FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Millhiser reports: "The Republicans on the Fifth Circuit panel heard President Obama's original statement, however, and they did not hear two plausible meanings. They did not consider the possibility that President Obama might have misspoke."

In an unprecedented move the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked Obama to clarify a statement. (image: Time Magazine)
In an unprecedented move the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has asked Obama to clarify a statement. (image: Time Magazine)



The 5th Circuit's Political Tantrum Against Obama

By Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress

05 April 12

 

he United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit may be the most ideological court in the country. When the oil industry’s allies in Congress wanted to protect the industry from drilling lawsuits, they passed a bill trying to force those lawsuits into the reliably industry-friendly Fifth Circuit. When a high school cheerleader sued her school district after it made her cheer for her alleged rapist, the Fifth Circuit ordered the alleged rape victim to pay more than $40,000. When one of the court’s few progressives asked a series of probing questions to a prosecutor during a court hearing, Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Edith Jones yelled at him to “shut up” and asked him if he would like to leave the courtroom. Earlier today, however, the Fifth Circuit left the realm of mere ideology and leaped over the line into partisanship.

Immediately after a DOJ attorney took the podium today in an appeal of a lower court decision upholding a provision of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Judge Jerry Smith threw a tantrum:

[W]hen a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law. . . . Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

After argument, the Republican panel then ordered the attorney to produce a three page, single-spaced letter explaining that courts do have the power to strike down federal laws.

Let’s be clear what’s going on here. Yesterday, President Obama made a statement that can plausibly be read either as saying that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to strike down any law enacted by democratically elected officials, or that the Affordable Care Act was both enacted by democratically elected officials and that it would also be unprecedented for the Court to strike it down.

Today, President Obama make it clear that he intended the second meaning, and he went into more detail about just what he believes would be “unprecedented” about striking down his signature law. As the president explained, “[w]e have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care” during the modern constitutional era. And, lest their be any doubt, President Obama is unquestionably right. The Supreme Court has only struck down two laws as beyond Congress’ power to regulate commerce in the last 75 years, and both of those cases involved laws that were completely non-commercial in nature.

The Republicans on the Fifth Circuit panel heard President Obama’s original statement, however, and they did not hear two plausible meanings. They did not consider the possibility that President Obama might have misspoke. And they did not wait for him to elaborate on his statement today in a way that both clarifies his meaning and removes any suggestion that the president’s views are not 100 percent accurate. Instead, they saw an opportunity to embarrass the president by forcing a fairly junior attorney in the Department of Justice to write a letter that might then be used to embarrass the president politically.

This is not how judges behave. This is how politicians behave. If Judge Smith and his co-ideologues cannot refrain from such purely political tantrums, they should resign their seats and run for office as Republicans.

The Wall Street Journal has a transcript of Judge Smith’s remarks. They are even more overreaching and partisan than previous reports suggest:

Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…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 — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re 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.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That 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 and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.

Needless to say, the only possible reason why Smith could specifically require that the letter make “specific reference to the president’s statements” is because this Republican judge believes that it will force DOJ to produce a document that will embarrass President Obama.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+61 # Willman 2012-04-05 16:31
Typical repub ilk that will stoop to anything to discredit our President. They cannot fathom how a person such as him was elected to the highest office.
They are like dogs marking their territory.
 
 
+33 # Tazio 2012-04-05 21:00
Do ALL Republicans abuse power, or does it just seem that way?

Never Vote Republican.
 
 
-44 # Robt Eagle 2012-04-06 07:17
Obama abused the power with his rhetoric to incite the court. This is a proper response from a body of lawyers that are there to do checks and balances. Obama needed to be put in place as he is just a servant of the people, however, he certainly expects to become Emperor Obama if he in some unimaginable way gets re-elected.
 
 
+9 # pbbrodie 2012-04-06 08:25
You "think" President Obama tried to incite the court but everyone who reads RSN KNOWS that you try to incite the readers here!
 
 
+1 # ericlipps 2012-04-09 05:45
Quoting Robt Eagle:
Obama abused the power with his rhetoric to incite the court. This is a proper response from a body of lawyers that are there to do checks and balances. Obama needed to be put in place as he is just a servant of the people, however, he certainly expects to become Emperor Obama if he in some unimaginable way gets re-elected.


I don't find it "unimaginable" at all that President Obama will be re-elected. What I find hard to imagine is an Eagle going cuckoo enough to think Obama means to make himself emperor if that happens. It was, let us recall, an official of the late unlaemted Bush administration who caused a stir by saying of the U.S., ":we're an empire now"--making Bush an uncrowned you-know-what.
 
 
-43 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-04-05 21:32
This reminds me of an old saying: Don't believe your lying ears. We all heard what the President said and it was inaccurate on all counts. Overturning the bill would not be "unprecedented" or "extraordinary" and the bill did not have the support that Obama described it as having -- either from the public or the Congress.

While this court was unwise to intervene in this way since it demeans them, citizens should be outraged that the President is promulgating either his ignorance or his lies, take your choice, in what appears to be a political play.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+10 # pbbrodie 2012-04-06 08:27
You and Robt Eagle are part and parcel. It isn't even necessary to read your comments, as they are as predictable as taking your next breath.
 
 
0 # Stephanie Remington 2012-04-06 17:09
What lnason and Robt Eagle said were almost exactly opposite. RE claims the lawyers' response was "proper." lnason said "the court was unwise to intervene in this way..."

Your response proves the obvious -- that it IS necessary to read a person's comments to properly understand what they are saying.
 
 
-20 # Stephanie Remington 2012-04-05 23:46
The judge’s demands may have been motivated by partisan bias, but I can’t tell from this article because the piece itself is so infused with bias and factually questionable statements.

The word "unprecedented" is used here like 'incontheivable ' was used in the 'Princess Bride.'

It is not even remotely unprecedented for the courts to review the constitutionali ty of laws. That's what they do. Noting that the specific law in question was “passed by democratically- elected officials” is at best redundant, unless there is another law-making source that has slipped my mind (we are speaking of laws, rather than regulations drafted by, agencies, for example).

In Obama's "clarification" (linked to in Millheiser's article), he refers specifically to judicial questions relating to the commerce clause of the constitution and mentions that similar laws have not been struck down since the 1930s (when the court struck down many such laws). "Unprecedented" doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened in a while. It means never.

Obama’s claims that his assassination program, and other policies, are not subject to judicial review are good reason for the judiciary to demand that he observe checks and balances. A more objective accounting of the circumstances and history might have shown whether this court is actually asserting its lawful right to check the other branches or whether they are claiming it as a legitimate-soun ding excuse to achieve partisan ends.
 
 
+28 # John Locke 2012-04-06 06:49
I believe Judge Smith was out of line to require a letter from the US attorney. Perhaps Congress might consider impeachment!
Certainly the courts have the power to strike legislation. But a judge also has an obligation to be respectful and courteous toward the attorneys who appear in his courtroom!
Unfortunately this attorney is caught in the middle of an abusive judges tirade, if he disobeys he can be held in contempt and even jailed! I think its important to see how congress handles this abuse!
 
 
+27 # dick 2012-04-06 03:02
Class warfare isn't fought with kid gloves. The "We're entitled" plutocracy panicked after the civil rights era, the successful women's movement, the anti-war movement, & the emergence of new demographics. Spearheaded by Casey, Rove & Norquist, they gave themselves tax cuts to finance their revolution. To inoculate against election losses they packed the courts with class warriors. To prevent "unpacking" they stole an election, & began repacking, then turned We The People into We The Corps. I wish Obama had the backbone to connect the dots publicly; FDR would have. Wait until Obama gets subjected to $1Billion worth of swiftboating this fall. Maybe he will channel his inner (Kenyan) warrior. Hope so.
 
 
+23 # tedrey 2012-04-06 03:59
The Justice Department might demand an immediate response from Judge Smith, explaining his own position on judicial review. That would be equally unprecedented.
Judge Smith would either have to admit that judicial review goes back, not directly to the constitution, but to Justice Marshall's decision in Marbury vs. Madison (as the junior lawyer tried to explain to him.) It is a matter of long-standing precedent, but even it could be reversed, either by a later Supreme Court, or by the other two branches of government, if it became obvious (as it is now becoming obvious) that its political interpretation has become inimical to the constitution and the welfare of the nation.
 
 
+23 # riverhouse 2012-04-06 04:25
I don't believe President Obama misspoke. I think he said exactly what he wanted to say and it was perfectly on target. It's right out of the Republican playbook and I applaud him for doing it. President Obama is a very intelligent man and a lawyer who taught Constitutional law so he fully understands the issue. He was simply moving minds into place for the Court's decision. If the Court recklessly overturns the health insurance reform bill then the situation is set up for a move toward a single payer system and I think that is exactly what President Obama is doing in the national conversation that is taking place. He's no dummy. He understands how politics works. This was quite deliberate on his part and I applaud him. Let's give him a House and a Senate so he can function effectively for the nation.
 
 
+13 # RNF123 2012-04-06 05:05
First of all, as the President was a constitutional law professor and has read Marbury, he understands that the S. Court has the authority to review and overturn acts of Congress. He also knows from reading McCulloch v Maryland, that the Courts defer and there is substantial precedent to the acts of Congress and only in rare cases are such acts overturned as the President mentioned. He should have been clear and acknowledge the right to judicial review along with McCulloch and the implied as well as the express authority given to Congress under Article I of the Constitution. Only laws passed by Congress that are repugnant to the Constitution are subject to dismissal and very few have been overturned as the President mentioned. The real question is why he has to answer to the judiciary in the form of a letter and why would the Court request a three page, single spaced letter if this was not political. They have no jurisdiction over the President and he was wrong to comply with their demands as it gives the appearance that they have such power over him. He is not a party to the health care legislation. The President has the law correct, he may not have articulated the aspect of judicial review.
 
 
-27 # Robt Eagle 2012-04-06 07:19
RNF, because Obama has abused his office many times and the judges are sick of it. Obama is supposed to be a servant of the people, not the Emperor over the people, but hey, he doesn't think so.
 
 
+4 # feloneouscat 2012-04-06 16:42
Emperor? Please name ONE LAW written by Obama? :)
 
 
0 # Stephanie Remington 2012-04-06 18:42
How about Obama’s assassination program? It's not a law, but he asserts that it has the force of law, except without any accountability. He claims it is not subject to congressional or judicial review. How much more like an emperor could he be by asserting the right to essentially say, “off with her head!”?
 
 
0 # feloneouscat 2012-04-09 08:33
"Both the Hague IV Convention and the laws of war permit attacks upon valid military targets at any time or place. What is included in the category of “targets,” however, is broader than just troops in the field. Noncombatants and civilians can be designated a valid target if they are sufficiently involved in the war effort."

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_FMS.htm

(that needs to be /01_FMS.htm)

I do not recall anyone objecting to Osama bin Laden being assassinated. In fact, when Clinton failed to hit him with cruise missiles, he was derided for missing him.

Obama is not the first President to order assinations - heck Reagan signed an executive order prohibiting government sponsored assignations and then turned right around and tried to assassinate Qaddafi!

I don't agree with ANY assassination. However, to argue that is "acting like an emperor" is no more justified than the right saying the same thing.

The fact of the matter is that the President is the Commander in Chief. From my readings it gives him a substantial amount of power and, seeing what the Bush Admin tried to do, one can move a lot of "iffy programs" into the DoD to avoid review.

This is the way our Constitution is written. Honestly, read more history and you will find past Presidents doing equally ugly things. It's not a pretty picture.
 
 
0 # feloneouscat 2012-04-09 11:53
Funny how people cheered when bin Laden was assassinated but never thought through the consequences...

And, yes, the President has powers that are inherent in the office. For example, he has the sole right to authorize use of nuclear weapons. That will change your day! There are many things he can do without accountability (aside from election).

He can negotiate "executive agreements" with countries that are not subject to Senate confirmation. He can meet with heads of state (who knows what they talk about!).

Yes, the President has powers that are not subject to Congressional review (I highly doubt Judicial review, but I may be wrong on that).
 
 
+9 # iggypops 2012-04-06 06:50
methinks pres obama just brushed a little something off his shoulder.
 
 
-17 # Robt Eagle 2012-04-06 07:20
iggy, Obama brushed those imaginary five stars off his shoulder. He got caught up by the checks and balances we have in this country and he didn't like it one bit. Holder better tow the mark also, because the justices in this country will find him in contempt of the constitution soon with all the underhanded crap going on in the DoJ under Holder's reign.
 
 
+18 # rhgreen 2012-04-06 07:23
Obviously at least one and perhaps three of the judges of the 5th Circuit Appeals Court should be removed. And DOJ attorney Kaersvang should refuse to obey Smith's order, and he should have DOJ's backing in doing so.
 
 
-3 # Robt Eagle 2012-04-07 07:24
Kagan should recuse herself as she was Obama's solicitor general to develop the unconstitutiona l ObamaCare!!!
 
 
+10 # dick 2012-04-06 08:09
Judicial Review is SACRED. It protects "minorities" from inflamed majorities. There are provisions for override, if need be. The AG doesn't have to provide the letter in question. Bait the judge into more antics. The extremists usually have short fuses, few inhibitions. The class warriors on the courts, long a hiding place for plutocrat flunkies, need to be called out. They STOLE an election. ALL Bush appointees are therefore bogus. Corps=WE the People should be turned around on them. Whack & whack & whack away at that revealing decision.
 
 
+6 # jwb110 2012-04-06 11:29
SInce when does the 5th Circuit demand policy issues be settled in their court? This is the new set of activists judges and they should be held to the same standards that the Republicans used to get them there.
This is the sort of thing that oddly enough represents the death nell of the GOP/TP. The American public, the real American public not motivated motivated my paranoia, recognizes when the bounds of Democracy have been over reach. This is the beginning of the pendulum swinging the other way.
 
 
+3 # soularddave 2012-04-06 19:59
This judge does sound like a yapping dog - a chihuahua or something that was raised around much bigger dogs.

The question, though,is this; are judges that act out like this removed anymore? He needs to go back to chasing ambulances.
 
 
+3 # giraffee2012 2012-04-07 16:27
Good questions Soularddave - answer - unlikely - when you look at the RATS in the U.S. Supreme Court (Roberts, Aliota, Thomas, Scalia) - Vote Dem in 2012 - bc one of the liberals is retiring and we don't want to grow the RAT PACK!
 
 
-1 # Loupbouc 2012-04-07 19:49
PART 1

Ian Millhiser libels the 5th Circuit, which is not evil or corrupt, but has rendered a great array of decisions furthering the Bill of Rights & civil rights, rights of indigents & immigrants [E.G., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Circuit_Four & http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/reviews/2009/06/champion-of-civil-rights-judge-john.html & http://www2.americanbar.org/SCFJI/Lists/New%20Case%20Summaries/DispForm.aspx?ID=791 & http://www2.americanbar.org/SCFJI/Lists/New%20Case%20Summaries/DispForm.aspx?ID=787 & http://www2.americanbar.org/SCFJI/Lists/New%20Case%20Summaries/DispForm.aspx?ID=759 ] & has supported “liberal” agendas like regulation of firearms [ http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-30198-CV0.wpd.pdf ]

In the cheerleader case, the court ruled properly that the plaintiff (cheerleader) had filed a frivolous complaint that could not justify the litigation costs it imposed on the defendant. Such a decision is authorized by the federal rules of civil procedure and a proliferation of long-standing judicial precedents. Ian Millhiser misrepresents, egregiously, the 5th Circuits action.

CONTINUED WITH PART 2
 
 
-1 # Loupbouc 2012-04-07 19:50
PART 2

Ian Millhiser misrepresents also the matter of whether the 5th Circuit is “industry friendly” (in some nefarious way or because of illicit bias). When the 5th Circuit has rendered decisions for “industry” parties of litigation, the decisions have been well-premised in the evidence and arguments presented and the laws and legal rules that could apply to the cases.

Millhiser misrepresents also the motive & significance of the statute that limited judicial venue to 5th Circuit district courts in cases involving certain “energy projects” occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. Venue rules are matters of fairness & convenience. If a civil complaint alleges that a wrong occurred in or because of oil or gas drilling done in US waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Texas, 5th Circuit district courts are, presumably, the fair & convenient venues, since those waters & states are within the 5th Circuit.

Millhiser wrote: “Immediately after a DOJ attorney took the podium today in an appeal of a lower court decision upholding a provision of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Judge Jerry Smith threw a tantrum.” Judge Smith did not “throw a tantrum.” He castigated the government properly for the President's egregiously inappropriate comments invading the prerogative of the federal judiciary.

CONTINUED WITH PART 3
 
 
-1 # Loupbouc 2012-04-07 20:25
Clarification & correction:

Originally, the 5th Circuit included Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. and, in 1948, the (Panama) Canal Zone was added.

Later, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia were moved to a new 11th Circuit.

I neglected to account for the reassignment of Alabama.

But The 5th Circuit's exemplary civil rights & Bill of Rights record began when the Circuit included Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
 
 
-1 # Loupbouc 2012-04-07 19:50
PART 3

Millhiser wrote: “...[w]e have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care” during the modern constitutional era. ...President Obama is unquestionably right. The Supreme Court has only struck down two laws as beyond Congress' power to regulate commerce in the last 75 years, and both of those cases involved laws that were completely non-commercial....

More misrepresentation!

A gun-control case involved the perhaps most recent overturning of Commerce Clause REGULATION. United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The decision held that the guns were not “in INTERSTATE commerce” & did not affect such commerce in a substantial way. But the guns were sold & purchased; so, their possession or ownership was an incident of commerce. Therefore, the gun-possession WAS “commercial” or occurred because of commerce.

No Congressional Act, ever before, has resembled Obamacare. None, ever, forced anyone to buy ANYTHING or to engage in any kind of commerce. Precisely BECAUSE no other case EVER has involved an issue like Obamacare's mandate & because the most far-reaching Supreme-Court-u pheld Commerce Clause regulation was vitally, critically distinct from Obamacare, we “have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care."

CONTINUED WITH PART 4
 
 
+1 # feloneouscat 2012-04-09 11:30
But the State can legally require you to join the armed forces or go to prison, even if you are a pacifist.

It is okay to die for your country but living for your country is wrong?

At what point does the state have interest in it's citizens? We spent billions on "the war on terror" to keep people safe, but spending to keep people healthy is off kilter?

I have a brother in law that is about to be evicted. Is the state's mission to keep him safe from being killed in a cardboard box (whilst contracting vaccine resistant TB making him a health threat)?
 
 
-2 # Loupbouc 2012-04-07 19:51
PART 4

The issue is whether the individual mandate is beyond Congress's power of REGULATING commerce. The answer is “yes.”

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), marked the limit of Commerce Clause power. In Wickard, a WWII-era federal statute sought to protect domestic economy & War-supply by stabilizing wheat markets & wheat prices. The Act limited the wheat-quantity a farmer could grow, for sale or for on-farm consumption. The Act did NOT require anyone to buy wheat or anything else.

The Supreme Court has NEVER upheld CONGRESSIONAL legislation that requires someone to make a purchase. Before passing Obamacare mandate, Congress never required anyone to buy anything — never in the whole history of the U.S. [Cf. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), holding unconstitutiona l Congress's mandating that state officials engage in various federal-law-enf orcing affirmative acts that would require expenditure of state revenues.]

When such mandate was considered in the 1990s, Congress's advisor (CBO) warned that very likely such mandate was unconstitutiona l. In 2009, when such mandate was being reconsidered, the CRS cautioned that "[d]espite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause," likely Congress would not have a "constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance."

CONTINUED WITH PART 5
 
 
-1 # Loupbouc 2012-04-07 19:52
PART 5

Judge Smith's concern was righteous & proper.

Obama asserted that if the federal judiciary holds Obamacare's mandate unconstitutiona l, the federal judiciary will have invaded the province of Congress & the President & will have been guilty of the great sin of “judicial activism” (which Obama uses to denote “legislating from the bench”).

But the legal truth is: If the federal judiciary holds Obamacare's mandate unconstitutiona l, the federal judiciary will be doing exactly one of the most important jobs the constitution REQUIRES the federal judiciary to do.

Obama's veiled threat was an attempt of extorting the judiciary not to do its job but, instead, serve the unconstitutiona l interest of Obama.

Millhiser wrote: “...the only possible reason why Smith could specifically require that the letter make "specific reference to the president's statements" is because this Republican judge believes that it will force DOJ to produce a document that will embarrass President Obama.”

Obama deserves and needs to be embarrassed. He has transgressed gravely — to try to save his patently unconstitutiona l “signature” achievement.

CONTINUED WITH PART 6
 
 
0 # feloneouscat 2012-04-09 11:16
Quoting Loupbouc:
Obama asserted that if the federal judiciary holds Obamacare's mandate unconstitutional, the federal judiciary will have invaded the province of Congress & the President & will have been guilty of the great sin of “judicial activism” (which Obama uses to denote “legislating from the bench”).


Actually, what he was doing was using a phrase that the Conservatives use over and over and throwing it back at them. I thought it was amusing.
 
 
-1 # Loupbouc 2012-04-07 19:52
PART 6

Millhiser wrote: “The...Fifth Circuit [Republicans] heard...Obama's ...statement... . ...[but] did not consider...that ...Obama might have misspoke [sic].”

If Obama “misspoke,” either he did intentionally & deserves worse than embarrassment, or he cannot expect “benefit of doubt” because being PRESIDENT, his job is NOT TO MISSPEAK & so his constituents can hold him accountable for exactly what he says.

Risibly, Obama's is acting like a protester chanting on the Supreme Court's steps — as if such displays influence the NONPOLITICAL (& most professional) branch of government.

Equally ludicrous are these tripe-filled, dissembling, yellow-journali sm, Obamacare-pande ring articles of Millhiser, Jack Balkin [http://readers upportednews.or g/opinion2/272- 39/10622-the-sm all-chance-the- supreme-court-w ill-overturn-th e-healthcare-ac t], Robert Parry [http://readers upportednews.or g/opinion2/272- 39/10670-gop-ju stices-clown-ov er-health-care] , Robert Scheer [http://readers upportednews.or g/off-site-opin ion-section/61- 61/10701-five-h ypocrites-and-o ne-bad-plan], Paul Krugman [http://readers upportednews.or g/off-site-opin ion-section/61- 61/10710-focus- broccoli-and-ba d-faith], David Dow [http://readers upportednews.or g/opinion2/300- 196/10790-impea ching-the-supre me-court-justic es], and Matthew DeLuca [http://readers upportednews.or g/opinion2/300- 196/10807-focus -scalia-foxs-ma n-in-washington ].
 
 
0 # Loupbouc 2012-04-08 10:14
In PART 6, some web page links seem not to work. I do not know why. I copied them from my Firefox address bar.

Use, instead, these:

Jack Balkin

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/272-39/10622-the-small-chance-the-supreme-court-will-overturn-the-healthcare-act

Robert Parry

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/272-39/10670-gop-justices-clown-over-health-care

Robert Scheer

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/61-61/10701-five-hypocrites-and-one-bad-plan

Paul Krugman

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/61-61/10710-focus-broccoli-and-bad-faith

David Dow

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/300-196/10790-impeaching-the-supreme-court-justices

Matthew DeLuca

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/300-196/10807-focus-scalia-foxs-man-in-washington
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN