Its Noon On Thursday, Did Obama's Justice Department Turn in Their Homework?

[Liability]

* * * *
And why the hell isn't this clowns use of the word "Obamacare" not being contested?

Because not everyone is as petty as you are?

 

[Katzndogz]

A contempt charge for not giving an account of Obama's campaign speeches??? Sadly that could happen. Obama needs to fight this and he needs to fight it hard. He needs to be angry and he needs to be vicious

Yes. When an attorney is ordered by the court and does not do it, the charge is contempt of court.

I do hope that obama gets angry and gets TRULY vicious with the court. He hasn't done nearly enough to be vicious. There are only veiled threats, he needs to make some REAL ones.

No. When the Government is "ordered" by the Court to have a boss provide an essay, the AG could very well have instead politely declined and instead merely affirmed tha the advocates from the DOJ handling the case IN Court were the proper parties to speak FOR the government.

If the Court then insisted, the Government COULD have more formally and stiffly refused and either taken their chances with a fight as to a possible contempt citation OR sought leave to appeal the assignment of "homework" from a judicial panel.

There were a number of options. It is certainly arguable that the AG took the proper and even fairly mature approach. But as a matter of principle, I would have been more inclined to fight it were I representing the Administration in Court as the AG.

This order came from a 3 judge judicial panel.

 

[Si modo]

Fox was just reading Holder's letter. Sorry, no, I wasn't really paying attention at all so don't know what it said . . .too many people and animals bouncing in and out of here today. But the admin complied with the request.

The letter is fine, except for the last line:

DOJ Letter to 5th Circuit re Judicial Authority

Right. The last line is utter bullshit and a blatant lie.

What's that ethics rule? Oh yeah, 3.3...an attorney cannot lie to a tribunal.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Fox was just reading Holder's letter. Sorry, no, I wasn't really paying attention at all so don't know what it said . . .too many people and animals bouncing in and out of here today. But the admin complied with the request.

I thought they were just reading his comments about the situation from yesterday and not a new letter from today in direct response....link?

I just checked foxnews.com and google.com and couldn't find it.

Oh i just refreshed foxnews.com......i think i have it, i'll edit it in if i do.

EDIT: Nope no letter yet but this was the "breaking story" part

Attorney General Eric Holder has provided a formal response to a federal appeals court on whether the administration believes judges have the power to overturn federal laws.

Holder said "the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases."


Read more: Holder Says Court Power To Review Laws 'beyond Dispute' | Fox News

Big mistake, very very very big mistake on the part of Holder and Obama. God only knows what the right is going to start demanding now now that they know they can get away with it.

 

[Si modo]

I can understand those that do thinking that Obama can lie if he wants to. I understand that it is up to each listener to discern the truth. I understand that free speech allows people to lie about anything. However, when the President of the United States tells such outlandish lies about the duties and authority of the Judicial Branch in such a way as to broadcast the lie through the media and totally mislead listeners regarding what the Supreme Court can and cannot do, what the Supreme Court has already done hundreds of times...it's time for the arrogant ass to get educated.

I believe the "request" for the letter comes more in the form of an ORDER than a DO ME A FAVOR AND TELL ME IN WRITING WHAT YOU MEANT.

Perhaps we'll see Holder indicted for contempt.




The 5th Circuit Court Scolds Obama – Then Schools Him | The Gateway Pundit

Posted by Andrea Ryan on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, 10:36 PM


By: Andrea Ryan

I will not throw spitballs at the Supreme Court… I will not throw spitballs at the Supreme Court… I will not throw spitballs at the Supreme Court… Repeat this statement fifty more times, President Obama, single-spaced, on three pages, by Thursday.
This is what happens when our Constitutional lecturer president stands on the White House lawn and astoundingly challenges the authority and credibility of the Supreme Court; he gets issued a homework assignment on the fundamentals of our Constitution.

The Administration was represented in the judicial proceeding. The lawyer answered the question. The homework assignment was kind of petty. Call it an "order." Ok. So? Challenge that "order."

I'm just saying, I'd not stand for it if I was the AG.

I'm truly ok with it if this AG sees fit to just meekly comply. In fact, I'd love to see how his homework assignment stacks up against what his dopey boss said.

It's not a homework assignment, it's bullshit. Calling it a homework assignment is nothing more than a racist attempt to portray the President as a child, a "boy"

I'd say you pulled a muscle with that stretch, but I'm pretty sure you actually tore one.

Better call nine-whine-whine for that.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Well, it seems obvious that when a judge requests you clarify a department position, it's probably good to do so, especially when it involves an ongoing case.

It is also good -- sometimes -- to rebuff an invalid directive from a court or a judge.

I'm certain the Supreme Court justices will take note of the rebuff!

This guy wasn't on the Supreme Court but such and order from them should also be ignored

 

[mmmjvpssm]

The President REMAINS wrong for commenting (.)

I don't think that commenting is what's wrong.

I think that WHAT he said was stupid.

No comment would have been best; you are correct, he went on to add details. UNPRECEDENTED being the stupid part.

Why the hell should he have no comment?

 

[Si modo]

It is also good -- sometimes -- to rebuff an invalid directive from a court or a judge.

I'm certain the Supreme Court justices will take note of the rebuff!

This guy wasn't on the Supreme Court but such and order from them should also be ignored

Are the POTUS and government employees now above the law?

 

[Liability]

Yes. When an attorney is ordered by the court and does not do it, the charge is contempt of court.

I do hope that obama gets angry and gets TRULY vicious with the court. He hasn't done nearly enough to be vicious. There are only veiled threats, he needs to make some REAL ones.

No. When the Government is "ordered" by the Court to have a boss provide an essay, the AG could very well have instead politely declined and instead merely affirmed tha the advocates from the DOJ handling the case IN Court were the proper parties to speak FOR the government.

If the Court then insisted, the Government COULD have more formally and stiffly refused and either taken their chances with a fight as to a possible contempt citation OR sought leave to appeal the assignment of "homework" from a judicial panel.

There were a number of options. It is certainly arguable that the AG took the proper and even fairly mature approach. But as a matter of principle, I would have been more inclined to fight it were I representing the Administration in Court as the AG.

This order came from a 3 judge judicial panel.

I know. And that doesn't change a thing. If it was inappropriate, it was inappropriate. And I deem it quite inappropriate.

Were I the AG, I would have politely declined the request. Couching it as an "order" would not deter me from properly referring to it as a mere "request."

The Government is represented in Court by the DOJ. The attorneys FOR the Government had already ANSWERED the pertinent question. THEY speak for the Party. Directing them to then get an Executive Branch Cabinet Official to provide a written additional reply was kind of a cheese-dick move.

But don't get me wrong. Now that the AG has chosen to take a different course, I am (politically) quite happy about it. The President's words were foolish and dishonest and forcing the Government to properly address that stupidity in the Court setting in this fashion, while inappropriate, was nevertheless informative and entertaining.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Fox was just reading Holder's letter. Sorry, no, I wasn't really paying attention at all so don't know what it said . . .too many people and animals bouncing in and out of here today. But the admin complied with the request.

The letter is fine, except for the last line:

DOJ Letter to 5th Circuit re Judicial Authority

That three page letter should have been
GO
TO
HELL

 

[Si modo]

No. When the Government is "ordered" by the Court to have a boss provide an essay, the AG could very well have instead politely declined and instead merely affirmed tha the advocates from the DOJ handling the case IN Court were the proper parties to speak FOR the government.

If the Court then insisted, the Government COULD have more formally and stiffly refused and either taken their chances with a fight as to a possible contempt citation OR sought leave to appeal the assignment of "homework" from a judicial panel.

There were a number of options. It is certainly arguable that the AG took the proper and even fairly mature approach. But as a matter of principle, I would have been more inclined to fight it were I representing the Administration in Court as the AG.

This order came from a 3 judge judicial panel.

I know. And that doesn't change a thing. If it was inappropriate, it was inappropriate. And I deem it quite inappropriate.

Were I the AG, I would have politely declined the request. Couching it as an "order" would not deter me from properly referring to it as a mere "request."

The Government is represented in Court by the DOJ. The attorneys FOR the Government had already ANSWERED the pertinent question. THEY speak for the Party. Directing them to then get an Executive Branch Cabinet Official to provide a written additional reply was kind of a cheese-dick move.

But don't get me wrong. Now that the AG has chosen to take a different course, I am (politically) quite happy about it. The President's words were foolish and dishonest and forcing the Government to properly address that stupidity in the Court setting in this fashion, while inappropriate, was nevertheless informative and entertaining.

Even so, the last line says the POTUS' comments were consistent.

A lie. To a tribunal.

 

[Liability]

This order came from a 3 judge judicial panel.

I know. And that doesn't change a thing. If it was inappropriate, it was inappropriate. And I deem it quite inappropriate.

Were I the AG, I would have politely declined the request. Couching it as an "order" would not deter me from properly referring to it as a mere "request."

The Government is represented in Court by the DOJ. The attorneys FOR the Government had already ANSWERED the pertinent question. THEY speak for the Party. Directing them to then get an Executive Branch Cabinet Official to provide a written additional reply was kind of a cheese-dick move.

But don't get me wrong. Now that the AG has chosen to take a different course, I am (politically) quite happy about it. The President's words were foolish and dishonest and forcing the Government to properly address that stupidity in the Court setting in this fashion, while inappropriate, was nevertheless informative and entertaining.

Even so, the last line says the POTUS' comments were consistent.

A lie. To a tribunal.

I fully agree that the last line was dishonest.

They think we're all too stupid to notice.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Jeeze. Guess it doesn't pay to piss off Judges or the SC.

Barry better watch it. They may find HIM unconstitutional.

So you think Judges should have this kind of power? let's start using it on Republicans then

 

[Si modo]

Jeeze. Guess it doesn't pay to piss off Judges or the SC.

Barry better watch it. They may find HIM unconstitutional.

So you think Judges should have this kind of power? let's start using it on Republicans then

Did you know that the three branches of government have equal power?

Imagine that.

By design.






Moron.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Holder's last sentence in the letter is a baldfaced lie. That is all.

Doesn't matter. The President's remarks on the White House lawn is none of his business. That judge, any judge, has zero jurisdiction over those remarks

 

[mmmjvpssm]

This would be real fun with President Romney. Any official position his WH holds he probably stated the opposite one at some point earlier

 

[Si modo]

I know. And that doesn't change a thing. If it was inappropriate, it was inappropriate. And I deem it quite inappropriate.

Were I the AG, I would have politely declined the request. Couching it as an "order" would not deter me from properly referring to it as a mere "request."

The Government is represented in Court by the DOJ. The attorneys FOR the Government had already ANSWERED the pertinent question. THEY speak for the Party. Directing them to then get an Executive Branch Cabinet Official to provide a written additional reply was kind of a cheese-dick move.

But don't get me wrong. Now that the AG has chosen to take a different course, I am (politically) quite happy about it. The President's words were foolish and dishonest and forcing the Government to properly address that stupidity in the Court setting in this fashion, while inappropriate, was nevertheless informative and entertaining.

Even so, the last line says the POTUS' comments were consistent.

A lie. To a tribunal.

I fully agree that the last line was dishonest.

They think we're all too stupid to notice.

Isn't that a violation of Rule 3.3 a (1)? No lying to a tribunal?

(Just made out a bar complaint...finalizing it for submission and that is one of the violations I'm citing on the asswipe I affectionately call fuckface...just pro se here.)

 

[mmmjvpssm]

And yet another attempt to *set the court straight*..telling them what they heard and how they must interpret it.

Another veiled threat.

What fucking pukes.

Nobody is trying to set anybody straight except this arrogant openly partisan judge. Nobody is telling them what they heard or how they must interpret it

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Although I think the author of the OP is a bit off the rails in his rhetoric, I will say again (since I voiced the opinion my own self, earlier): I think the "request" by those judges for a letter from the DOJ IS actually a bit out of bounds.

I'd be more than happy to see Holder knuckle under.

But as a matter of principle, I don't think I'd "honor" the "request."

For something as absurd and arrogant as this I don't think it's possible to go off the rails

YOU argued that because a judge used the term ObamaCare, he should be impeached.



Pretty much off the rails.

No, I did not. I NEVER said he should be impeached for using the term Obamacare

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Yeah they'll be sure to use that letter in the contempt charge brought against the attorney who got the order.

A contempt charge for not giving an account of Obama's campaign speeches??? Sadly that could happen. Obama needs to fight this and he needs to fight it hard. He needs to be angry and he needs to be vicious

Yes. When an attorney is ordered by the court and does not do it, the charge is contempt of court.

I do hope that obama gets angry and gets TRULY vicious with the court. He hasn't done nearly enough to be vicious. There are only veiled threats, he needs to make some REAL ones.

So if the judge orders the attorney to take off all his clothes and dance naked while singing God Bless America the attorney has to do it or he's in contempt of court? There are limits to what a court can do and when they go beyond those limits they need to be called on it