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
Just came back from seeing the Hunger Games and from some of the back and forth here,the action is just as fast and furious here :=).
BTW,I see Justice Thomas named mentioned and I was curious from the jump as to what he would do during the days of the Obamacare debate.
” In keeping with his usual court demeanor, Justice Clarence Thomas asked no questions ”
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/03/27/obamacare-hearings-the-individual-mandate/
I was told as a young man “if you can’t say something nice about someone ,don’t say anything at all”
The peremptory and petulant document demand by Judge Smith to the co-equal Justice Department reminded me of the novel QBVII (Queen’s Bench 7) wherein an aggrieved plaintiff sued for libel; and after hearing the case, the jury agreed, but found so much truth in the libel (and the plaintiff so despicable) that they awarded damages in the amount of a penny, “the lowest coin in the realm.”
I realize that Attorney General Holder — when not obtusely maintaining that “due process” has nothing to do with “judicial process” — would probably view discretion as the greater part of valor and respond to Judge Smith with some innocuous and insipid stroking of the judge’s irritated ego. Still, it occurred to me that with a little QBVII imagination, Erick Holder might have respectfully replied to the judge in exactly three pages of single-spaced
type — in 36-point font, or larger, with two-inch margins all around.
One can acknowledge the letter of the law and comply with it, while at the same time making a subtle point about the asininity of those administering it, but given the “black robe fever” exhibited by Judge Smith and so many of his authoritarian ilk, the effect of having themselves revealed as pompous buffoons would probably not redound the the client’s interest. So, :”Yes, Your Honor; you do get to decide cases before you.”
On the other hand, if the courts will supinely swallow Eric Holder’s “the President can just do some secret process to whomever he wants” line of totalitarian bullshit, then I can see where Administration contempt for the courts has an understandable component. Hard to hide that, sometimes.
Sometimes it’s best to tread lightly. Although that doesn’t mean you have to give up.
Uh… What happened to the President’s right of free speech? He doesn’t get to express a personal opinion anymore? It’s not even like he was rude or ranting like Rush Limbaugh.
Several Justices of this court have shown themselves to be activist judges even though they swore before congress that they would not be.
But hey, that’s my opinion.
It’s not 12:30 AM. It’s only 5:38 PM.
It’s 12:30 AM.. Good night all.
GeneH,
See, I made a logical error in my sequence above. But am sure that most can correct the “typo” and understand the connection intended.
OS,
How is “Scaly” gonna get a lesson? Only a stroke will help him.
And anyway, Holder shows us PEOPLE that the courts have made some good decisions before. Which helps hold the system up, when the media was circling to see who would drop first of the two: O or SCOTUS.
Here comes the vulture, pecking away at others.
“However, doing evil believing you are doing good is never justified. For those opposing evil though, any knowledge of the enemy’s psyche is essential strategically.”
In reverse order. opposing anything is enabled best by knowing the opponent’s psyche, said my wife, Kerstin. She could read them like a book, and maniputate them like puppets.
The nightmare, I think it was proposed by Chomsky, is the honest clean-hearted becoming our President. He might lead us to hell in his convictions of what is right. Whereas the bribe taker is always predictable as to his actions and he watches the bottom line. No people means no taxes, means no commerce, means no bribes.
Gene, the painful part was where the USAG gives a sitting Federal judge a first year law school lecture. And the sad part is he deserved it.
Dear MikeS,
I say dear for you are very special to us all.
Amen. And we defend our beliefs, for they are us. So if our opinion (same thing) are wrong then we are wrong. How acceptable is that?
And our perceptions are coupled to us by our belief structure/filter.
But then you know all this.
Someone cited one who said: No one believes he is evil.
But you say there are self-aware villains. Richard the ???., perhaps.
Modern equivalent?
Gene,
I agree to your response to Mike’s post. I do not think the Koch Brothers do anything in their entire day unless it is to further their economic empire. The country be damned is probably monogrammed onto their bath towels.
GeneH,
Fascinating and no irony intended.
Yeah, I get it but then I wouldn’t fly like a butterfly if careful craftsmanship were required of me. Will see if: !) can be more concise, and 2) choose other than colloquially “loaded” terms. It’s hard enough remembering sentence structure and propositions, adjective vs adverbs, etc. The swedish mess I won’t mention.
I will read through it and save, but achieve your level, nope.
“For instance I really believe the Koch Bros. genuinely feel they are saving America.”
You are far more forgiving in their instance than I am, Mike. Self-aware villains are indeed few and far between in the real world, but I think these two know exactly what they are doing and that it is wrong although totally within their narrow self interests. What you say is true in general though. Hitler, as crazy as he was, thought he was saving Germany. But Heydrich didn’t. Bush, as diminished as his capacity is, thought he was doing right by America. But Cheney didn’t. Some people are simply evil. Some people are evil and mentally ill. Some people are simply mentally ill. Some people are good, but mentally ill. Some people are good. Just because the Venn diagrams overlap frequently, does not exclude examples of pure good or pure evil in the human species. They are just rare birds. Say . . . 0.01% of the population.
Gene,
Imagine growing up Koch, with Daddy the John Bircher. To them Fascism is the right system and their pushing it is doing the noble thing. I agree about Heydrich, which is why he is more evil than Hitler emotionally. However, doing evil believing you are doing good is never justified. For those opposing evil though, any knowledge of the enemy’s psyche is essential strategically.
“Reading this was painful and funny at the same time.”
Yep. Thank the FSM I’m on pain killers today so all I got out of it was the funny.
I think Nal posted this upstream, but for those who missed it, Eric Holder responded to Judge Smith himself. Reading this was painful and funny at the same time. They might as well have written Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) one-hundred times on the blackboard.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Fifth-Circuit-letter.pdf
ID707,
You’re saying you have difficulty in believing in Obama, so no clarification is necessary.
There is no such thing as a real democracy. It doesn’t work. America is a republic. As far as hunger, some people like to eat bugs. Lots of protein.
Buy the California farms on the cheap and make the Mexicans work for you. No need to migrate to Canada or Mexico.
I didn’t say anything about needing a revolution, that was your idea. Guillotine? Are you an aristocrat?
What is the charge? I felt like asking that question a few times myself. I don’t know what the charge is.
You want me to read you your Miranda rights, but you’re telling me I don’t have any?
Life is a journey. There is no literary license unless you’re a poet.
id707,
\
“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. ”
To clarify the relationships to the terminology and the object: Thomas may be in fact an Uncle Tom, but he is an Uncle Tom because first and foremost he is a sycophant and he is a sycophant to elitists and elitism. His lack of compassion for others and selfishness are class based, not color based. The first term, being racially loaded in value from its derivation, is least important and hinders clarity because it is 1) not relevant to the cause of his behavior – instead describing a symptom – and 2) the racial loading of the term detracts from the relevant behavior and its attendant relationships, namely sycophantic worship of and devotion to self-defined elites. The symptom of what is wrong with Thomas might be adequately (if possible of misinterpretation) described by the term Uncle Tom, but the illness is better described as sycophancy and elitism (terms which leave no room for interpretation and carry no unnecessary value load).
As to competence, you state you are concerned by it albeit you didn’t mention it, thus answering that competence as a concern was yours to puzzle and you came to an answer – your abstinence in expressing it notwithstanding.
As to your other comment, I am far more forgiving of language errors than logical errors, even though one occasionally manifests as the other.
PS
Folks, if it goes quiet some morning from JT’s side, then head for the hills.
And if it goes quiet here, then you got one less patriot to count on to fight for true democracy, whatever that could be in the good old US of A.
(Play appropriate music)
AY2,
“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.”
“Be careful who claims to support you.”
Of course, that is why I wrote earlier to MikeS above that I have difficulty believing in Obama. Who do you think I am referring to? Clarify please.
As for fleeing to Canada or Mexico, this was assuming the future scenario for America which GeneH and TonyC wrote earlier on another thread.
There, Americans are not ready now to pay the price for a real democracy until the equivalent of the Great Depression occured driving them with hunger into the fight.
I took it a step further by referring to the Depression migrations from the Dust Bowls to the promise of stoop labor jobs in California as farms were foreclosed. And I then implied in the future Depression the only choices in migration for us would be Canada or Mexico.
Does that answer?
Your saying we need a revolution here is exactly what I have said straight out several times in recent weeks. Most recently, I even said we needed a French style one where execution of the priest, aristocracy, etc would be necessary in the forms they occur in our nation today. OK..
And we have a clear idea who the first ones we want to see on the guillotine.
So more revolutionary than that can one hardly be. I hear them knocking at my door now. What’s the charge. You don’t have clearance for that.
Are you going to read me my Mirandas? You don’t have any.
Where are you taking me? You will never know…………..and so on.
It’s all literary license. Glad to expand my ideas and thankful for the attention.