Federal appeals court challenges Obama

I know this is off topic but it was too much fun to pass up.  Canadian politics are never this exciting.

Judges order Justice Department to clarify following Obama remarks on health law case

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be “unprecedented.”

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Federal appeals court challenges Obama

  1. Have a look at this. Obama receives advice from his former Prof Laurence Tribe on which judges would be best further the legislative agenda of the government. (This is what all presidents do.)

    Start here:

    “In the letter, Professor Tribe makes the case that Mr. Obama should appoint Elena Kagan — who had just been appointed solicitor general — to fill the vacancy created by Justice Souter’s departure. He argued that Ms. Kagan would be better than Sonia Sotomayor at persuading the court’s swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, to side with its liberal bloc; Justice Sotomayor was an appeals court judge at the time. (He cited Ms. Kagan’s intellect and her ability, demonstrated as dean of Harvard Law School, to bring “prima donnas” into agreement.)”

    If you want the complete context of this:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/leaked-obama-mentors-blunt-advice-on-court-choices/

  2. In an earlier life, Barack Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and a law professor at the University of Chicago law school. If nothing else it is clear that his legal education, refined by his stint as a law professor, has given him and his administration the intellectual tools to either override (the reality) or contort the meaning of the constitution. The Fifth amendment of the constitution says that: No citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. When the Obama administration killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born citizen, it would have appear to have deprived him of his life without “due process of law”. Of course, Obama does not see it that way.

    Constitutional rights are to protect citizens from the government. This following article contains an interesting discussion of the Obama view of “due process” or rather what “due process” is not. Apparently “due process” does not require “judicial process”. This is in itself, is a good reason to get rid of this guy!

    I feel sorry for Mr. Holder. Imagine having to defend this kind of stuff?

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/holder-defends-obamas-view-of-due-process/article2370979/

Comments are closed.