iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Eric Holder Defends Obama Comments On Supreme Court Health Care Decision

CARLA K. JOHNSON   04/ 4/12 09:28 PM ET  AP

CHICAGO — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice Department will respond "appropriately" to a federal appellate judge in Texas who demanded a letter recognizing federal courts' authority to strike down laws passed by Congress.

Holder spoke a day after 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith questioned President Barack Obama's remarks this week about an "unelected" court possibly striking down the president's health care overhaul. Smith, during oral arguments in a separate challenge to the health law, asked the Justice Department for a three-page, single-spaced letter affirming the federal court's authority.

When asked during a Wednesday news conference in Chicago what an appropriate response to Smith would be, Holder said, "I think what the president said a couple of days ago was appropriate. He indicated that we obviously respect the decisions that courts make."

"Under our system of government ... courts have the final say on the constitutionality of statutes," Holder said. "The courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the duly elected representatives of the people, Congress, pass."

The White House, meanwhile, struggled for a third day to explain Obama's original remark that a Supreme Court reversal of the case would be "unprecedented."

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters in Washington that Obama does not regret using that word, and he insisted Obama was not trying to bully the justices by weighing in before the case is decided.

"It's the reverse of intimidation," Carney said during a lengthy defense of Obama's comments. "He's simply making an observation about precedent and the fact that he expects the court to adhere to that precedent."

A reversal would not be unprecedented, even under the very narrow terms Obama and his spokesman later attached to his comments, but it would be very unusual.

Obama had sought to clarify his remarks under questioning at The Associated Press annual meeting on Tuesday. There, Obama said he was referring only to a specific class of constitutional law, and to the pattern of judicial deference to Congress exemplified by the upholding of New Deal legislation in the 1930s.

Carney on Wednesday said Obama's remarks were the object of criticism "only because a handful of people didn't seem to understand what he was referring to."

Carney also repeated Holder's assurance that the Justice Department would comply with the Texas judge's demand for a letter of explanation.

Smith on Tuesday had seemed to take offense to comments Obama made Monday that he didn't believe the Supreme Court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress. He said he wanted reassurance that Holder and the Justice Department recognized judicial authority.

"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements," Smith said during a case brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law.

Smith's office in Houston said Wednesday the judge would not be commenting on the issue because the case before his court still is pending. Smith, a native Texan, was nominated to the appeals court by President Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the Senate in 1987.

In Chicago, Holder said he's confident the Supreme Court will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional "given the adequate, able representation" the law had during arguments before the justices. He said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. "did a great job."

Speaking at the same Chicago press conference during a meeting on health care fraud prevention, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said her department is continuing to implement the health care law without contingency plans for a Supreme Court ruling against it.

If the court rules against the law, Sebelius said, "we'll make efforts to deal with that. But at this point, to lay out the range of options and spend a lot of time and energy on what-ifs is not a very productive use of our time."

___

Associated Press writers Anne Gearan in Washington and Juan Lozano in Houston contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
CHICAGO — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice Department will respond "appropriately" to a federal appellate judge in Texas who demanded a letter recognizing federa...
CHICAGO — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice Department will respond "appropriately" to a federal appellate judge in Texas who demanded a letter recognizing federa...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 229
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Who Honest
01:56 PM on 04/05/2012
And if Holder had refused to give this written response?

US Marshals arresting the AG for contempt of court?

Back on April 3rd I was being "attacked" on this website for quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and question how the president could say this at a foriegn policy press conference!?!

Obama said;

Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will 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?

Not anything here about Commerce clauses is there?

Now I am NO CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER I am a IT Analyst with a MSIT Security and I saw the press confrence, LIVE and as soon as Obama said it, I thought of Marbury v. Madison!

Maybe this explains why Obama has NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED as the head of the Harvard Law Review or as a "Consitutional Law Professor"!

Says it all!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Who Honest
02:00 PM on 04/05/2012
Actually on I blog about Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) on April 2nd!

HP timestamp is Apr 2, 2012 at 22:50:22!
Jamgrae
Aliyah
08:04 PM on 04/05/2012
2007 GW Bush said:

We are tired of activist judges who make laws instead of interpreting them.....AND IT'S GOT TO STOP!

Now, I'm no CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER...but it sure does sound like Obama is not the first POTUS to question the Supreme Court.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dao1947
Retired 5-0
01:34 AM on 04/07/2012
Activist judges are only OK if they are your activist judge and not the other parties activist judge.
01:11 PM on 04/05/2012
Hitler & Healthcare
http://soundcloud.com/crummey-show/hitler-healthcare
nelthroppesq
Attorney in allentown,pa
12:24 PM on 04/05/2012
How could a professor of Constitutional law say such a thing? Now he does what he always does. He blames the listener. We didn't understand what he meant to say. I think he said that the court swhould understand when he began his remarks. I think it was loud and clear. Don't you touch my law.
Jamgrae
Aliyah
08:09 PM on 04/05/2012
Actually, it sounded like Obama was saying that since he believed that the Health Care law was Constitutional, the Supreme Court should have no trouble upholding it. That's what I heard him say unless you have some sort of avenue into the beyond and can interpret something deep in his subconscious. It would not surprise me if you can, since most of the GOP presidential candidates were told by God himself to run for office.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:43 AM on 04/05/2012
What a country...our hopelessly incompetent A.G. is defending our hopelessly incompetent C.I.C. for making yet another stupid comment...in Chicago....you can't make this stuff up. Almost feels like the 90's again only poorer and much stupider.
09:17 AM on 04/05/2012
Holder? Wow how shocking. Isn't Holder a puppet?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montgomeryjhn
De Oppresso Libre---19th SFG (abn)
12:19 PM on 04/05/2012
I was surprised also. He has yet to put a feather in his hat over Fast and furious.
Jamgrae
Aliyah
08:19 PM on 04/05/2012
As long as Holder can stop the new "Jim Crow" tactics of the Republican Party with their voter restriction laws, he's alright by me. He BLOCKED South Carolina and Texas...stopping them dead in their tracks...he still has about 30 more states to go to stop Republicans from completely desenfranchizing American voters and attempting to give their weak GOP candidate an edge in November.
photo
Sundalecat
We love Obama!, by an angry White Man
12:52 PM on 04/05/2012
No Holder is not a puppet a puppet is someone who goes along no matter what. That would be the Teaparty voting for Romney.
07:47 AM on 04/05/2012
Have you ever noticed that the Left must resort to name calling and belittlement when they cannot defenfd their arguments with the facts. I suppose they are only taking after their Commander in Chief.
09:31 AM on 04/05/2012
I hadn't noticed that, Iamaverb! Thanks for being such an unbiased objective observer of the world!

I guess I've just been too busy being impressed by how respectfully, courteously, and politely FOX news, teabaggers, and Republicans in general have been treating the President to even notice what you're saying. From the way the President's opponents stick to just the issues and facts, I think that you would hardly even know that they don't like the President much. They hide their disdain so well, and only address the issues in a highly factual way, with no expressed hostility.They're veritable saints, they are. I'm sure that in the general election we will not see any commercials calling the President names or belittling him, because that is just the kind respectful face of Republicans that we've come to know so well.
09:50 AM on 04/05/2012
When have we ever had a President who tried to influence by embarrassing the SUPREME Court, or calls out by name and ridicule those who try to put forth a balanced budget ammendmant. Villifies companies for having their planned conventions in the largest convention center in the world, Las Vegas, but sends his family there on the tax payers nickle, a nickle I should say that is borrowed from China and is leveraged against our children. Obama has certainly tarnished Presidential decorum.

As far as my comment, do a test. Over the next few days do a survey of the post in the Huff. You decide based on what is written. Or not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montgomeryjhn
De Oppresso Libre---19th SFG (abn)
12:21 PM on 04/05/2012
His last speaches sound just like something out of the 20s. Lenin?
photo
Sundalecat
We love Obama!, by an angry White Man
12:52 PM on 04/05/2012
Oh were you around for them?
01:02 AM on 04/05/2012
The only reason Holder isn't in prison right is now because authorities are waiting to prosecute until Obama isn't in office to pardon him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montgomeryjhn
De Oppresso Libre---19th SFG (abn)
12:23 PM on 04/05/2012
Wish we could prosecute someone else.
photo
Sundalecat
We love Obama!, by an angry White Man
12:53 PM on 04/05/2012
Oh why would he be in prison for speaking as his first amendent rights allow him.
photo
CainStain
Tea Party's Over...Time To Brush Your Tooth
11:48 PM on 04/04/2012
Simply Send Justice Jerry "Springer" Smith 3 text messages from Anthony Wiener.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lionfig
11:19 PM on 04/04/2012
Jerry Smith what is not said in your court is none of your business. Holder just tell the judge the president is exercising his 1st Amendment rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john262
Elko, Nevada
02:06 AM on 04/05/2012
That's just not true. Judges routinely consider what is said and done in other courts in order to determine if there might be precedents that could influence their own decisions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
PerryWhite
My micro-bio is still empty
06:02 AM on 04/05/2012
Some of the nuttier justices even consider and quote foreign court decisions.
photo
Sundalecat
We love Obama!, by an angry White Man
12:50 PM on 04/05/2012
But Obama was not in a court. So therefore lionfig was correct. This judge has nothing to say on the matter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjswoosh
11:03 PM on 04/04/2012
An "appropriate response" to this yahoo, Bush appointee, nobody judge in tim-buck-two would be a 1 sentence response telling him to stick it where the sun don't shine.
photo
CainStain
Tea Party's Over...Time To Brush Your Tooth
11:53 PM on 04/04/2012
I agree Good Sir,

But I think Fudge Jerry Springer is A Artifact From The Ronald Mc Donald Era.... Petrified Dino Nugget.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
PerryWhite
My micro-bio is still empty
06:06 AM on 04/05/2012
IT'S BUSH'S FAULT (even though he wasn't appointed by Bush)! You're a Democrat, right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjswoosh
06:52 AM on 04/05/2012
Ad hominem attacks and projecting the inadequacies of your own arguments onto others is a sign of low IQ. PS No, I'm not a Dem. But, thanks for playing. :)
photo
Sundalecat
We love Obama!, by an angry White Man
10:44 PM on 04/04/2012
The Supreme Court ruins Healthcare they will be laughed at by just about all of America. This is commerce
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lionfig
11:21 PM on 04/04/2012
And the right of government to collect taxes, penalties, fees for services rendered.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montgomeryjhn
De Oppresso Libre---19th SFG (abn)
12:45 PM on 04/05/2012
This has nothing to do with healthcare. It has do with is it constutional for the president and his henchmen to FORCE something on us that the majority don't want. Banks already were forced to give out loans that people couldn't pay back. We already were forced to bail out UNIONS. Car companies, to bankrupt green agendas.Stimulus money only went the unions and those states and organizations that supported the president's election. And not have asay. What next?
photo
Sundalecat
We love Obama!, by an angry White Man
03:39 PM on 04/05/2012
You are a joke!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
> there is no endless growth
10:04 PM on 04/04/2012
I wish he would stand up for us on housing against the banks !!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LordoftheBrown
A.K.A. Major Beige
08:59 PM on 04/04/2012
Eric Holder is President Obama's weakest link.
12:22 AM on 04/05/2012
I would have to agree. Holder is making my mind up to vote against President Obama. This DOJ seems to be the most incompetent and corrupt I have seen in my life. I want Holder gone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina Topchyan
04:57 AM on 04/05/2012
voting against Obama means more corrupt justice appointments. Don't do it!
Jamgrae
Aliyah
09:02 PM on 04/05/2012
RIGHT-OF-CORNER....there's just so much "Hog Wash" a person can take....if you're actually going to say that you weren't going to vote against Obama anyway, then I quote a well known Republican, Eric Cantor in saying......OH COME ON NOW!!!
11:56 AM on 04/05/2012
No he is his biggest line of defense! That's why Obama selected him as AG. Holder is a loser hold over from the Clinton era. His recored is tainted but that doesn't stop the likes of Obama.
Jamgrae
Aliyah
09:12 PM on 04/05/2012
As long as Holder is blocking these new conservative "Jim Crow" voter restriction laws, he's alright in my book, and for the American people.
07:18 PM on 04/04/2012
However the president's comment was meant by him or interpreted by us, one cannot deny that his comment explained the reason why he never publlished.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
OSCPJ
Want it? Work 4 it. No 1 has ever drown in sweat.
09:11 PM on 04/04/2012
Fanned for your comment, not the picture. I swear. The man has a huge ego and claims everything, but never published anything? No body has any pictures of him, recounts his days as Professor, Community Organizer. Nobody counts the "Ums" when he speaks or notes the choppy sentences that make no sense. Carney was asked about the SC ruling and three times told Bret Bair it was about him trying to control the conversation. At what point does the left understand Deb Please-Wash-Your-Hair Schultz, Biden, Pelosi (6-3 baby) need to just be quiet. The President misses so often because he wants to tell people how it is, but should realize he needs to say nothing and put value into when he speaks. (And actually have something to say)
10:49 PM on 04/04/2012
And yet, he is still much better than Mr. Bush on any topic on any day, go figure. Did you count how many Dumb things Bush said in his first term, yet we gave him a second. Even out of office he is still putting his foot in his mouth. I rather a Harvard Law President for president any day than a man who had trouble getting a undergrad degree. Give me a break, do you have a problem with the POTUS because he was not a trust fund baby, and actually had to work to get where he is? please if you have to talk about ego, the speaker of the house comes to mine, and all the trust fund idiots in the house.
07:22 AM on 04/05/2012
They can spin it anyway they want. the siiting President of the United States was trying to itimidate the supreme court
Jamgrae
Aliyah
09:15 PM on 04/05/2012
Perhaps he will publish when he leaves the White House in 2016. At that time, he'll have alot of stuff to include in his book.....with all that has happened, the Tea Party and the weak GOP Congress.....he should have a best seller.
06:54 PM on 04/04/2012
I truly hope that Holder keep holding on because it's already been said that the president is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court justices which is another lie.
08:17 PM on 04/06/2012
that's right; he's trying to influence the court of public opinion; so the public will influence the court's opinion; and thereby bypass the Constitution
11:31 PM on 04/06/2012
What has the president said in his own words (not hearsay) to the Justices that is intimidating or even threatening?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
07:02 AM on 04/07/2012
obama said that the courts should not rule any law passed by Congress unconstitutional on Monday. The SCOTUS met and voted on the health care case on Friday. Justice Kagan, no doubt, informed obama of the vote and obama in turn decided to attempt to intimidate the Justices.