|
 |
Mail Magazine 24...
Holder’s Letter to
Judges Ignores the Issue
by Cully Stimson
Instead of responding to the 5th Circuit Court’s explicit request
regarding President Obama’s untoward comments about the Supreme Court’s
power to overturn congressional statutes, Attorney General Eric Holder
sent the judges a law student-level brief on the propriety of judicial
review. The letter intentionally ignored the judge’s main question,
which was, in essence: does the Department of Justice and the Attorney
General of the United States agree with the comments by the President
of the United States? The letter focused almost exclusively on the
deference courts must pay to acts of Congress. As such, the
Department’s response will only make matters worse for the
administration, as this issue will now remain in the public spotlight
for some time.
Recall that on Monday of this week, in a Rose Garden press conference,
President Obama was asked about the prospect of the Supreme Court
overturning his signature legislative achievement, Obamacare. The
President said, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take
what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law
that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected
congress.” He went on to express confidence that “an unelected group of
people” would not “overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” The
not-so-subtle inference being that the Supreme Court did not have the
authority to overturn a law that was passed by Congress.
It is clearly improper (and unprecedented) for the President of the
United States, while a case is pending before the high court, to
comment on the litigation in the manner in which President Obama did.
This is especially true where, as is the case here, the United States
is a party to the litigation. The President’s comments were designed to
intimidate members of the high court to vote the “right way,” and/or to
incite public opinion if the Court rules in a manner that displeases
the President.
Judicial activism is not when courts exercise their constitutional
responsibility to overturn statutes that clearly violate the
constitution. Rather, judicial activism is when courts ignore the
constitution and instead rule on cases based on their policy
preferences.
The three days of oral arguments in the Obamacare case last week
demonstrated that there are serious constitutional concerns with
Obamacare, most notably the individual mandate. Whether the federal
government has the power under the commerce clause to regulate
inactivity by ordering everyone to purchase a private product
(insurance) and penalize you if you don’t is a legitimate
constitutional question. The fact that the administration was not able
to provide the high court with any limiting principle to their broad
claims of constitutionality has left Obamacare vulnerable to being
overturned, and the administration on the defense.
Unfortunately, Holder’s letter, rather than putting the issue to
rest—which would have required them to acknowledge that the President
“misspoke”—makes matters worse, and is further indication that the
administration realizes that Obamacare may well be found
unconstitutional.
Source: blog.heritage.org
Read the court’s explicit request from CBS News
Read Atty. General Holder’s letter in response to the request by
clicking here
Read this and other articles at Mail Magazine 24
|
|
|
|
