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
OS
Always associated your name with death—-really. Now confirmed.
They probably could have dissected my stroke dead gransmother without it stirring me. But you got the real thing, not only ideas.
How do you feel about the sinus caroticus?
PS Vena cava will do it everytime. Did you aim for it?
SwM,
I fess up to parroting all sorts of words I hear here without knowing their limiting parameters. So “liberal base” is one of them. Happy to add your take as a candidate for my internal dictionary.
SwM.
,
Good Morning. I appreciated your take on FDL. Two short visits left me with the impression that their views were akin to those who earlier went to New Mexico to join a collective. Naw, it’s really so that my list of anti-system sites has grown to over 20 now; and I prefer to get my shit here. But I have been there, read it, regurgitated, and departed wiping mouth.
But my real point was to use your referral to Paul. I don’t know if he can technically do it, but can imagine he’d like to launch a 3rd party movement to push his point. And if so, the danger there is that that would satisfy the “simple solutions-instant gratification” youth contingent.
Thus be a serious spoiler for O. (and i use O if I like, not to be a FDL-er)
Curious
You did nnt ask me, it was SwM, and it’s not to support her I reply.
Not to propose myself as wiser, but wonder how the younger generation (most under 40) who have been weaned on the pablum of instant gratification can weather the realities of Obama. Now even we older ones having read our legends on Shining Knights, and being poorly read in political history, and having nerver engaged in a political discussion longer than 10 sentences, will have difficulty mustering the energy to go to the polls.
I predict therefore that a marked slump unless O. hits some energizer button. We can only hope it won’t be off the 9/11 sort used by Bushy.
Yours in catastrophe, thy name is politics
MM,
Sometimes you are so extremely balanced (admirably so) that i feel like I am standing on the proverbial scales of justice. And is appropriate, feel unsure as to how I can “tread lightly” as AY2 previously advized us to do.
I feel a sinking feeling no matter which foot I begin my march forward on.
Do you advise I should start with Holder’s white due process, or Smiths black rage? Holder does have the advanctage of first move in this game of political chess.
Yours newly dued (new verb in quackspeak)
Rush v Gore clearly destroyed the idea of an apolitical judiciary.
Scalia’s echoing of Fox news talking points and misconceptions about what is actually part of the ACA doesn’t help either.
@rafflaw points are completely valid.
Lets face it the Supreme Court is bought and paid for.
SwM
No, not FireDog – it’s smaller. The blogger and many of the followers volunteered for Obama last time around. I only lurk. You’ll get handed your head if you dare support Obama. As for the kids and insurance, the parents are probably the only ones who care. The kids think they will live forever.
Allow me to suggest a blog that you may like….RealityChex.com. It’s by Marie Burns. Before the NYT changed to “favored commenter” rules which she refuses to play by , she wrote some wonderful commentary on their op-eds. Her writing is superb with a wit like Dorothy Parker.
No wonder we get along so well.
Gene, speaking of dark humor. My extended family has been in the funeral business for more than a century. I grew up living in an apartment in funeral homes, one of them in Natchitoches, LA. When in grade school I sometimes had to sleep in the same room with at least one body. When I was five, I wandered into the morgue to see a hobo who had gotten run over by a freight train. That was a very interesting anatomy lesson and did not put me off at all. Once helped get the remains of a motorcyclist cleaned up after he hit a brand new three strand barbed wire fence at about 100 MPH. Talk about slicing and dicing. Ever pick intestines off the barbs of a fence wire? I was nine at the time.
When in my early teens, I hunted with my dad. We never just skinned and cleaned game. Oh no, that would have been too easy. He would spread newspaper on the kitchen floor and give me a scalpel. I had to do an autopsy on dead squirrels and explain each step of what I was doing. Entry wound here, round traversed lower lobe of the right lung, passed through the pericardium and ended up lodged in the left brachial plexus. Cause of death was breaching of the pericardium causing instant death when the bullet severed the superior vena cava. Of course, every thirteen year old boy can name all the blood vessels of the heart.
So yeah, I have a sense of humor so dark at times that it absorbs light.
What OS said!
Curious, I think you are talking about Fire Dog Lake. They call Obama “O” over there. That blog is definitely not part of the democratic base. Most over there don’t like the blogs like Daily Kos which probably best represents the base. A lot of people on FDL supported Ron Paul. I don’t read it much anymore. Some of their better writers left.
Gene, that whole exchange had more levels than the most obscure koan. The only thing that did not come from it was enlightenment.
The only thing that could force me to vote for Obama would be the nomination of truly batshit crazy opponent who would be worse than bush and a true sycophant of the Koch and Art Pope crime syndicates. Oh wait. That is already going down. Damn. Cannot win for losing.
Curious, Idealist said the “liberal base”. I view the “base” as the core of the democratic party just as I view the republican “base” as those that form their core. These are people that vote in primaries and do the work of the party. To me they form the base. Of course there are liberals that are turned off to Obama but I don’t think they constitute the base. They probably represent about 3 to 5% of eligible voters. All of my friends and family that voted for him last time are doing so again including those that work for AFSCME and Planned Parenthood. They are probably the most enthusiastic As far as young people go, just can’t see young people going out for Romney and that viable third party candidate hasn’t shown. If the young get thrown off their parents insurance that might get them out. I suspect they will vote for Obama in the end but not so but not so enthusiastically.
OS,
I’ve been thinking about your comment “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.” Yeah, I’ll have to agree with you there, but I’m going to stipulate what I found funny about the whole exchange. That someone who has exercised all the good judgment and care for the Constitution you’d expect from someone who never even heard of the document as evidenced by his refusal to investigate and prosecute domestic war criminals and traitors from the previous administration while concurrently “legal cover” (read “bullshit excuses”) for the blatantly unconstitutional claims and actions of the current administration has both the huge brass wheelbarrow toting sized balls and the unmitigated arrogance and gall to lecture anyone about the Constitution – even if he’s technically correct – is a juxtaposition I simply find hilarious. It’s like Charles Manson giving advice on how to be a good dinner guest or Jeffery Dahlmer giving cooking tips. Yeah, I’ve got a dark sense of humor. Gene Wolfe coined a word for the color darker than black: fuligin. I supposed you’d call this an example of fuligin humor.
I’m sure I’ll cry about it all when the pain killers wear off.
Otteray Scribe
1, April 5, 2012 at 5:31 pm
I think Nal posted this upst
————————————
proverbial jawbone of an ass?
Swarthmore Mom
For the first time I, regretfully, have to disagree with you. I follow another very liberal blog by a frequent commenter of NYT op eds. You can’t believe the contempt they spew towards Obama. Perhaps it is not too much to say they hate him. I know they are not much of a “sample”, but unfortunately I can’t find many O supporters among my friends. And wouldn’t you agree that it seems like he has lost the enthusiasm of the young? I hope the growing support of women will be enough to overcome the “blah” factor..
Gene H;
YES!!!!!!!
I’ll take that as a thumbs up, eniobob. š
Gene,
Hunger Games=Great and Important Movie.
Gene H:
In the theater you feel the movie,if and when you see it IMHO it throws ice cold water on the Repubs war on women especially Santorums war on women.
Thats all I’ll say.
eniobob,
Totally OT, but what did you think of the film? Worth buying expensive snacks for or wait for HBO?