Posts Tagged ‘Appeals Court’

Radical Obama Smacked Down Even By ÜberLiberal 9th Circuit Court Over Arizona Voter Law

April 18, 2012

For a “constitutional law professor,” Barack Obama sure doesn’t seem to have the first freaking clue about the Constitution.  Maybe his expertise is in shariah law or something???

When even the most liberal court in the entire nation (conservatives don’t call it the 9th Circus Court for nothing) tells a liberal president and his attorney general he doesn’t have a leg to stand on, I’d call that a smackdown.

BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Upholds Most of Arizona Voter ID Law
By John Hill on April 17, 2012in Blog, News

In a ruling which demonstrated just how radical is the Obama Administration’s opposition to Voter ID laws, the very liberal U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Arizona’s voter-approved 2004 law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before receiving a ballot – a big victory in the battle against voter fraud in the runup to the November elections.

The Appeals Court mostly shot down the challenges to the law, which had itself been upheld in Arizona U.S. District Court. Arizona can demand to see certain forms of identification that proves citizenship, the court ruled.

And if someone doesn’t have those forms of ID, paying the fees to obtain the ID isn’t the same as a “poll tax.

However, the court also ruled that Arizona must not refuse federal voter registration forms, which work on the honor system by asking applicants to check a box indicating whether they’re U.S. citizens. Arizona can’t replace that form with its form that requires proof of citizenship, the court ruled. This is a remnant of the ultra-flawed National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“Motor Voter Act”), which SWA has urged Congress to modify in future legislation.

But overall, the ruling is a major victory for Arizona voters, who overwhelmingly approved the law, and for Americans who support Voter ID laws with 73% support, according to a poll published just yesterday. And it may also be a preview of defeats yet to come for the Obama Administration’s block of state Voter Id laws. including in Texas and South Carolina. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have tried to pretend that the Supreme Court never ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) , which upheld photo ID requirements for voting. But they are destined to lose big when the Texas and S.C. challenges get to the Federal courts.

Left-wing groups, including Chicanos Por la Causa, League of Women Voters, ACLU and Arizona’s patron saint of illegal aliens, Sen. Steve Gallardo had all filed suit, among others. The plaintiffs in the case “did not prove that the ability of Hispanics to participate in the political process was lessened somehow because of the law”, the Ninth found.

Judge Johnnie Rawlinson dissented, finding that Arizona could reject federal voter registration forms in place of its own form. Judge Harry Pregerson also dissented, but for a different reason. He believes the polling-place ID provision discriminates against Hispanics. The plaintiffs may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For the official damn record, MEXICO REQUIRES VOTER ID!!!

Mexico’s national voter IDs part of culture
By David Agren, Special for USA TODAYUpdated 1/25/2012 1:18 AM

MEXICO CITY – Office worker Ana Martínez lined up at 7 a.m. on a recent Sunday to renew her voter credential, a document required at a polling station to vote.

But voting was not the main reason she was getting it. The free photo ID issued by the Federal Electoral Institute had become the accepted way to prove one’s identity — and is a one-card way to open a bank account, board an airplane and buy beer.

Voting was almost an afterthought to Martínez.

“They ask for it everywhere,” she said. “It’s very difficult to live without it.”

National IDs for voting, or proving citizenship, is an idea that is being floated in the United States to crack down on voter fraud, illegal immigration and foreign terrorists.

Proponents, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say it is an efficient way to verify identities and prevent crime. Opponents, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, describe it as an invasion of privacy. Minority advocacy groups have even alleged that the cards would frighten minorities going to the polls.

But Mexico has not seen many problems with its card, and national identity cards have been issued for years in France, Poland, Singapore, Brazil, to prove citizenship.

Because so many Americans drive, we actually have something rather similar; it’s called a “driver’s license.”  And I get asked for mine all the time.  Except when I vote when it’s apparently immoral to have to show one.

If the Hispanics that liberals are alledgedly bitching on behalf of returned to their native countries, their countries and the Hispanics who govern them would require them to produce ID in order to vote.  The people who oppose this law do so for no other reason than that they know that if they can’t cheat they can’t win.  And to label those who simply want integrity in the voting system “racists” is the act of a bunch of rat bastards.

It’s like I keep saying: Democrats are bad people who want to have a free hand in lying and cheating.

Congratulations, Arizona.  You stuck up to a tyrant and you won.

All the dang things I’ve got to show my ID for – particularly given the fact that according to the law we are supposed to carry our IDs with us wherever we go – and it’s really quite a mystery why one shouldn’t have ID in order to do something as important and as easy to commit fraud in as voting.

Meanwhile Wisconsin has a bunch of little rodents for judges so they can play games with the SAME DAMN BASIC VOTER ID LAW that even the 9th Court of Appeals said is fine.  Just so they can do everything possible to cheat Governor Scott Walker out of re-election.  Because THIS is the kind of judges who are doing everything they can to use the law as a liberal-fascist weapon against conservatives.

Advertisements

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

April 5, 2012

First of all, I have previously written – at length – that Barack Obama is a fascist.  I hope more people will believe me now.

In that article, I begin by correcting the historical fabrication that “fascism” was somehow “right-wing.”  It was most certainly NOT.  Hitler and his Nazism was on the far right of the radical far LEFT.  Fascism was a rival brand of socialism along with communism; and the war between the fascist Nazis and the communist Marxists was akin to a war between Pepsi and Coke or between Bratz dolls and Barbie dolls.

Then I start ticking off examples of fascist things Obama has pulled off.  And of course I just go on and on because there’s just so much.   Obama is a spurting firehose of fascism.

Even given the fact that “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” is a loooong article, there are current examples galore: for example there is the recent “hot mic” moment in which Obama reveals he is a Quisling just waiting to betray America when he doesn’t have to be accountable to voters during his second term (and see also here).  There was the issue of ObamaCare and all the lies that went into selling it to the American people and all the terrible developments that have come out since such as the SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR FUNDING GAP and the fact that up to 20 million workers will lose their employee-based coverage and be thrown into an inferior healthcare system.  And then there is the issue of the headline above, of course.

When Obama demonized the Supreme Court and the separation of powers Monday, he was merely continuing to reveal his contempt at the Constitution and the founding fathers who wrote it, such as when he said:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot.”

And so it’s really no surprise that Obama would say to the Supreme Court the moment it revealed it might not support his fascist messiahship, “OUT, damn spot!”

It’s just so much easier for an Obama to “fundamentally transform America” when Hitler is the government and the government is Hitler, isn’t it?

Appeals Court Calls President’s Bluff on Obamacare
Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012 08:17 PM
By David A. Patten

President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.

On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.

He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.

“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”

The order from the 5th Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.

As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the 5th Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.

The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws.

“Clearly, Jerry Smith was upset by the president’s remarks and he has every right to demand clarification,” judicial expert Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice told Newsmax. “Obviously, he’s making a point as well as requesting clarification.

“But the president left himself open to that,” Levey added. “Of course the president doesn’t really believe the Supreme Court can’t strike down unconstitutional laws. But if the president’s going to say things like that to demagogue, then he is responsible for them.”

Many observers saw the president’s remarks as a clumsy attempt to “work the refs” and influence the court’s decision on his healthcare reforms. His challenge to the independent judiciary branch of government provoked widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle Tuesday.

“For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice,” wrote Washington Post correspondent Ruth Marcus, who has been a staunch defender of the president’s policies.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, published a pointed editorial taking the president to task.

“Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law,” it stated. “As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama’s inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.”

By upping the ante, the 5th Circuit focuses more attention on a misstep that the administration would prefer go unnoticed. The president came under attack from the left and right Tuesday over what looked like a blatant attempt to intimidate the court and influence its verdict. He quickly backed off from his challenge to the judiciary, however.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected legislature.”

Obama went on to assert that overturning congressional legislation was so extraordinary that the burden of proof would be on those who felt it could be unconstitutional.

That view, however, appeared to be at odds with the position of the key swing vote in the case, however: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional,” Justice Kennedy said to U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli on the second day of oral arguments last week. “But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

[For the record, I added the link to the WSJ article.]

CBS begins its piece on this “unprecedented” fascism by Obama as follows:

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. 

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would 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.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

As the CBS piece points out, the heart of Obama’s “case” is simply purely dishonest – and Obama has the law degree to document that he’s a lying fool rather than just an ordinary fool.

And, on the “lying fool” thesis, let me further point out that this ObamaCare law – as dreadful and harmful to America as it is – would almost certainly have been declared constitutional had it not been for pathological deceit by Obama.  An LA Times piece, even while being written from a decidedly liberal perspective, backs up that contention:

In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. “I absolutely reject that notion,” he responded.

But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his healthcare law might not be in such a mess today.

At the Supreme Court this week, both sides basically agreed that the Constitution allows the federal government to enact a national health insurance plan — even a government-run single-payer plan. (That, after all, is pretty much what Medicare is.) And both sides agreed that the Constitution allows the government to levy taxes to help pay for that health insurance. (We all pay a Medicare tax.)

But that’s not how Obama and the Democrats wrote their healthcare law. Instead, to avoid the stigma of the word “tax,” they included a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

It turns out that was a big mistake. As we now know, there’s one thing Americans hate even more than taxes, and that’s being ordered around by their government.

Even the left have widely panned Obama’s incredibly harsh remarks directed at the Supreme Court as untrue.  The reliably leftist LA Times editorial board affirmed that “There are several things wrong with the president’s remark.”

And then, the following day, when Obama allegedly tried to “walk back” his remark, he said more things that were untrue.  He tried to say that there hadn’t been a law struck down on economic issues since the New Deal days; that was a lie and Obama has the law credentials to know it is a lie: In 1999, in States v. Morrison and in 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down laws that had been passed by Congress using an unconstitutionally-overly-broad usage of commerce clause as justification.  It hasn’t been that long since the Court exercised its Marbury powers which it has affirmed since 1803, and it isn’t that unusual.

Justice Kennedy rightly called that out in the first day of oral arguments before the SCOTUS.  Justice Kennedy said that today (Monday) Obama’s mouthpiece is arguing that the mandate is not a tax.  Tomorrow (Tuesday) the same Obama mouthpiece is going to come back to the same courtroom on the same case and argue the exact opposite thing from what he’d argued the day before.  And excuse me for pointing out what a collection of lying fascist fools you people are.

The same swing-vote (Kennedy) also affirmed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

And Justice Scalia pointed out that ObamaCare forced people to buy a product simply so the government could call it “commerce” and regulate it.  Justice Scalia said to the Obama lawyer’s examples, THOSE cases dealt with commerce; THIS case deals with people who HAVEN’T participated in commerce – people without insurance.  You’re going to force millions of Americans to buy something they haven’t bought just so you can then turn around and regulate them.  And if they don’t you’re going to hit them with a penalty you call a tax but only when it’s convenient to you to call it whatever you’re calling it at any given time.

I point out at the beginning of my above article re: Scalia that liberals as a species simply aren’t capable of listening and engaging in the other side’s arguments; they simply either want to shout and chant over you or declare you politically incorrect persona non grata.  And so when oral arguments began arguments that they could have heard and tried to counter for two years came as a complete shock to them – because they had never bothered to actually listen to us or engage with us – like the quintessential fascists that they are.  And the result was that the fascist left was shocked and panicked as they watched their government takeover of one-fifth of the American economy begin to go up in smoke.  Hence Obama’s unhinged statements denouncing the Supreme Court before it had even made its decision and certainly before any grounds for that decision had been provided.

My challenge for those who want to minimize Obama’s incredible words on Monday which followed his public attack on the Supreme Court at a State of the Union address is to find George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan doing anything like that and disrespecting the Supreme Court – a coequal branch of government – that way in such a public forum.

ObamaCare Ruled Unconstitutional Again, This Time By Federal Appeals Court

August 12, 2011

Here’s the great news of the day: ObamaCare is unconstitutional, which is to say it violates the Constitution of the United States, which is to say it is un-American.

I pointed out – and documented at length – some time back that Democrats couldn’t care less about the Constitution of the United States of America.

And the “Constitutional scholar” president is at the head of the list of Democrats who have been using the Constitution like toilet paper.

Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement
By Greg Bluestein
Associated Press / August 12, 2011

ATLANTA (AP) – A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people’s rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a “quintessential” power.

The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that “the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power.”

“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said.

Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.

The 11th Circuit isn’t the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government’s new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.

But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ coverage.

The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson’s ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that “would imperil individual liberty, render Congress’s other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states.”

The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its “quintessential” rights when it adopted the new law.

During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.

The arguments unfolded in what’s considered one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.

Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he’s been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter’s outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.

Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami’s lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.

Obama lied, health care died.

I also just this morning wrote about the pathological dishonesty of Barack Obama with his health care takeover, having no idea whatsoever that view was about to be further confirmed today.

Here’s yet another major demonstration of Barack Obama’s personal and professional dishonesty:

ObamaCare’s Mandate Is Not A Tax, Except When It Is
By David Hogberg   
Thu., June 17, 2010 2:06 PM ET

The Obama administration has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from 20 states opposing ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance.

According to Obama’s Justice Department, the individual mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority.” (The National Federation of Independent Businesses has more here.)

President Obama insisted repeatedly during the health care debate that the individual mandate is “absolutely” not a tax increase.

More broadly, the administration’s legal position could create a big political problem. Back on Sept. 12, 2008, Obama said:

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

On multiple occasions Obama promised, “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

Some argue that Obama already violated that pledge when he signed the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan bill that boosted cigarette taxes. And that may, indeed, be the case.

But the individual mandate “tax” hits almost everyone and gives people no choice.

If the administration continues with its legal position, Obama is admitting he’s violated his tax pledge, giving political fodder to Republicans. But if he stops the DOJ, that weakens the case for an individual mandate, a critical part of ObamaCare.

Maintaining a campaign pledge vs. ramming through the transformation of American society? That’s a no-brainer for this president.

An update to that article: it’s not “20 states” any more.  At least 38 states have tried to protect themselves from the ravages of this anti-American takeover of the health care system.

What did Obama say in what turns out to have been his “read my lips” moment re: ObamaCare?

(AP) President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

[…]

He told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he will keep his pledge not to raise taxes on families earning up to $250,000, and that much of the final bill – hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years – can be achieved from savings within the current system. Coming up with the rest remains a key legislative obstacle.

And now there is no question that if ObamaCare ISN’T A TAX – which would make Barack Obama a documented liar when he publicly said it wasn’t – that it is a clearly unconstitutional takeover.

Obama didn’t just lie about this central element of his ObamaCare.  He’s lied over and over and over again.  And even Obama’s own fellow DEMOCRATS have recognized that Obama has lied about ObamaCare.

Either way, the man stinking up the Oval Office is the most dishonest and profoundly anti-American president in this once great nation’s entire history.

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola – whose previous ruling that ObamaCare was inherently unconstitutional was cited and reaffirmed today – explained why ObamaCare was unconstitutional and un-American in terms such as these:

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

By the way, DEMOCRATS as a species are now documented liars.  Here’s now DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz just telling flat-out LIES about ObamaCare.  If Democrats want to have any integrity whatsoever, they could start by throwing out this nasty demagogue liar.