The Supreme Court (Motto: "We're more than health care") granted cert in Moncrieffe v. Holder in which the court will decide whether possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is an "aggravated felony". The fall out here is that if the court decides it is, it will subject more clients who are foreign nationals to removal.
MARBURY v. MADISON:
Barak Obama, Constitutional Law professor, lawyer, editor of the Harvahard Law Review and President of the United States fired a warning shot over the bow of the Supreme Court earlier this week. The Wall Street Journal responded in an Op Ed piece, part of which is reprinted here. The Journal wanted to know whether in the course of his career at Harvahard and as a Con law Professor at the University of Chicago School of Law whether the President had ever read Marbury v. Madison?
That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "I'm 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," he declared.
Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities...
Rumpole yawns: The President calls the court activists when they strike down a law he supports and un-caring conservatives when they uphold laws he doesn't like. Whose ox is gored? Indeed.
Sometimes in defense of a client we can become almost poetic. I saw this is a Herald article on sentencing and thought what a way w/ words. Kudos to Bruce Lehr with what is a impressive way to explain a clients convicted illegal conduct, a Ponzi scheme.
ReplyDeleteCantens’ attorney, Bruce Lehr, sharply disageed with that last characterization. “His actions were not motivated by greed but by a desperate desire to correct the innate flaws in his business model and actually prevent the losses to his investors,” Lehr wrote in a court filing.
DS
In the 209 years since, the Better Test has invalidated element or all of a lot of rules on disagreement that they overlooked the Framework. All of those rules were accepted by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either The legislature or in one of the states. And no concern many of them were accepted by "strong" majorities.
ReplyDeleteWho else is gonna hop into the Pando race?
ReplyDeleteAbbe Rifkin is both a tenacious trial attorney yet a very reasonable, level-headed ASA. I respected her greatly during my time at the SAO, as she readily understood when cases were crap or nonexistent. As a defense attorney, she is a worthy opponent. Tough, especially in trial, but very fair and ethical. I'd hate for the SAO to lose her, but she has the ability, temperment and fairness to make a great judge.
ReplyDeletehypocrites run abound
ReplyDeleteHere is the John Stewart take on the judicial review/activist debate:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-3-2012/courtcenter
A Fifth Circuit appellate judge just ordered DOJ to acknowledge “judicial review” in a letter. He did so as an apparent response to the President’s (ill-advised) remarks about judicial activism. And, this, my friends, summarizes the problem with this country. This right-wing hillbilly in Texas, dresses up in a robe, injects himself into a political issue and makes a further mockery of our judicial system. The right-wing nuts get all lathered up and cheer the Texas hill-billy, not stopping to think that all the President did was steal a page from their play book (but executed the play very poorly). It undermines the judiciary to call rulings “judicial activism” when we disagree with them, and the President shouldn’t have said it, but this right-wing nut of a judge has no be business further undermining the judiciary by now turning the court into a political circus, particularly since I am sure the judge has not spoken up when people of his own political persuasion play the “judicial activism” card on an almost daily basis. What the hell is happening?
ReplyDelete1. Like Abbe Rifkin too.
ReplyDelete2. I like Obama but, wish he would stop insulting the court.
9:23 AM
ReplyDeleteThanks Abbe for posting that.
The supreme court is a joke. They haven't been honest except for a brief period in the 60s and early seventies. All you need to know about this overrated, pompous and dishonest institution is written in Plessy v. Ferguson and Bush v. Gore.
ReplyDeleteEarly morn,
ReplyDeleteApril 4,
Shots rang out in the Memphis sky,
free at last,
They took your life,
but they could not take your pride
Where is Rumpole?
ReplyDeleteGoerge W.Bush Made the same remarks during his reign, Get over it.
ReplyDeleteHaving a drink, Listening to "Puerto Banus" on Pandora. Smooth Jazz is the best, makes drafting documents easy.
ReplyDeleteTrying to intimidate the Court, with both Monday's demagoguery and in the House during a State of the Union speech, is both classless and unprecedented.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, Obama is the most thin-skinned man who ever occupied the White House.
The hypocrisy is obvious when you make these comments about President Obama not to mention calling him a "thug". When in fact George (dummy W.)Bush spoke the same rhetoric and public reproach.Goes to show you how ignorantly bias some people can choose to be.
ReplyDeleteRifkin is a joke. All bark no bite. Legal light weight.
ReplyDelete