Separation of Powers: Federal Courts Not Taking it from the Manchurian

Oh, you’ve got to love separation of powers in the United States, particularly when an Impostor president tries to continue to bully his way through Washington in regard to Obamacare. Congress proved unable to stand up to mr. Obama on Obamacare, even when the “Ted Kennedy” seat was awarded by Massachusetts voters to the Republican challenger (an election result that was directly related to the pending Obamacare socialized medicine legislation).

Now the Manchurian is trying to bully the Supreme Court in comments made recently to an Associate Press lunch crowd.

Well one Federal judge is not taking it. Get a load of this:

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama’s comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.”I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I’m sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress,” Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. <source>

Note that the Judge made specific reference to Obama’s exaggeration about there having been a “broad consensus” for Obamacare. Of course we all know that there WAS a broad consensus about Obamacare: a broad consensus of Americans believed that it was and is an unmitigated disaster that will consign all of us to poor quality care, long lines, misery and death.

So what did the Judge want, exactly, from the Justice Department lawyer?

“I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases,” Smith said.

What did Eric Holder’s lawyer say? He said the right thing, apparently:

A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.

Did this satisfy the Judge?

Nope.

However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review. ”The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements,” Smith said.

I’m thinking that I like Judge Smith a lot right now. I only wish he could compel mr. Obama to explain, in a single-spaced three page memo, why he spent his entire life harboring resentment and anger towards the United States, and why he fraternized with Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and so many other Communists and America-haters.

Incidentally, what was the case being argued before the 5th Circuit? Check this out:

The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities.

Now why would Obamacare restrict physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities? Oh, I don’t know — why did Mao Tse Tung collectivize agriculture in order to better feed his growing armies and inadvertently kill as many as 40 million people in the process, the exact opposite of his stated intent? Are there reasons why fascists do what they do?

About these ads