In Which I Unload On The Other Two Branches Of Government For A Change

Print This Post

30 Responses

  1. Damon says:

    "Mind the dignity of your offices, if you would."


  2. Shawn says:

    I for one am waiting eagerly for the 'homework' assignment. I would like to see how a DoJ Lawyer justifies those clearly unconstitutional statements by the President. Also I would like to see how they can justify letting Obamacare stand as law…

  3. Both reprimands are most appropriate, though the "unprecedented" line by the President has the added offense of being an intentional effort to misinform the public. I'd say the precedent for judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, is, uh, precedent, not to mention SCOTUS's rejection of things like the line-item veto. Unless, of course, the supposed constitutional law expert has no idea what he's talking about. That can't be, can it?

  4. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    The offices only posses what dignity is brought to them by their holders.

    And jug-ears never had much, in my book.

  5. jetaz says:

    While "unjudicial, unprofessional, and an embarrassment to the rule of law" it is still funny.

  6. Christoph says:

    Ken, you're being unfair to President Obama.

    There's a lot of things I can stand, but that is not one of them. I really really hope you're just fooling me and this is another one of your April Fools jokes, but a little late. Because I don't want to have to get mad at you about this.

    Pardon me, Mr. President, but kindly think this thing through before you talk, or shut the fuck up. This is incoherent.

    President Obama was only the Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a university professor teaching constitutional law. You can't expect him to understand all these pesky little details about things unrelated to what he's done in his life.

  7. jess says:

    The fact the judicial branch is not technically "elected" I would think is rather a good thing – so they need not pander to which way the political winds are blowing. A problem that currently both the Executive and Legislative branches have to deal with – the same ones who have been eroding our rights and making a mockery of the Constitution since 9-11 (if not well before that). The TSA and Obamacare are prime examples. The Nanny State exists not just because of these two branches of government but because the majority of citizens who put them in office are too thick to understand facts versus political rhetoric. They’re happy to give up not only their rights but everyone else’s as well in pursuit of an impossible socialistic dream where they will always be protected and taken care of without having to lift a finger to do it themselves.

  8. Xenocles says:

    Do whores have dignity?

  9. Glenn says:

    Well said! All too often the President fails to keep his role as an elected leader distinct from his role as a politician and this, to me, was the classic example of that flaw. As to the Judge, he has, with this silly exercise, become the poster boy for those who forget that "Judges are appointed not annointed"

  10. IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award says:

    >>> Do whores have dignity?

    LOL, you try sassing a streetwalker, and see if you don't get a heavy purse upside your head, me boyo. :D

    Sorry, Ken, I grant you that the judge did not — could not — direct his pique against the cause of it, but President Downgrade is SOooo FAR beyond the right side of this that I can grasp why the judge would express that against an individual under The Great Big 0's nominal control. TGB0's comments are blantantly wrong on so many factual levels — including ones which clearly he "ought" to know better as a supposed "professor of Constitutional Law" that it's not even funny. It marks TGB0 as, once more, either a lying sack of bovine excreta or an unimaginable incompetent.

    Ergo — I thought it was a very amusing and particularly apt way to send a message to TGB0 on the judges part. Sending them off to write a 3-page essay on how the court is supposed to function under the Constitution is akin to telling them that their answers were so bad that they should be treated like school children again. And since he could not do that to TGB0, he did it to someone working under his aegis.

  11. rmv says:

    @ Xenocles

    "Do whores have dignity?"
    Real whores? Yes, because I choose to pay to get screwed by them

    Calling a politician a whore is doing a disservice to real whores.

  12. Linus says:

    Maybe it's because I expect politicians to say ridiculously ignorant things, but I think the judge is being the far bigger ass here. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and nobody shows that better than a petty federal judge with a chance to do some grandstanding. "Three pages, single spaced"..fuck you, judge. What exactly are you going to do if it's only two and half pages, sanction him?

  13. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    Linus; there's this little thing called "Contempt of Court". Not MEANT for this, but….

  14. Joseph says:

    @CSPSchofield @Linus Well I personally have a great deal of contempt for court. I've been saving it up for a while — I'm thinking of springing for a life sentence.

  15. Brian Dunbar says:

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and nobody shows that better than an executive who ignores the Constitution.

    Fixed that for you.

  16. David says:

    President Obama was only the Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a university professor teaching constitutional law. You can't expect him to understand all these pesky little details about things unrelated to what he's done in his life.

    @Christoph, you seem unduly impressed by academic affiliation. It guarantees nothing in particular.

  17. Brian Dunbar says:

    @Christoph, you seem unduly impressed by academic affiliation.

    @David. Look up the definition for 'irony'.

  18. Ken says:


    David is generally operating two or three levels of ironic snark past what we mere mortals can comprehend.

    Also, his comment was probably a deserved snark at me.

  19. Brian Dunbar says:

    @Ken. I bow in supplication to his meta ironic snark.

  20. Scott Jacobs says:


    From the DOJ:

    The longstanding, historical position ofthe United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legi slation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the govenm1ent 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 President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.

    Fully consistant? Really?

    Maybe I'm just starting to go senile, but I remember the DOJ being able to lie better than this.

  21. Scott Jacobs says:

    Mr Holder appears – though maybe I am reading it wrong – to be suggesting that the courts deciding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the plaintiff's case is what Mr President was talking about…

    Which would be odd, since the government had long-since given up that argument, and didn't even bother to brief it.

  22. Turk says:

    I'll rise to the President's defense. He used the phrase "duly constituted" law. Thus, if a law was was violative of the constitution, it would not be duly constituted. And if one tried to overturn a law that was duly constituted law, it would be an inappropriate act of judicial legislating.

    As to the judge's homework assignment, that was indefensible.

  23. Jess says:

    And now I'm going to unload on the Judicial Branch. Supreme Court OKs strip searches in any offense.

    Read more:

    Are you fucking kidding me? How about not putting someone in the general population if all they are doing is paying a fine and then leaving.

  24. Brian Dunbar says:

    And if one tried to overturn a law that was duly constituted law, it would be an inappropriate act of judicial legislating.

    I am not, obviously, a lawyer.

    But isn't that what the Supreme Court is for, to overturn laws that were written by Congress, but were later found to be un-consitutional?

  25. TimS says:


    Assuming for a moment that the order to file the letter brief is inappropriate partisanship. What is Holder supposed to say? There aren't really legal citations for "When the President says something inappropriately partisan at a press conference, that doesn't bind the United States government in litigation."

    Besides, that kind of pissing contest is exactly the sort of thing that a highly competent litigator should avoid at all costs. Holder answered the question he wished he'd been asked, which is just good advocacy.

  26. daedalus2u says:

    Does this outburst by the judge give future litigants a reason to ask the judge to recuse themselves?

  27. Paddy K says:

    "off-the-cuff" ? I have too much respect for popehat to think that they actually believe it to be "off-the-cuff" by the President. The President would not have bloviated for however long he did that if it was an off the cuff remark. No, it was a well thought out aggressive posturing in response to what he percieves to be a SC which will not go his way.

  28. MOG says:

    You're right, the homework assignment was a bit over the top for the DOJ … he should have assigned it to professor Obama.

  29. Dustin says:

    This was so funny to hear about. It made the Obama administration look terrible.

    I gotta admit that doesn't sound like judicial temperament, though.

  30. Dustin says:

    Yeah that was pretty lame.