Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (650327)	4/4/2012 1:32:57 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577883

>> Exactly. He clearly has his own ideas about what judicial review is; however, I think his remarks made it abundantly clear his ideas aren't consistent with those of most people, including most "constitutional scholars". Was he being dishonest? Was he intending to mislead? I don't think so. I just think he has a totally different view of government. He sees his role as approaching that of a dictator -- he demands, he pitches a tantrum, and he gets what he wants. He demands Obamacare, and he gets it -- no matter what unscrupulous methods are required. Now, someone threatens to take it away, and "You can't do that. I'm the president. I won the election." Unfortunately, there are those on the left who will accept, even embrace, a dictatorship, in order to get what they want. Dictatorship? Of course not. But his efforts to expand his own power are substantial -- while talking about "unelected" officials like Supreme Court justices, he failed to mention "unelected" officials like Kathleen Sebelius.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (650327)	4/4/2012 7:12:47 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

Ted, > Obama understands what judicial review is......... Exactly. Which makes Obama's remarks all the more dishonest and self-serving. How so? And what about Scalia's dishonsty? Why do you choose that interesting tidbit?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (650327)	4/4/2012 7:21:45 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

'I find all of this a bit incredible' By Steve Benen - Wed Apr 4, 2012 12:43 PM EDT We talked earlier about Judge Jerry Smith, a Republican appointee on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, throwing a bizarre political tantrum on the bench yesterday, assigning childish homework to the Justice Department. TPM noted that "even conservatives are concerned that the circuit court judges stepped out of bounds Tuesday -- and made Obama's point about judicial overreach for him." Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, put it this way: "I find all of this a bit incredible." Prof. Fitzpatrick, you're not the only one. Even some on Fox News think Smith went too far. It's worth remembering, though, the irony of the underlying criticism here. Judge Smith, like other Republican players this week, has been trying to make the case that President Obama is "attacking" the federal judiciary. He's not, but that's the GOP's new talking point. Smith isn't sure if Obama even supports the concept of judicial review. The irony, as Jonathan Bernstein explained, is that "a major plank in the GOP platform for the last few years has been to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over entire areas of federal law." Newt Gingrich is making this a major portion of his campaign right now. Another onetime major presidential candidate, Rick Perry, has vowed to disregard negative Supreme Court rulings. [...] In other words, there really is a current problem with one political party promoting radical actions to destroy judicial review, and it isn't the president's party. When Obama threatens to ignore a negative ruling from the court or to include (as Gingrich says he would) an "exclusionary" clause in bills in order to supposedly make them non-judiciable -- neither of which have happened yet -- then we have something to talk about. Quite right. In fact, we can go even further with this. My friend Kyle Mantyla highlighted President George W. Bush's remarks to the Federalist Society in 2007, and the Republican's warning that unelected judges legislating from the bench represented a "threat to our democracy." "When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government's powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital role in our free society. Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities -- and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others. "For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy -- and it needs to stop." Given Obama's mild nudge this week, do Republicans now consider this an "attack" on an independent judiciary, and evidence of Bush's autocratic tendencies? Indeed, throughout the Bush era, Republican leaders threatened to undermine the power of the federal courts. In one jarring instance, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) went so far as to say judges who are the victims of violence may bring the attacks onto themselves with liberal rulings. Remind me, were there center-left appeals court judges assigning Republicans homework assignment at the time?