His former law student upbraids Obama

Rate this post

Thom Lambert was a student of Barack Obama when the latter taught constitutional law at University of Chicago’s Law School.
In this essay, Lambert tells us he’s embarrassed by his former instructor for calling the Supreme Court’s upholding of the Constitution as “judicial activism.” Lambert is very proud of Judge Jerry Smith — one of the judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who administered the “smackdown” on Obama for his demagogic rhetoric.

patriot judge

Thank you, Judge Jerry Smith!

Born in Texas, Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, 65, has a J.D. from Yale and was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987. Here’s his contact info:
515 Rusk Ave., Room 12621
Houston, TX 77002-2698
(713) 250-5101
My only quibble with Lambert is his calling Obama “professor.”
Titles in academia mean something because they are earned with hard work, sweat, and tears. Obama’s title at Chicago Law School was, first, Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer. His title was never Professor. To call him “Professor” belittles all the faculty of America’s colleges and universities who work hard to win that title. (For more on Obama’s stint of teaching at Chicago Law, go here.)
H/t Drudge Report and Fox News.

See anything on Constitutional Law here? No? That’s because Obama was teaching Alinskyism, not Con Law, at Chicago.

My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review

by Thom Lambert – Truth on the Market – April 3, 2012
Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun.  Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise.  Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5.  You’d be a little embarrassed, right?  You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.
Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”  Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas.  Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”:  “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”
I actually know the answer to that question.  It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t).  President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago.  Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student).  Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.  (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.)  Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.
Fortunately, another bit of my educational background somewhat mitigates the reputational damage inflicted by the President’s unfortunate comments.  This morning, the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, called the President’s bluff.
Here’s a bit of transcript from this morning’s oral argument in Physicians Hospital of America v. Sebelius, a case involving a challenge to the Affordable Care Act:

Judge Jerry E. Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Dana Lydia Kaersvang (DOJ Attorney): Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the President in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed – he was referring, of course, to Obamacare – what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the President, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That 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 and again to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

I must say, I’m pretty dang proud of Judge Smith right now.  And I’m really looking forward to reading that three-page, single-spaced letter.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “His former law student upbraids Obama

  1. lowtechgrannie

    It’s Thursday, 1:00 pm Pacific Time. I wonder if the judge received his letter (from AG Holder)?

  2. Could they stick to the issue the judge asked about and not go on about how much they don’t like the opposing case so much (write “ObamaCare Rulez, Spazzers!” why don’t they?).

  3. typical obfuscation….I give it a D

    • sorry …I was responding to the letter from Holder re: Obama
      stuck is foot in it when dissing the Supremes.
      …I read that Obomb’s lesson plans were created by convicted
      domestic terrorist Bernadine Dorne

  4. If only the truth had been told. First affirmative action pass-thru racist socialist president. Obama editor without a published written word, has the philosophy of a propagandized graduate of Patrice LAMUMBA U., Moscow.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.