WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

An Appeals Court Judge catches Obama Adm. lawyer off guard

Talk about fascinating twists in the showdown over the President's health-care overhaul and President Obama's recent warning to the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Obama Administration was to respond today to an Appeals Court judge's question: Does the President concede the Federal courts can strike down Federal laws?


Meanwhile, a Northwestern University law professor I've interviewed introduces an interesting legal parallel to the Supreme Court's review of the the President's health-care reform: The 1918 Supreme Court decision thwarting Congress' attempt to restrict the use of child labor...


Posted at 8:13am on April 5, 2012 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 10:38am
So if Obama were to reply that he does not concede the Federal courts can strike down Federal laws?

what does it matter to the judge?


Thu, Apr 5, 2012 12:08pm

The facts and unique points of law are irrelevant.

The Obama appointees (Kagan, Sotomayor) and the liberal justices (Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg, etc...) will toe the party line.

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 12:30pm
Mr. Obama's contempt for the Constitution and the Judicial system, by itself, make him unfit to hold the office he currently holds.

I recall a member of congress, during the past year, saying on tv that the 3 branches of government are "the president, the Senate and the House." That is the mind-set of the liberals. Unless the Courts are ruling in their favor, they hold the legal system to be beneath them.

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 12:53pm
Whoa, JimH... this is not a problem of the "liberal mind-set". This is hypocrisy of which both sides are guilty. There have been plenty of times conservatives have also railed against the "unelected judges" who "legislate from the bench". The problem isn't the judges, per se. It's the people who disagree with their rulings. When judges come down on the side of an argument people agree with, they hail the judges as "upholding the spirit and letter of the Constitution". When they come down on the opposite side, they're "legislating from the bench." I reiterate: BOTH sides are guilty of this, not just liberals. I'll dig up some examples if you like, but you know it's true.

You can't have it both ways, folks... sometimes you're not going to like a judge's ruling. That doesn't necessarily mean the judge is overstepping or incompetent. Sometimes it really means that you're on the wrong side of a Constitutional argument.

Thu, Apr 5, 2012 3:22pm
JimH: VP Biden referenced the same 3 "branches of government"...but once again he got a pass. Good ol' Joe.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Apr 5, 2012 11:32pm
Allan: feel free to move this to your Friday/Weekend open forum, but this is a story about a black youth beating up an old white man aged 78 in Teledo. Will it be labeled a hate crime?


Thu, Apr 5, 2012 11:35pm
Shawn: Which party is currently in the white house and in control of the senate?

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 12:52am
This proves everything I've been saying all along about Obama. He's no different from a third world dictator who thinks he's above the law and can flip his middle finger to both the American people and the court system. I applaud this judge for putting him in his place for once.

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 8:48am
mrpizza: I don't follow you. That's like saying that, while Republicans were in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats never did anything wrong. We know that's not the case... so what are you trying to say?

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 10:52am
There is a reason why our nation has a 3-headed government (legislative, executive and judicial)...John Adams pushed for this form of government to ensure a "self-repairing" system.

Our current leader of the Executive branch is ignoring the other two branches and attempting to remove/over-rule their powers. Congress has been ignored and weakened, so now the attack is on to the Judicial branch.

With the Executive branch acting alone in charge, that is a dictatorship.

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 4:22pm
@Earl: I'm not saying you're wrong... but what exactly has he done to "ignore" or "remove/over-rule" the powers of the other 3 branches? Specific examples, please? And keep in mind, his predecesor did the same. Admittedly, in his case, Congress LET him do it through the Patriot Act. But still, Bush 43 granted himself all kinds of new powers that the founding fathers never intended or desired for the president.

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 5:14pm
Shawn: It's just that anytime any of us point out things about liberals that you immediately feel you have to defend them by saying that conservatives are guilty too. You imply that we think conservatives are spotless, which is obviously not the case.

Because liberals control the white house and the senate, conservatives at this time have no say so in anything so at least in my mind the bulk of the blame belongs to the party in power.

Fri, Apr 6, 2012 5:19pm
Shawn: Just wanted to add regarding your comment to Earl Grey that we're not particularly happy with everything Bush did either. The difference is that Bush didn't go on TV and act high and mighty and thumb his nose at people he didn't agree with. Obama has a lack of class in that area.

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Apr 6, 2012 10:38pm
Mrpizza: I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your last post. I used to cringe every time Bush Jr. would go on TV and with his arrogant manner essentially saying that if you don't agree with us, then you are unpatriotic, or the enemy, etc. Obama, to my ear, hasn't come across high and mighty, but seems to have more of the professorial thing going which could put off some folks (especially Republicans); but Bush Jr. was an arrogant jerk and an embarrassment to watch and listen to as he took the world from being in our corner after 9/11 and turned most of the world against us with that arrogant, definitely not humble attitude.

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 12:13am
Shawn: I'm not a fan of Bush either...TARP, No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, and too many other big government-type programs to list.

But when Bush went to war with Iraq, he had Congressional approval...Obama did not when he involved our country in Libya (even Dennis Kucinich called him out on that).

Obama has used the EPA to "regulate" when he could not "legislate".
"The EPA is using the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a vehicle for its new cap-and-trade (or “cap-and-tax”) regulations."

And, I have never seen a POTUS attempt to "demonize" the SCOTUS before...Alinsky would be so proud of him.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 10:07am
EarlGrey: Well said on both Bush Jr. and Obama.

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 11:21am
MFD and Shawn: You both know I love ya anyway, don't ya?

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 6:06pm
Mrpizza: No problem from my end. Hey, no one totally agrees with someone else 100% of the time, unless they just choose to no have any opinion and follow what the other person is saying. There are times where you and I will agree, other times not so much, but that's where all of us here have an opportunity to grow and learn. Quite often any or all of you guys will post something that challenges how I've looked at an issue. Sometimes it causes me to re-evaluate and possibly change my stance or at least modify it a bit. Other times no, but this would be one boring blog place if all of us agreed totally 100% of the time.

That's one reason why I listen to both NPR, Al Massitti, and conservative shows like Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, sometimes Rush, read Drudge and Huffington to see both sides of an issue. It bothers me greatly that so many folks on both sides of the isle ONLY listen, read, or watch those stations, channels, print, etc, that agrees with them (those folks who only watch Fox, listen to Rush, read Drudge miss out on the other sides point of view). Just as folks who only watch MSNBC, listen to a Randi Rhodes or Al Massitti, and only read Huffington Post only get one side and miss what the side thinks.

Neither side is wrong all the time. That's what I truly hate about Rush/Hannity/Beck/Jensen's shows. Al will give the GOP praise when he agrees with them, granted it isn't often, but far more often than those other guys ever agree with the DEMS. That makes them GOP preacher, not talk show hosts. So the well informed voter should listen to both sides and make up their own mind.

So because most of us here are thinkers who do look at the issues, it is to be expected that we'll not see eye to eye on all issues. Thankfully we live in a nation where that is possible.

Sat, Apr 7, 2012 9:27pm
MFD: Thanks for your perspective. Every now and then, I just feel the need for us to reaffirm that we're not against each other.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Apr 7, 2012 10:52pm
Mrpizza: That's not a bad idea. I wish the people in Washington would do that. You may be on to something. Just because folks disagree doesn't mean they are against the other person, they just see the problem from a different perspective thus giving them a different solution.

Thanks for the reminder.

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach