While the White House and the President backtracked from Obama’s recent statements regarding the Supreme Court, Attorney General Eric Holder succeeded in reigniting the controversy by calling the comments about judicial activism “appropriate.” As I noted earlier, the effort of the White House to modify the statement of the President notably did not include a retraction of the judicial activism statement. Holder’s statement appeared to reaffirm that the omission was intentional.
Holder said that the Justice Department would comply with an order to supply a letter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explaining the President’s comments. I previously stated that I do not believe that the order was an appropriate response. However, Holder is wise to simply comply and presumably repeat the statements made by government counsel in oral argument (which should have ended the matter).
Holder’s statement on judicial activism will likely only further alienate some judges and possible some justices. Of course, such comments should not affect the vote of the justices. I do not believe that Justice Kennedy is the type to be influenced by such personal or professional attacks. However, the political advantage sought by the attack posed a serious risk to the legal position of the Administration. As I noted earlier, the Administration is playing for marginal justices not just on the individual mandate question but issues like severability. Name calling cannot help that situation — or the chances for the national health care law. It is also in my view unfair to the judges (and likely justices) who view the act as an unprecedented intrusion on federalism.
I believe that the President — and the Attorney General — should take the high road on such questions and affirm that people of good faith can disagree on these questions. Even if the President is inclined to denounce the motivations and professionalism of jurists voting against the act, the Attorney General should have remained more faithful to the legal system and simply said that he does not subscribe to such a view. He is after all the chief legal officer in the federal government and owes a special duty to the rule of law. He has every right to make a passionate case for upholding the law. He was certainly correct in saying that “Courts have the final say in the constitutionality of statutes” and that “Courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of the people … pass.” However, Holder also should be a moderating force in recognizing that these are profound questions that have long divided jurists, lawyers, and citizens on the scope of federalism in our system. There are four justices on either side of the Court that consistently vote on opposing sides of constitutional issues. That does not make the conservatives any more of activists than the liberals. Both sides come of the Court with differing jurisprudential views on questions like federalism. They should hold clear views on such fundamental subjects. The question is whether their decisions are based on legitimate rationales and reasoning — even if we may disagree with their conclusions. In my view, Holder missed an opportunity — again — to separate himself from politics and defend a principle.
Source: Chicago Tribune
Blouise,
Crafty indeed. As you appreciate, if I remember right.
Carefully couched, saying we have said what we have said, this is no supplement, and then giving enough precedents to keep them busy for a while, which establish the deference to the elected branch’s work (Congress). And finishing off with a sentence. The President’s words are….!
No explanation in reply to the homework requirement to clarify O’s words in relation to the Court’s powers vv Constitutional correctness..
Go screw, In other words.
Did not give the media much to snipe at either.
Did not back a step, as I interpret it.
What say you?
ID707,
Stalin trusted Hitler, then Hitler attacked. Be careful who claims to support you. And fleeing to Canada or Mexico isn’t the idea. If you have to fight a revolution, do it here.
Obama?
Obama is the greatest mystery to me. Perhaps to others. I don’t even know if he has written a pre-election campaign book. Nor would I read it, if he had.
How can such a likeable man, do such terrible things and make such George the Second decisions. How can he sign a “leaker” protection law, with supporting words etc. and then persecute more and based on such ridiculous grounds all who leak. Not for the damage they really have done, but for the factual embarassment they have caused in pointing out these failings and war crimes.
I stop there, the list is soon endless. The deeds of his minions assure that.
AY2, I said there is not real choice, one who claims to support us, but doesn’t is a better alternative to those claiming to support freedom and liberty and are outright liars.
Particularly, as others have written that Americans are not ready to pay the price of true democracy. Not until the next “Grapes of Wrath” is in the making. Only then we will be fleeing to Canada and Mexico. At least our Latinos will be traveling south to join the revolution there. Y los otros a Canada. Vive le Quebec libre et CdG. L’aeroport, certainment.
And I wrote that.
Nal,
Thanks for the link.
What is commonly being referred to as Obama’s Homework Assignment may have been addressed to Judges Smith, Garza, and Southwick but the real recipients reside in the Court of Public Opinion and it is to them that the letter was really sent. It is, as Jan Crawford said, “a crafty piece of advocacy.”
What in the world did the Republicans expect to gain with all that feigned outrage? This was almost as dumb a move as their War on Women.
MikeS,
Forgive me for using your words, it is all I had to rely on once upon a time.
Don’t be offended by the style of aggression.
Rose-colored glasses,
They are perhaps on your nose. Your knowledge is greater, but my cynicism is intense. Obama first, if not earlier, encountered reality in his Harvard time. It was deepened in the encounters with those he “helped” in Chicago, It was enlarged into the political sector by collecting money and support and losing a congressional contest. And his time as a junior Senator should have provided a full view of the venality rampant there.
So how did some idealism survive that journey? No capisco.
ID707,
People are capable of denying that which is right in front of them if it serves their own self interest. The most fascinating thing about the defense mechanism of denial is that those who defend their notion of self with it, are usually unaware they are using it. Denial in politicians is almost universal, which is why so many bad deeds are done by people believing they are doing the right thing. This is why self-aware villians are so fascinating in literature and drama. For instance I really believe the Koch Bros. genuinely feel they are saving America. The ability of humsnity to self delude is boundless.
AY2
you said:
“Everyone is qualified to be here. It’s called freedom of speech.”
BEFORE you wrote tha above, I wrote to you:
“As to your education, I don’t give a shit, never did about anyones position or bona fides. ”
We are all welcome. That is what I meant. I don’t look at the precision, the use of fine words, nor other signs of origin or qualification. It is only ideas, if I can grasp them, that matter to me.
Not to outdo you, but to provide more flesh on you——it comforts and helps me relate, which is my ultimate reason for being here—–when did you do your Namy time? I was in ’60-62.
ID707,
I was in the Navy from 1978 to 1982. My reason for being here is the exchange of ideas.
GeneH,
Enjoy meeting another word nerd. How have you handled the question of tranformation of fully formed ideas appearing and their embodiment in words? Or perhaps you function in another way.
I have just been reading all of the posts by AY2 if folks have a problem with that complain to the owner…. Not me…. I have no problem with it…. I can recall what I say…. The people they care and have access to the postings van I’d to where it’s posted from… So enjoy the exchange of ideals or ideas take your chocie… I am not that fair skinned…..
As far as military I was in ROTC during the late 70s best I could muster…..
GeneH,
Thanks for the elucidation. Most of the words I use here have lain latent since I encountered them, often only once, used in some context. My brain, lame and untrained, seems to record them, and they pop up and are used, competently or incompetently. I use them with the same joy as a 2 year old with colored marbles.
Your corrections are certainly well meant and in keeping with your needs. I will assume so in the future. But don’t expect pearls from a boar’s mouth.
idealist707,
Everyone is qualified to be here. It’s called freedom of speech.
With regard to your disappointment in Obama, what is the alternative? Obama has his limitations,but he’s doing his best. I heard him say that if he can only be a one term president, so be it.
AY2,
”
AY2:”idealist707,
FYI. I was in the Navy for four years right after high school. I completed my education after that.”
Sorry, where’s the conflict? What are you referring to. This elitist is a conclusion of mine based on what AY has written, your similar crypticness, or insufficiantly low level of explanation which escapes my impaired mental competence. This is a formula way of expressing “elitism”. Simply implying: “You wón’t understand what I’m saying, you plebe. etc”
If the shoe does not fit, then apologies. You must understand, especiially we newbies, are hampered by the non-visual form of communication and for my part very limited knowledge of the real persons behind signatures
So very welcome to clarity, I am never averse to having facts to go on.
Expressing opinions from an egocentric base is not fun for me either.
As to your education, I don’t give a shit, never did about anyones position or bona fides. And I did not pick out you to criticize, it was in answer to Swm.
As usual, I write too much. Would have sufficed to be careful and simply answered who know and passed it back to her.
So I will simply say, who knows who you are. Not I. You’re all figments of the JT blawg.
GeneH,
You wrote:
“I don’t think it is unfair to say that when you point to “Uncle Tomism” you are ultimately pointing to sycophantic behavior which is exactly what elitism represents. As to why competence with a SCOTUS justice isn’t apparently an issue for you, that is for you to puzzle.”
Just to clarify what little I know:
—–your link between Uncle and syncophant escapes me. Uncle Tom is he who denies his closest brother needs in deferrence to his own. A syncophant is one who defers to the views of who ever pays him.. And elitism to me means that a group feels that their views are superior to all others and that these others should be excluded from all meeting points for decision.
As for SCOTUS competence, when judging, abstain from that where you lack competence. I did not say it did not concern me, rather I exclude it, something else entirely.
The three page, single-spaced letter is here (pdf), signed by Holder.
id707,
I have an unusual relationship to words and language. I wasn’t demeaning your particular view in this instance. I understood the relationship you were trying to draw. I was pointing to how your word choice could be misinterpreted as carrying a value load to your statements that you may not (now explicitly didn’t) intend. Clarity reduces error including clarity in terms. Precision is important in communication. It eliminates areas of conflict by narrowing the gap between denotation and connotation. Reading carefully and fully understanding something isn’t just a function of the reader, but a function informed by the word choice of the writer.
Oops, pushed the wrong key.
I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with that and other loaded words.
See here what I wrote prior to your bringing up your issue about my use of the term:
“It is unfortunate that we, in general, have such terms as “Uncle Tomism”, which fall readily on the tongue, and which are seldom congruent with the points the sayer hopes to convey. Now that’s an idea I am proud to have uttered.”
You seem to have missed that, which nullifys your criticism.
I still say as I did to SwM, if you care to read it above, that my opinions of the liberal base are at best a GUESS, and only a way for me to express my disappointment in Obama.
I trust you also noted that the liberals are forced to choose between the Democratic hell we know, and the Republican plague which is not reaching out to destroy us all. Great choices both
So your points are rather irrelevant. And don’t say, don’t come here if you are not qualified.
Ladies,
I’m the only AY2 that’s been leaving messages here. There isn’t a different one. It’s called an open discussion.
GeneH,
Thanks for the correction and a new word to add to my active vocabulary.
I’m not competing on that plane at all. But if it makes some, including you to demean my views, by pointing to my using ones carrying a racial load,
idealist707, It is a different one. The other one never served in the military.
idealist, He is not really an elitist and I won’t elaborate.
“I see that as having less to do with Obama being intrinsically attractive as a choice than it does with the disastrously bad tactical decision by the GOP to openly attack women’s rights in the manner which they have. In the history of boneheaded and blatantly stupid tactical decisions, that one has to rate right up there with invading Russia during the winter.”
Yeah, if you’re going to cast a group as “other” you need to make sure that they either don’t get to vote, or don’t make up roughly half of the population.