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

[Si modo]

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.

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

The judge is simply answering the arrogance of one branch and reminding it that another branch is just as powerful.

Obama NEEDS to be reminded, sadly.

 

[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

It was NOT a campaign speech dumb ass, he made the comments to the Press Corps IN the White House. What lets say it was and get him for improper use of his position visa via campaigning. Shall we?

Hey idiot, the same applies, campaign speech, press conference, I don't care if he was talking to the Pope. The court has no business demanding he account for what he said

 

[Si modo]

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

It was NOT a campaign speech dumb ass, he made the comments to the Press Corps IN the White House. What lets say it was and get him for improper use of his position visa via campaigning. Shall we?

Hey idiot, the same applies, campaign speech, press conference, I don't care if he was talking to the Pope. The court has no business demanding he account for what he said

Sure it does, and it did.

 

[Liability]

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

Ok. YOU (being a dope) maintained that for using the term "ObamaCare" the judge should be removed from the CASE.



For calling upon the Government to have the AG provide the 3 page letter, you maintained an impeachment was called for.



Sorry, pal. But you are dip-shit stupid either way.

If a judge says something dumb in asking you a question or asking you to do something, you politely answer anyway. You try not to tell a judge that he's a dope.

And judges don't get impeached for asking for something even if they aren't entitled to it (as long as the thing they are requesting isn't bribe or drugs or a hit or sumpin' like that).

You are a bit unhinged. You do know that don't you?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Holder thought it was because he wrote the letter.

Perhaps obama will take this personally. Leak the Justices home addresses to the New Black Panthers, arrest a few for treason.

Step it up. Get into a real fight with the court.

He wrote it because he doesn't have any damn guts

 

[Katzndogz]

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

I wish, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart that holder had done just that.

 

[Si modo]

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

I wish, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart that holder had done just that.

That would have had several levels of awesome, too.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

* * * *
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?

Let's start having liberal judges being as openly partisan and see what the response from the right is then you can get back to me about being partisan

 

[mmmjvpssm]

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 only saw and heard one judge issue the order. If it was three it was still none of their business and they were still out of bounds

 

[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?

Let's start having liberal judges being as openly partisan and see what the response from the right is then you can get back to me about being partisan

Start?

START?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Payback is a *****, eh lightweight?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

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?

Nobody said they were

 

[Si modo]

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?

Nobody said they were

Actually, you did. But you're not sharp enough to know that.

 

[Katzndogz]

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 only saw and heard one judge issue the order. If it was three it was still none of their business and they were still out of bounds

One judge did issue the order but the hearing is before a three judge panel who could have overruled that one judge at any time. Even after the order was given it would have been rescinded.

The one thing I would dearly love to happen is for obama to get into a real knock down drag out with the federal judiciary. That is just what his reelection needs.

 

[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

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

Imagine that.

By design.






Moron.

Really? You ******* sure about that? Cause it seems that just about all I've been hearing here is shit like "Gosh, the court ordered it...have to do what the court says...contempt of court...."

Reading this thread sounds to me like the court has unlimited power

Moron

 

[mmmjvpssm]

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.)

You do that. The last line was a comment and does not meet the standards of perjury

 

[Si modo]

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.

Really? You ******* sure about that? Cause it seems that just about all I've been hearing here is shit like "Gosh, the court ordered it...have to do what the court says...contempt of court...."

Reading this thread sounds to me like the court has unlimited power

Moron

When it comes to what courts do, of course they have that power.

And, neither the POTUS nor any government employee is above the law. They answer to the courts just like everyone else.

 

[Liability]

I find it amusing that I have SOME of the same thought as mmmridiculous. (That I have ANY thoughts along the same lines as him is also kind of scary.)

I don't think our inferior AG should have complied.

I don't believe a SCOTUS judge would ever have the temerity to "order" a Government lawyer to have the AG hand in a homework assignment. And, frankly, I'm not sure what the **** the SCOTUS could DO about it if the co-equal branch of government said "no."

I mean, sure, the outcome of that case might be put into jeopardy. But facing reality, this shit only came UP in the first place because the outcome of the case is already in ******* jeopardy.

I hear the term "impeachment" and cannot IMAGINE that ANY Congress would consider a SCOTUS "contempt of Court" citation to constitute an impeachable offense.

But despite my agreement with a couple of the things the laughable mmmridiculous has suggested, I have to admit that it was PROBABLY wiser and more mature for the AG to simply comply with the 3 judge panel "order." (I just wouldn't have done it.) And so, it is funny as hell to me.

 

[Si modo]

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.)

You do that. The last line was a comment and does not meet the standards of perjury

I'm not reporting him, you idiot. And, attorneys don't testify, so it's not perjury - it's a violation of Rule 3.3 a (1).

 

[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 ******* 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

The judge is simply answering the arrogance of one branch and reminding it that another branch is just as powerful.

Obama NEEDS to be reminded, sadly.

Then he can do it in a press conference on the Court House lawn (If that would be legal, I don't know)

 

[mmmjvpssm]

It was NOT a campaign speech dumb ass, he made the comments to the Press Corps IN the White House. What lets say it was and get him for improper use of his position visa via campaigning. Shall we?

Hey idiot, the same applies, campaign speech, press conference, I don't care if he was talking to the Pope. The court has no business demanding he account for what he said

Sure it does, and it did.

No, it does not