The forces resisting Obama’s coup against the Supreme Court have not stopped. Tuesday, Rep Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, implicitly raised the Constitutional question in Obama’s recent statements. In a comment posted on Politico, he said that Obama’s recent statements "are more than disappointing — they’re disturbing," and demanded that Obama "show respect for the system of government that our Founders established." He noted that Congress, too, has "[born] the brunt of Obama’s ridicule," that legitimate Congressional inquiries on Fast and Furious, by himself and others, have been dismissed by this administration as if "[swatting away] flies at a picnic."

Rep. Smith has been on Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s trail for the past year, demanding her recusal from the entire proceedings, because of her prior involvement, in her role as Solicitor General, in Obamacare’s passage and in formulating the legal defense of it, should it be challenged at the Supreme Court. Despite five separate requests to Holder, the administration has maintained its stonewalling and refused to release the contents of e-mails, claiming that they "[include] a DOJ attorney’s thoughts on a legal issue," virtually confirming Smith’s charges.

Others have raised charges to the effect that Kagan is acting like a mole for the Executive in this battle. Specifically, that Kagan may have informed Obama of the result of a March 29 "first vote" taken by the Justices, and that this may have led Obama to decide to attack the Court publicly.

Separately, Jonathan Turley, the Constitutional lawyer who filed the Congressional lawsuit against Obama over the illegal Libya war, issued a stern rebuke to the Obaminator, calling his attack on the Court "wrong". "It is simply unfair to characterize a vote against the law in advance as judicial activism — a term that is often used by people whenever a court rules against their view of the law. To put it simply, it was a cheap shot and beneath a president," said Turley. In response to the charge of "judicial activism" by judges, Turley stated that one does not need to be a judicial activist to be against an unconstitutional law; in fact, "the point of an independent judiciary is to serve as a bulwark against abuses by the majority." He noted that "the message can easily be taken by justices as a threat that, if you vote against my law, I will denounce you publicly as judicial activists."

Attorney General Holder’s letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was a complete evasion of Obama’s Constitutional violation; it made no reference at all to Obama’s pointed reference to "unelected judges". That was Obama’s "institutional" attack on the Court, and 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith repeatedly emphasized this Obama phrase when he demanded that Holder explain it.

But so far, there has been no further response from the 5th Circuit to Holder’s letter; Judges Smith, Emilio Garza, Frances Southwick have made no public statements