Judicial Pushback to Obama Begins

Tuesday, April 3, AD 2012

26 Responses to Judicial Pushback to Obama Begins

  • They said Obama was a constitutional scholar, but were mute on whether he was a good, smart, or honest one.

  • It seems a shame that the Federal Jury Tampering Statute does not apply. I wonder how closely the DOJ, FBI….. or their proxies are monitoring blogdom? Darkness approaches. I miss my youth in the 50’s and 60’s.

  • I note that the 5th Circuit includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Don’t mess with Texas (or their judges) indeed!

  • Exactly what Obama deserves. And one day the Supreme Justice will give him exactly that – “Depart from me, ye worker of iniquity; I never knew you.”

  • The arrogance and condescending attitude of this man is breathtaking. I am continually amazed by his alleged approval ratings. I have no data to back this up, but I believe, and hope and pray, there is a large anti Obama sentiment in the country that does not necessarily show up in polls. Perhaps reminiscent of Nixon’s “silent majority”.

  • May the lawyers here forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is it possible the DOJ simply ignores the order? I wouldn’t put it past such a bunch of scofflaws because I don’t see how the DOJ (and of course, by extension, the adminstration) can avoid looking like complete fools when they answer this.

    When I heard Obama attack SCOTUS, my first thought was “This isn’t exactly sending Justice Kennedy roses and chocolates, is it?” And now, whatever the reply is, or isn’t, it’s going to dig the hole the administration is in a bit deeper.

  • “but is it possible the DOJ simply ignores the order?”

    No. They will simply reassert that Marbury v. Madison is rock solid law and that the DOJ does not dispute it.

  • I’d love it if the Supreme Court were to issue the Obama Administration a contempt citation.

    It’s what would happen to any of us if were were arguing a case before a court, and before a final decision was issued, went before the media and vented our spleens that, unless the judge ruled in our favor, the result would be an “unprecedented” miscarriage of justice.

  • ….would this be a variation on the saying about not picking fights with those who buy ink by the barrel?

  • Jerry, I’m amazed by the polls too, as well as by the oft-repeated assertion that Obama is “likable.” I didn’t vote for Clinton, and didn’t like him, but I understood why many Americans did. I chalked it up to the soft spot many Americans have always had for charming flim-flam men and snake oil peddlers. (The robust ’90’s economy didn’t hurt him either.)

    But Obama? Thin-skinned, petty, egotistical, vindictive and humorless (Clinton is also an egotist, but had the ability to poke fun at himself. Obama doesn’t.) I know people want badly to like their president, but I haven’t seen one so unlikable since Nixon. (Carter has become a bitter and mean man, but he wasn’t perceived as such when he was president. No, people thought he was a nice, but incompetent man in way over his head.)

  • here’s a question- coming from my ignorance of judges and law and lawyers–

    Is not the Obama ‘s DOJ ignoring the marriage law the same as striking it ?

  • in effect I mean

  • OK, I think the fellow who wrote this comment on the WSJ website nailed it:

    “I have always wondered how Mr. Obama could have been a Constitutional Professor when he seemed so ignorant of the Constitution. then it hit me. He did indeed teach about the Constitution, of the USSR. Not to worry. It is just a small mistake.”

  • Obama’s ineptitude is only exceeded by MSM enablers’ corruption.

  • Tonight I hear him warning of Social Darwinism from the GOP … ?
    Fearful for us all, I guess. Or something. The isms are coming faster from the microphones.

  • Donna,

    We shall see. This upcoming election is going to say an awful lot about who we are as a country in the year 2012. Catholics in the pews need to give serious thought to what this election means to their kids and their future. As Cardinal Dolan says, “prepare for tough times”.

  • The frightening thing to me, Jerry, is how the media carries water for him. They no longer even pretend to be objective. With the exception of a few outlets ( namely, Fox and the WSJ), the media is operating as a wing of the Democrat Party. Then there’s the fact that so many Americans are willing to trade freedom and faith in God for a desire to be coddled by a massive nanny state. Yes, I fear Cardinal Dolan is correct.

  • One last thing: there is some speculation, by Mickey Kaus, Ace and others, that an informal SCOTUS vote taken last Friday did not go in Obama’s favor and someone, possibly a Kagan clerk, leaked the news to the WH. Kaus thinks this is why the President lashed out at the Court. Why would he do it if he thought the outcome was still in doubt? Why risk angering Kennedy? Kaus theorized that Obama knows the Court will strike down his signature “accomplishment” and made a preemptive strike. He wants to create the meme that the Court is activist and partisan. The media will, of course, run with the WH line and will work to trash the reputation of the SCOTUS before the decision is announced.

    That sounds plausible enough to me, given the low character of the people in the Adminstration and their water carriers in the media, but on the other hand, I’m not sure how much credibility to give to Internet speculation and gossip. I would love to think Obama’s anger stems from the fact that he knows he’s lost this one. But does that sound plausible to an attorney or is it basically idle Internet chatter and wishful thinking?

  • Meh. I wish I could retract that last comment of mine. Anxious insomiacs (i.e. me) should stay away from computers; otherwise they are prone to misread. Forget Kaus; the useless spectulating was done by Ace and Co. – and me. We’ll get our answer in June.

  • but is it possible the DOJ simply ignores the order?

    the order to submit the letter – no, as Donald says, they will just file their letter and move on.

    Or are you thinking about a final order that strikes down Obamacare or a portion of it?

    That is a bit different. Was it Andrew Johnson who basically told the SCOTUS to shove it (“they have issued their order, let them enforce it”)? It would be a little more difficult to ignore an order striking down something as opposed to forcing someone to do something (e.g, an order requiring desegregation – the executive could simply not desegregate). How could they ignore an order striking down Obamacare? They would have to go to the courts to get an order to enforce it, but if it’s struck down, no lower court should enforce it. It would cost the litigants money, it would be seen as a complete usurpation of power by the Executive, and I could see lower courts entering sanctions against the Executive for continuing to bring such cases. even if they ignored it and simply levied fines, people would have redress through the court system, and it would raise such a stink I don’t see how the administration would survive – likely get impeached and removed, if not voted out sooner (political suicide).

    Short of imposing martial rule by the executive and simply imprisoning us all and forcibly taking our money without due process, I don’t see how they would have much choice but to follow it.

  • Andrew Jackson cmatt, who had little love for John Marshal, to say the least, supposedly said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” He actually didn’t say that. Here is some background:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

    I can’t imagine the Obama administration openly defying a ruling of the Supreme Court, but, then again, this president seems to specialize in doing things that I never thought I would see a president doing.

  • I can’t imagine the Obama administration openly defying a ruling of the Supreme Court, but, then again, this president seems to specialize in doing things that I never thought I would see a president doing.

    Since implementing ObamaCare would not consist of a discrete set of acts (much less a set of omissions), I cannot imagine they could ignore the Court. Every aspect of its implementation would thenceforth get tangled in litigation.

  • Well, we got our answer about the response.

    Basically, “the justice department fully agrees you have a right to not have your leg p***ed on, and that the President’s statement clearly shows it was raining.” (To steal from an old saying.)

Void ab Initio

Wednesday, June 15, AD 2011

 

As I am sure most of you know, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision vacated the order of Judge Maryann Sumi enjoining the bill passed by the Wisconsin legislature regarding public employee unions.  The court divided along partisan lines.  The bluntness of the majority opinion is something to behold.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders and judgments of the Dane County Circuit Court in Case No. 2011CV1244 are vacated and declared to be void ab initio.  State ex rel. Nader v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., No. 2004AP2559-W, unpublished order (Wis. S. Ct. Sept. 30, 2004) (wherein this court vacated the prior orders of the circuit court in the same case). 

Declaring the orders of a trial court void ab initio is an unusual step for an appellate court.  It basically says that the trial court completely misconstrued the relevant law from the beginning, and is not to be trusted by the appellate court simply reversing the trial court and remanding the case back to the trial court.  Instead the Supreme Court ruled on all of  the issues in the case itself, with Judge Sumi now tossed out of the case by the action of the Supreme Court.  

This court has granted the petition for an original action because one of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature.  It is important for all courts to remember that Article IV, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides:  “The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly.”  Article IV, Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides in relevant part:  “(2) . . . No law shall be in force until published.  (3) The legislature shall provide by law for the speedy publication of all laws.”

You don’t get blunter than that in the law.  Judge Sumi is held by the Court to have usurped the power of the legislature!

The Court then notes that what Judge Sumi attempted to do, enjoin publication of a bill in order to prevent it from becoming law, was in direct defiance of a prior case decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Void ab Initio

  • My understanding is that the power of the unionists is now curtailed. I am very happy.

  • cut/paste from earlier comment:

    It’s all good.

    WI Supreme Court upheld Gov. Walker’s bill reforming public employee unions – abolishing automatic withholding of dues, which was the main cause of all this thuggery. Less taxpayer money to fund lib/looter candidates’ campaigns.

    The legislature, a judicial special election (where union organization should have been decisive), and the WISC all righteously beat them down.

    And, all along they showed us that they are thugs and, even worse, hurt a lot of (Special Olympics) little children.

  • Declaring the orders of a trial court void ab initio is an unusual step for an appellate court. It basically says that the trial court completely misconstrued the relevant law from the beginning, and is not to be trusted by the appellate court simply reversing the trial court and remanding the case back to the trial court.

    I don’t know, I wouldn’t be so strong in stating void ab initio that way. Generally, it occurs when the trial court acted without jurisdiction, therefore the order it entered had no force or effect from the moment it was entered. It is usually not a comment on the trust to be placed in the trial court or its legal acumen, rather simply a statement that the order lacks validity from a legalstandpoint. Many jursidictional questions can be close calls, with reasonable arguemtns both for and against. teh question of separation of powers and what legisaltive actions (or failure to act) a court can and cannot review is not a simple question.

  • Man, my typing stinks.

  • As a general rule I don’t disagree with you cmatt, except that in those situations normally the case is remanded back to the trial court with the expectation that the trial court will follow what the appellate court orders. It is far more unusual here where everything the trial court did is vacated, and the apellate court takes the case away from the trial court and decides it completely itself. I have not seen that too often, and I think the decison here was intended to be a slap at the trial judge, especially when the rest of the opinion is considered.

  • Except now the unions are suing over the constitutionality of the law, saying it treats different public sector unions unequally – some lose their collective bargaining rights, while others – such as police, fire, et al – get to keep them. One hurdle crushed, another to get over.

    What’s your opinion on their lawsuit? Does it depend on the judge hearing the case, or does it have merit?

  • The judge hearing the case usually has a vast impact on litigation. I doubt if it has merit since government contracts usually do not come under equal protection analysis unless discrimination is evident on some basis such as race or sex. A government is under no obligation to recognize public employee unions at all, so the argument that a state government may not treat them differently under statute strikes me as farcial on its face. Many states, for example, restrict the ability of certain unions, usually police and firemen, to strike, and those restrictions have been upheld time and again.

  • Turning out to be “the Lawyer Relief bill.” The unionistas are already in federal court trying yet another legal maneuver to block implementation. Meanwhile the Democrats, as usual, are doing everything they can to be obstructionist including prolonging recall elections in senate districts where they were challenged. WI, my home for the past 15 years, is a national embarrassment.

  • Joe,

    NY has WI beat by miles.

    They’re about to legislationally sanctify sodomy and we hear not one word from any church leader anywhere in the Umpire Stake.

    Plus, they keep voting for sordid solons like Anthony Weiner.

  • Mr. Shaw. Re Weiner, not any more. And, yes, I was born and bred in NYC and know all too well about its sordid past and present.

  • T. Shaw,

    While I agree with youur sentiment (NYS is worse than WI), it is inaccurate to state that nno clergy on NYS has spokeen against the pending sanctificattion of homosexual filth by the NYS legislature. The USCCB president, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of NYC, has issued the obligatory statements against tthis at the USCCB meeting televised yesterday afternoon on EWTN TV. I got home from work about 5 pm and caught somethinng about him speaking on this very topic. Please see this web link for more details:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ny-archbishop-warns-lawmakers-not-to-reinvent-marriage-ahead-of-vote/

    Nevertheless, you are correct. Bishop Hubbard of Albany, NY – the guy who eulogized Andy “I am an adulterer” Cuomo who is intent on sanctifying godless sodomy and who lives with his concubine and to whom Hubbard distributed Holy Communion – has done much to damage the Church in NYS. Yet he remains the USCCB social justice flunky. NYS is filled with like-minded clergy, and thus when I visit my children in Syracuse, NY, I find more than half the pews in the Catholic Churches empty.

    The clerical embracing of godless liberal progressive demokracy has done much to weaken the Church in the Empire State. Sorry, folks. That’s the way it is. Too few good clergy and too many heterodox ones

  • Sorry, guys, that my iPad repeats letters. It can’t handle fast typing at this web site.