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.”
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a “challenge” to judicial authority — referring directly to Obama’s latest comments about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.
“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?” Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered “yes” to that question.
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was “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 has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority,” Smith said. “And that’s not a small matter.”
Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of “no less than three pages, single spaced” by noon on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
The Court has no business discussing something that the President says outside of the court, particularly on a political issue. The overall question was settled in the early 1800s and it has become the basis of our legal system (note that in the original British system, the constitutionality of a law wasn’t subject to being questioned by the judiciary – judicial review on constitutional grounds is an American “hiddush”).
President challenging supreme court, that’s unprecidented,
Impeachment though isn’t!
You would think that someone as “bright” as his excellency who taught constitutional law would know that there are three branches of governmant. For those that are not as bright as they would lead us to believe I’ll say it again Barak, three equal branches. Exactly how did you teach that chapter to your law students? How did you explain that the Supreme Court has ruled 150 times in our history that certain laws were unconstitutional and overturned them? Are you trying to intimidate them? Thank G-D they are not your puppets (at least those other than Ginsburg, Sotomayur and Kagen) and will rule as they see fit.
“akuperma” is right…”a jew” is ignorant…”avi732″ is woefully ignorant.
and Yonason is up a creek without a paddle.
Akuperma doesn’t understand the import of the Court’s ruling. Bush signed two bills into Law and then said he wouldn’t abide by them. Those are grounds for impeachemnt. The present Adminstration has already “trampleed” provisions of theffirst admendment by stating the “right ” to health care -0 which is not specified in the Constitution takes precedent over the right to ones religion- which is specified. They have also pushed aside the establishment clause by defining what is a “religous function” and what isn’t. By publicly stating tha tthe Supreme Court can’t strike down a “passed law”- in line with Avi732’s statemetn- then the lower court is seeking to stave off this Administrations dissolutiio
n of the American contstituion.
YonasonW, care to explain my ignorance?