Holder: Administration will respond to judge in health care case

The Attorney General said the Texas judge who asked for a letter recognizing the court's authority will receive an appropriate reply.

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.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about health-care reform? Take our quiz!

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.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about health-care reform? Take our quiz!

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."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Holder: Administration will respond to judge in health care case
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today