becasue you’re trying to school me on the Madison case — Holder’s letter literally opens with that. But yeah, whatever keeps you happy and nearly driving off the road. It’s pretty twisted that people just hear what they want to hear, regardless of the facts.
I won’t continue to debate with someone who refuses to give me some credit for the ability to think and form my own conclusions. If you think I am a regurgitating hack, then I would also advise you not bother with me–as we would be unlikely to have a profitable discussion under those conditions.
The letter Holder wrote came days after the comments made by Obama. I am only criticizing Obama on what he actually said. It’s interesting that you are changing his words in your paraphrase. For instance, if Obama had just stuck to saying the law was passed by a majority, then I would have no issue with that part of his statement. “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,” Obama said on Monday. “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for yearswhat we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.” Once again, it would not be unprecedented or extraordinary for the court to overturn a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. It happens frequently. Second, there was not a strong majority voting for this bill. It was a slim majority by any standard. He is correct that Republicans have cried foul for years about “activist” judges. And Democrats cry foul when courts don’t vote their way. The court’s job is to decide a case based on its legal merits–not on how popular it is.
That’s fine. I just don’t think it’s right for someone to try and engage in a discussion when they’re blatantly being dishonest.
You simply cannot be an honest person and come to the conclusions you’ve come to by objectively listening to Obama’s statements and reading Holder’s letter. You can’t. I don’t believe you when you say you’re simply forming your own conclusion considering 1. Obama said nothing near what you’re saying he did and 2. your qualms are nearly identical to that of the talking points du jour.
There are plenty of real things to complain about and worthy of outrage — this is not one of them. You’re playing a gotcha game, where you misconstrue what was said and then hold him to that. It’s not fair. Read the Holder letter for clarification and you’ll see.
But what happens when the talking points are accurate as they are in this case. The President IMHO tossed down the gauntlet to the Justices.
Then point to the part of his statements (in proper context) where he specifically said when you’re accusing him of saying. Shouldn’t be that hard and yet, no one has been able to.
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/02/joint-press-conference-president-obama-president-calderon-mexico-and-pri “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.” Others have previously indicated the “Strong” was a misstep, secondly re: the unprecedented
“Surely the president knew that when he spoke; he was a senior lecturer
in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, after all. And as
recently as January 2010, the president complained in his State of the Union Address about a much more recent precedent. In his words, “the Supreme Court reversed a century of law” through its decision in Citizens United
v. the Federal Election Commission, holding that the government may not
keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or oppose
candidates in elections.
So if the president knew perfectly well that it would not be
“unprecedented” for the court to strike down a law, why did he say it
was” http://factcheck.org/2012/04/obama-eats-his-words/
And still, you’ve provided nothing. Obama said he believes precedent is on his side — so? That’s not the same thing as denying judicial review.
Second, Citizens United did in fact reverse years of law. What’s your point with that?
You still haven’t established how Obama is declaring war on the court. His words are very meek compared to what you’re alleging. Seems like phony concern to me. Seems like denying reality for the sake of scoring political points.
Okay, I will negotiate with you for the moral high ground. I do beleive that he misspoke, that it was not a prepared text he was reading, and since he has backed away from the statements that he realizes he may have pushed the envelope too far. With all the hot mikes around politicians they are sometimes not as elequent as we would like them to be. Are you willing to admit that he may have pushed the comments a bit t?
This comment has nothing to do with this comment, but a previous comment that I was unable to reply to due to comments being disabled.
I normally wouldn’t do this, but I am just really curious. Regarding corporate tax rates, and “double taxation.” In regards to double taxation of capital gains, you are wrong. You are applying simple analogies of concepts that you understand to something that you do not understand. I may not be doing a good enough job explaining it, but you are incorrect.
Secondly, highest tax rate for corporate taxes in the United States is roughly 40%, depending on the state. You have 35% to 38%, and up to an additional 10% depending on the state. These are not EFFECTIVE tax rates, but for companies making billions of dollars, they basically are effective tax rates. Instead of simply stating that I am ignoring “the facts” why don’t you provide me with your evidence or reasoning as to why you disagree with me, wouldn’t that be more constructive?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
I’m not protesting anything. I’m asking to for someone to substantiate their absurd claims.
Two things I find laughable about this whole situation.
1. The feigned love and support the right suddenly has for the judiciary. They’ve literally been railing against judges for decades, smearing those they didn’t like as “activists.” They’re the same group of people that rabidly applauded when Gingrich spoke at a presidential debate about arresting justices for unpopular opinions.
2. The gross characterization of what Obama said. The statements he made and the letter Holder has written is a VERY far cry from what these dishonest people are stating. There is no declaration of war on the court. There is no denial of judicial review. He said he didn’t believe the law would be overturned and that do so would be unprecedented.
These people are so opportunistic with their critiques — it’s pathetic. They have nothing to real to complain about, so they have to distort reality and make stuff up.