File under cruising for a bruising Eric Holder’s DOJ Response to 5th Circuit on Authority of the Supreme Court


Commentary by Jim Campbell
It seriously looks like this administration is daring the Supreme Court to kick ObamaCare to the curb.  If not, why the senseless diatribe by Holder below?
Only in the twisted minds of the alleged Constitutional Law Professor would an equally clueless Eric Holder, Obama’s DOJ and racist hit man be unaware of the meaning of Marberry v Madison. Lest we forget we get the government we deserve keep being among the uneducated and you will continue to vote for the takers rather the givers whose goal is the destruction of America.

Please don’t miss: Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law Professor, Constitutional Law Scholar & President Barack Obama Mentor Says That Obama Misspoke Regarding Comments About SCOTUS

Perhaps a break is in order here, if thy can’t spell can’t spell Marbwy v. Madison perhaps they never read it.  Remember, it was globalist Kagan as Dean of Harvard Law school removed U.S. Constitutional Law a required course.  She replaced the study of the US Constitution with 3 separate courses on international law believing the Law Students would be better served.  Better served if the student will be pleading the cases of the New World Order.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

Below is the full letter signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, requested by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals following comments made by President Obama calling the DOJ’s stance into question.

Judge Jerry E. Smith
Judge Emilio M. Garza
Judge Leslie H. Southwick
c/o Mr. Lyle W. Cayce

April 5, 2012
Clerk, United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
600 S. Maestri Place
ew Orleans, LA 70130
RE: Phvsician Hospitals o[America v. Sebelius. No. 11-40631

Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick:

This Court's letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-4063 1. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Department of Justice regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.


The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.

The government's brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plaintiffs' constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. ofthe United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs' constitutional claims if the Cour1 were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government's brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

1. The power of the courts to review the constitutional ity of legislation is beyond dispute. See generally, e.g. , Free Ente1prise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130 S. Ct. 3138 (20 10); FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993). The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803). In that case, Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2012 the Court held that " [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177.

The Supreme Court has further explained that this power may only be exercised in appropriate cases. “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.” Daim/erChJys/er C01p. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006); see, e.g., Weinberger v. Sa/fi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-766 (1975) (addressing a statutory bar to jurisdiction). In the case before this Court – Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebe/ius, o. 11-40631 -we have argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 15-38.

Where a plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of a court and presents a justiciable challenge, there is no dispute that courts properly review the constitutionality of Acts of Congress.

2. In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Court stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S. 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221, 346 U.S. at 449. In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 , 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15.

3. While duly recognizing the courts’ authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. See, e.g. , Nature ‘s Daily. v. Glickman, 1999 WL 158 1396, at *6; State University of New York v. Anderson, 1999 WL 680463, at *6; Rojas v. Fitch, 1998 WL 457203, at *7; United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 75i v. Brown Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6. The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches’ policy choices and judgments. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) (explaining that, in granting relief, the courts ‘·try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary” because they recognize that’” [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people’”(alteration in the original) (quoting Regan v. Time, inc. , 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion))); Turner Broadcasting System, inc., 512 U.S. at 665-66. The “Court accords ‘ great The “Court accords ‘ great weight to the decisions of Congress”‘ in part because “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,64 (1981) (quoting Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102 (1973)). These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The courts accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends. See, e.g. , NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937); McCulloch v. Matyland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 408 (1819). See also Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 566 (6th Cir. 20 11) (Opinion of Sutton, J.); Seven Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 18-19 (D.C. Cir. 201 1) (Opinion of Silberman, J .)

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]

Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General

Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

About these ads

13 responses to “File under cruising for a bruising Eric Holder’s DOJ Response to 5th Circuit on Authority of the Supreme Court

  1. Unbelievable…wasn’t the little weasel backing off the statements yesterday????I pray they strike it down and then open all cases tinged by Commerce Clause for review…can they do such a thing????

  2. Holder and Obama got spanked. Nice to see he did indeed follow the judges orders and did write the letter. This may further prove that the deathcare bill is unconstitutional and every American should fear that if not proven this way we are in a big world of trouble.

  3. The Supreme Court will strike it down, failing to do so a new Congress and President will get the job done, they do not rule us, if need be a Second U.S. would have a clensing effect on the tyrants that wrongfully believe they are their masters and we are but serfs. J.C.

  4. A revolution of some sort is on its way!

  5. What is wrong with you people? Your so blinded by your hatred for Obama you can’t see the 5th circuit abused its jurisdiction??? Wake up! The DOJ letter was being nice saying “Look, we’ll answer, but ya don’t have jurisdiction to ask us that question as thats not even part of the case or controversy and ya got no biz even expounding on the law in that area and the supreme court said so!” I’m not voting for Obama either but the 5th circuit hasn’t even answered whether they have jurisdiction over the currwnt case and the idiot judges are chasing an irrevalant butterfly like a senial old dog! Whose being the political demogog? The freakin Court!

  6. mr_bad_example

    looks like ol’ billy boy has his tin foil wrapped too tight :-P

  7. mr_bad_example

    i find it humorous to see towards the end of those 3 pages of insane blather… “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

    if that were true, obama would be occupying a cell for life in fort leavenworth right now and not playing golf somewhere.

  8. It’s obvious that whatever decision the Supreme Court made on ObamaCare last Friday, it is driving the action of the Regime in its little politically inspired and thoroughly pre-planned tantrum against the 5 actual Justices.
    IF the preliminary SC decision was to find the mandate unconstitutional and at the same time throw out the entire law, Obama is clearly setting up a campaign backlash against the 5 Justices with a mind to discrediting the Court itself. He will naturally use the verdict to stir up his leftist forces and especially blacks as he will claim “the chirrun” are to be denied the quality healthcare provided to Whitey and Whitey’s kids. The point of course, to get increasingly disinterested blacks to the polls with the same vigor they had in 2008.

    IF the preliminary ruling was in Favor of ObamaCare, Obama is playing the tough guy, hard-nosed advocate for the purpose of claiming the Court actually ruled in his favor because he FORCED them to by both shaming them and intimidating them. He would be trying to get across the claim that he was SOOOOOO wonderful, so magnetic, such a thorough leader and near Demi-God that even the Supreme Court must bow to his wishes!

    Naturally, either way he wins something, whether it’s stirring up black voters or presenting the image of Godhood!

    Just imagine the sort of devious, shameless thug does it take to do these things!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. I c ant wait to see him in jail before Nov.. come ISSA go get him…

  10. hipshotpercusion

    Some moron(billy boy)always pulls the race card out of the crooked deck. I guess you think its alright for O-Bozo and his Poofter Boy holder to use OUR Constitution for toilet paper.

  11. Holder is the highest justice official in the country who has lied under oath many times and been in contempt of court for stonewalling and refusing to cooperate with the senate committee- Stimulus money was used to give guns to the Zeta Mexican Drug cartel- YET NO ONE will go to jail for these crimes because the news-media refuse to report anything about Obama’s entire past criminal history and covers up his crimes- such as his FORGED birth certificate & multiple SSN’s used in real estate scams- The American NEWS-MEDIA BLACKOUT on Obama’s past criminal history is UNFORGIVEABLE- shame on Holder & Obama for pretending to be decent men-

  12. Please, don’t try to tell me that little bit of copyright “diatribe” covered 3 pages, single-spaced. His typist must have left 10 spaces between paragraphs!

  13. harryorielly- -They are NOT men – -they are weasels; no insult to weasels intended!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s