Skip to comments.Who's correct? O'Reilly or Mark Levin?
Posted on 06/20/2012 5:42:42 PM PDT by Kevin in California
While watching the leprecaun and Morris debate tonight regarding the Holder contemp hearing, the leprecaun told Morris if the House vote next week finds Holder in contempt, it'll be nothing more than an embararrasment for him as there are no mechanisms in place to prosecute Holder as he's pretty much not prosecute himself.
However, while listening to Levin on the way home from work earlier, Levin said the house can add some sort of notes to the vote in which they could seek an outside Fed court to make Holder turn over the docs the OC (Issa) is demanding.
If I were to venture a guess on who's correct, I'd take Levin over the leprecaun.
My money is always on Levin.
No comparison....The GREAT One trumps O’Reilly every time!
And my money is on Levin.
Levin is a Constitutional Lawyer, and the Leprechaun is?
Normally, my money would be on Levin, but O'Reilly is a subject matter expert on being an embarrassment.
Well, O’Reilly is wrong: the House can send the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest a person held in contempt, and direct that he be imprisoned until he complies with the investigatory demand, or until the session of Congress ends.
Mark usually knows what hes talking about...
Perhaps the state of Arizona should put out an arrest warrant on Holder for the charge of accessory to murder of Brian Terry.
That would be interesting.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”
OReilly is always right,never wrong and he tells you that evvvvverrrry single night ,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Good money is on Levin....not the leprechaun.
O’Reilly is wrong very often. Levin always strikes me as very sharp.
Not much to choose between there.
Not the world’s biggest Levin fan but he’s usually right on judicial issues and O’Reilly doesn’t know squat about anything.
President Obama became a constitutional lawyer, expressly so he could use his knowledge to skirt the Constitution.
Another Obama lie: he was never a Constitutional law professor. He was an adjunct lecturer in Constitutional law.
(Those of us who actually published rather than perishing and actually help run our departments are jealous of the title professor, and don’t want our brand diluted by negligent part-timers who never published any scholarly works in their field, and didn’t even have the decency to show up for faculty meetings.)
After a contempt vote by House, Holder will be pretty much ineffective in his job.
There are several factors courts look to. The most important is whether the president was involved, since that determines which privilege (presidential communications versus deliberative process) is in play. Beyond that, several factors weigh in favor of Congress and against Holder here. This was domestic policy (not foreign), in an operation out of an agency (not the White House), where crimes may have been committed, and none of the presidents constitutional prerogatives are implicated by the case. Factors favoring Obama are that this is not legislative policymaking, and it does have a diplomatic angle because of relations with Mexico. But surveying 200 years of court precedent shows that Congress has the better claim here.Big Hollywood: Holder Will Lose Executive Privilege Fight
The only way to beat an executive privilege claim is by court order. To take this issue to court, the full House must vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, thenwhen federal prosecutors predictably inform the House that they will not prosecute their bossthe full House must pass a second resolution authorizing Rep. Darrell Issa to file suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. on behalf of the entire U.S. House.
Holder will lose the court fight. Hell appeal, of course, but eventually the appeals will be over, and well all learn the truth of what really happened in Fast and Furious.
And whom to hold accountable.
BOR could not pass the Bar exam even if he had the answers
in advance. Which is why he is only a TV host.
My money is on Levin, as well.
No contest, the GREAT ONE.
O’reilly is all talk and little fact check
O’Reilly is usually correct with his analysis, and whether Holder may technically CAN be arrested (up for debate), he will not. So practically, O’Reilly is correct again.
I recently finished “Liberty and Tyranny”, and can say Levin isn’t always right. But between him and O’Reily I’d bet on Levin every time.
Is this some kind of trick question?
Levin is usually right on the constitution. Levin is not so good on the economics though. Thats when you listen to Peter Schiff for economics
Levin is correct in absolute terms of the law. However, the fact of the matter is the Congress will vote a contempt citation and go on vacation until October, Just before the election.
Over the summer the courts will be petitioned for the power of enforcement. There will be hearings back and forth. Appeals will ensue and maybe within two years it will become SCOTUS level.
Then there will be further delays and more blah, blah, blah....
If Obama loses the election this thing gets dropped quietly.
If he wins, this won’t be anywhere near settled before the next president is sworn in and we are back to it being quietly dropped.
Doesn’t matter if someone finds a door with tape on it.
Without even reading the article, I’ll put my money on Levin. O’Reilly is a big mouth idiot.
Without even reading further than the title, I say LEVIN!
Becasue there’s no way Bill Blowhard could ever, in his wildest dreams, outsmart/outclass/outmaneuver/outintellectualize The Great One!
Ted Baxter is a conservative like I’m a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model.
Bill did not attend law school, he has a Master of Arts in broadcast journalism from Boston University and an MPA from Harvard.
Vendome is correct. So Levin may be right, but Speaker Boehner doesn’t have the will to fight obama. On this, on the amnesty decision, on anything.
Comparing O’Reilly to Levin is like comparing Pee Wee Herman to William F. Buckley. BOR should be a game show host.... PERIOD!
All obama ever had going for him is that he's black (affirmative action) and he's a committed Marxist. Two things they just LOVE at Harvard.
Levin, of course.
The O’butthole still sticks to the lie that he saw the Obamakork’s original birth certificate.
Executive Privilege and how the House should move forward legally
by Mark Levin on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 2:41pm ·
As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.
As the Supreme Court has also recognized repeatedly, the Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has the essential power to investigate the actions of the Executive Branch.
In this case, the exercise of Executive Privilege seems, in its timing and over-inclusiveness, to be nothing less than a political delaying tactic to prevent exposure of wrongdoing and incompetence that resulted in the murder of a American law enforcement agent and injury and death of many others. Further, a wholesale claim of privilege is facially improper: the President should be held to the standard that anyone claiming privilege is held to: identify each document in a log so that privilege can be disputed. (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974)
Because among the categories of documents sought are all those relating to the recantation by Holder of testimony before Congress, the demand goes to the core of the Congressional power under Article I. In this respect, this is not a general or oversight inquiry but a determination of why the Attorney General of the United States testified falsely before Congress about his own knowledge of a federal program. Presumptively, none of this category of documents is protected by Executive Privilege for wrongdoing per se is not protected by the privilege.
The right way to proceed is to hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House and seek authorization from the House for the Committee, by its Chairman, to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents. (Holder will not enforce a holding of contempt against himself — and by the way, he should have authorized, say, the assistant attorney general for legal counsel, to handle the contempt matter once the House voted as at that point he is representing his own interests and not those of the nation generally). Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.
Yes, some documents may be covered by EP, but the blanket attachment of that label flouts the law and the Constitution, and harms the legitimate assertion of EP by Presidents of either party in the future. The Constitution is far too important to be subject to the caprice of this President and an AG who, on its face, wants to be free from scrutiny about why he testified falsely before a Committee of Congress.
Executive Privilege is a very important implied executive power, used in various forms since the presidency of George Washington. Therefore, it’s misuse and abuse, to cover-up wrongdoing, conceal embarrassing information, or advance a political agenda, diminishes the ability of future presidents to assert it legitimately.
Maybe they can but I will bet they won't dare to be so bold. Boehner would never permit it in any case.
You really should provide examples of why he was wrong in Liberty and Tyranny if you make that claim. I have issues with some of his beliefs but not concerning the law.
Bill O’Reilly is one of the most idiotic people in the history of television. I am grateful he runs around telling everyone that he is an “independent” because I sure as hell don’t want him registered in the same party as I am. He is a disgrace to Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Laura Ingraham, and Charles Krauthammer; all of whom I trust and respect on FNC.
Harvard does seem rather enamored of faux oppression narratives (both Obama and Elizabeth Warren being cases in point), but the relevant institution here is the University of Chicago, where Obama “served” as stint as an adjunct lecturer on Constitutional law, also on the basis of affirmative action, rather than any actual attainment in the field.
Similar to: "Does daylight occur during the day or at night?"
Who the hell is O’Reilly? Oh, you mean that Fox News idiot...
Without even knowing the topic of discussion I would bet the farm on Levin. As a matter of fact, the list of people I would side with over BOR is quite long.
Levin worked in the attorney general’s office under Reagan.
Before reading the question, I wouldn’t believe Oh’Really? if he said the Sun would rise in the East.
Mark Levin tends to know what he’s talking about. Oh’Really? tends to talk on things he knows nothing about.
I know. I was just making a point how stupid BOR is by saying
he could not pass a Bar exam even if he had the answers in hand. That’s how stupid BOR is.
Levin is a very good litigator. O’Reilly is a very bad bs artist. No contest here.
A normal person would be embarrassed to be as ill-informed as O’Reilly. I am constantly amazed at his ignorance on all subjects.