Eric Holder has responded verbally to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying he and the President do believe that the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down unconstitutional law. He tried to calm the reaction to Obama’s astonishing admonishment to the Court that it will be unprecedented for the Court to do anything but drop the whole matter. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith has directed Holder to answer, in a three-page, single-spaced and specific paper, answering whether the DOJ believes the courts can strike down illegal laws. So while I said I thought Holder would ignore Smith’s request, because he is already held in Contempt of Court in a Louisiana court, Holder is saying he will answer. When I find the text of Holder’s exact statement, I’ll post it here – see a portion below.
Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law…
But, folks, I’m gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it’s even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar.
Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law. This is basic knowledge. ~ Rush Limbaugh
Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged Wednesday that the “courts have final say,” and said his department would respond formally to an appeals court order to explain whether the Obama administration believes judges in fact have the power to overturn federal laws.
The attorney general, at a brief press conference in Chicago, made clear the administration thinks they do.
“We respect the decisions made by the courts since Marbury v. Madison,” Holder said Wednesday, referring to the landmark 1803 case that established the precedent of judicial review. “Courts have final say.”
The comments come after a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain its position by Thursday at noon. It marked the latest escalation between the two branches of government over the federal health care overhaul, after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the law and warned that such an act would be “unprecedented.”
Holder said Wednesday that “we are formulating a response now” and said the department’s statement would be “appropriate.”
Since Obama’s tirade, saying it would be “unprecedented” if the SCOTUS verdict is an overturn of ObamaCare, it is widely thought that Justice Sotomayor had contact with Obama and may have told him the initial vote by SCOTUS was against the constitutionality of the Law. Don’t put it past either Sotomayor or Kagan to spill the usually considered sacrosanct secrecy of a Court decision. Both women would never have been considered for a seat on SCOTUS had Obama not ascended to the Oval Office – Kagan especially, is an egregious choice for the task of upholding the Constitution.
Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.
Once again: But, folks, I’m gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it’s even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar. ~ Limbaugh