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

[Zoom-boing]

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

 

[Liability]

I just sent the following letter to the Justice Department and a copy to the President


You're actually going to comply with the demands of this judge who demands that you account for in writing for what President Obama has said ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! Complying with this BS would set a very dangerous precedent. This idiot judge who is so stupid he doesn't even know that the courts DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CAMPAIGN SPEECHES should have been told to go to f... hell right then and there. He should have been told that the President will say whatever he damn well pleases while he is on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL and he should have been told that that if he doesn't like it then that is just too damned bad. (ok, maybe not quite that blunt, but that's what he should have been told)

His calling the Affordable Health Care act "Obamacare" would alone be reason to be removed from the case. But with his absurd, stupid, idiotic, arrogant demand that President Obama, or anybody, account for what President Obama says on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL he should be impeached.

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."

The President REMAINS wrong for commenting (.)

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

I think that WHAT he said was stupid.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ical-football-as-justice-preps/#ixzz1rBgueMpd

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Megyn Fox was just on and I thought she was reading Holder's response to the court's request. But perhaps it was comments from earlier . . . darn kids, husbands and dogs in and out of here! I'll keep checking.

 

[WillowTree]

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!

 

[Peach]

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."

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

Well, that wasn't just stupid, it was dishonest. A constitutional law lecturer would presumably KNOW that there is nothing "unprecedented" in it.

 

[Liability]

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!

Maybe. Frankly, I doubt it.

That kind of thing is probably beneath their notice.

 

[WillowTree]

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!

Maybe. Frankly, I doubt it.

That kind of thing is probably beneath their notice.

Actually I think they're paying close attention, see? the game plan for the wh is to now make the supreme court a political battle. I think.

 

[Liability]

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

Maybe. Frankly, I doubt it.

That kind of thing is probably beneath their notice.

Actually I think they're paying close attention, see? the game plan for the wh is to now make the supreme court a political battle. I think.

Again, I doubt it. They see the idiot in the Oval Office for the lightweight he is.

The law gets shot down or upheld (one would hope) on the legal merits of the Constitutional analysis, not on whether the President's AG properly responded to some homework assignment from a lower Court.

And if the President (and AG) think (as I do) that the SCOTUS is about to shoot down ObamaCare, then why would the AG bother to compl with the lower court's homework assignment asked for in connection with litigation on pretty much the same topic? What are they gonna do: void the law too?

 

[Annie]

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

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, the last line is a lie. Nice of them to throw that in there. Cuz we all know the court isn't capable of understanding what the Prez said.

 

[Liability]

The AG didn't comply. He made it TO page 3, but I don't deem that to be 3 pages!

Outwage!



(I wonder if they'll give him a letter grade?)

 

[Claudette]

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

Barry better watch it. They may find HIM unconstitutional.

 

[Conservative]

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

The Presidents remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.

black is white, day is night, good is bad, etc etc etc.

 

[asaratis]

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

 

[koshergrl]

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

Another veiled threat.

What ******* pukes.

 

[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