Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eric Holder Letter
Fox News ^ | 4/5/2012 | Holder

Posted on 04/05/2012 11:22:21 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage

Here is the Holder Letter. The question now is: "Is the distortion intentional?

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obama; obamacare

1 posted on 04/05/2012 11:22:27 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

YES


2 posted on 04/05/2012 11:24:29 AM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

When Barack Obama was saying there shouldn’t be any judicial review of Obamacare,

he was actually supporting judicial review.


3 posted on 04/05/2012 11:28:01 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

I only counted 2 pages with a big signature.

He would have gotten an F (again) for this assignment. I was taught that 3 pages single space mean 3 pages single space. Not two pages and a fat signature line.

This guy can not follow instructions at all.


4 posted on 04/05/2012 11:30:14 AM PDT by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Ends with the non-sequitur “The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.” The principles described herein were that the court has a proper, albeit not unrestrained, power to overturn unconstitutional laws (which are presumed legitimate until proven otherwise). The President’s remarks bear no resemblance to the principles described by AG Holder.

2+2=5


5 posted on 04/05/2012 11:31:02 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3

A nose-thumbing moment. Knows the court won’t come back with “we said 3 pages!”, and knows it’s not because the court didn’t notice.


6 posted on 04/05/2012 11:32:15 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Holder’s view through Sh!t goggles.... his head is so far up Hussein’s posterior, this is the best things can look.

The punk racist Holder.


7 posted on 04/05/2012 11:32:37 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3
"He would have gotten an F (again) for this assignment."

True, but affirmative action would result in an A on the transcript.

8 posted on 04/05/2012 11:34:25 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

“We agree that the Courts may review laws when we think it is appropriate.” Astonishing.


9 posted on 04/05/2012 11:34:45 AM PDT by pabianice (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
Jay Carny! Eric Holder !!

Clean up on isle 2.

10 posted on 04/05/2012 11:36:15 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the President, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the President’s statements and again to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

Sounds like they can't follow very specific, very easy-to-understand langage.

11 posted on 04/05/2012 11:40:45 AM PDT by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
No more intentional than usual.


12 posted on 04/05/2012 11:41:47 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Over half of U.S. murders are of black people, and 90% of them are committed by other black people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3
I only counted 2 pages with a big signature.

Not to mention that he spent one half page to restate the question. I imagine this letter cost the government about $50,000 to produce giving the man hours in researching and staffing the response and then the 50 cent response that Holder tossed in.

13 posted on 04/05/2012 11:42:24 AM PDT by Harley (Will Rogers never met Harry Reid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

The only line Holder read was the last one, before he signed, and it is false anyway.

FUEH and your boss, too.


14 posted on 04/05/2012 11:43:23 AM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemies of freedom. Be Andrew Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

Bingo. An FU to the 5th. It will not go unnoticed by the entire Federal judiciary. Thanks 0bama!


15 posted on 04/05/2012 11:44:13 AM PDT by eureka! (Bless Our Troops. D*mn the Left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Like his brother from anothr mother-—LIAR!


16 posted on 04/05/2012 11:45:56 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3

As I recall, the judge said “at least three pages”.

FAIL.


17 posted on 04/05/2012 11:46:01 AM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemies of freedom. Be Andrew Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
“We agree that the Courts may review laws when we think it is appropriate.” Astonishing.

Yes, it is breathtaking! Incredible disregard for the constitution, and they hold an obvious total disragard for the constitution and I have to think race has a lot to do with this.

18 posted on 04/05/2012 11:52:27 AM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aria

acck! This is what I get for posting while at work.


19 posted on 04/05/2012 12:00:30 PM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3

“This guy can not follow instructions at all.”

This guy will not follow instructions at all.

This is called the bare minimum to save yourself from a contempt citation and a few days in the pokey.


20 posted on 04/05/2012 12:03:30 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Key words.....”when WE think it is appropriate.”

Sounds like they think they control the whole Government. I will be very interested to see how they repsond to this.

So we have a race war..a class war...and now a judicial war....”Division” is an understatment.


21 posted on 04/05/2012 12:14:23 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Key words.....”when WE think it is appropriate.”

Sounds like they think they control the whole Government. I will be very interested to see how they repsond to this.

So we have a race war..a class war...and now a judicial war....”Division” is an understatment.


22 posted on 04/05/2012 12:22:50 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

“We agree that the Courts may review laws when we think it is appropriate.” Astonishing.

Pabianice, I have looked at the Holder letter, and I do not see this line in it. But for the benefit of the doubt, could you point me to where it is?


23 posted on 04/05/2012 12:30:00 PM PDT by Heartlander2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I agree. And Obama knows there are some animals more equal than others too. Chicago style community organizing at work move along .Move along. He was being fully consistent with Marxist communist Or Nazi Brownshirt -or Islamic principles
that influenced him as a boy dreaming of a father who was just like him.


24 posted on 04/05/2012 12:31:19 PM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

The third page of the requested three is mostly blank. I count that as two....fail


25 posted on 04/05/2012 12:31:30 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander2

Or anywhere, for that matter. I’ve searched the internet for it, and nada.


26 posted on 04/05/2012 12:31:55 PM PDT by Heartlander2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Could this be a double reverse play on Obama’s part. Now if the Court rules against him he can counter any statements by Repubs that his signature accomplishment was struck down on constitutional grounds with insinuations that the Court did it out of revenge for is statements.


27 posted on 04/05/2012 12:36:15 PM PDT by dadharry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander2
I do not see this line in it.

Nor do I. The closest is: "The Supreme Court has further explained that this power may only be exercised in appropriate cases . " Then a few sentences later Holder writes that "we have argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case."

So the essence is true - that Obama and his henchmen feel the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in this case, and as such, doesn't agree that it's appropriate for the court to rule on it.

28 posted on 04/05/2012 12:54:39 PM PDT by noexcuses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Aria
It is only mild mannered and speech controlled conservatives who think that Obama and Holder have a 'disregard' for the constitution.

His real friends and followers know that he despises the document and all it stands for. They are hoping for a second term of "reforming" America and saying goodbye to the documents of the wealthy white men, as Justice Sotomayor said.

29 posted on 04/05/2012 1:07:22 PM PDT by Baynative (Please check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFIcZkEzc8I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
The longstanding, hi storica l positi on of the Un ited States regarding judicial review of the constitutiona li ty offedera ll egis lation has not changed and was accurate ly stated by counse l for the government at ora l argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked thi s o r any other Cout1 to reconsider or limit long-estab lished precedent concerning jud icia l rev iew of the cons titutionali ty of federa l leg is lation.

Whoa, this guy is claiming to speak on behalf of the United States. It should more accurately have been said that the longstanding law OF the United States has been that the courts have power to review the constitutionality of Congressional laws, and strike down those that are not constitutional. His wording makes it seems like judicial review is a "position" of the US government, not an edict from the Supreme Court accepted by the other branches as correct. He is trying to make the courts seem inferior, and not part of "the government".

The remainder of the letter is unremarkable, except that I would throw it back in their faces when they try to claim that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstituional. Further, it occurs to me that there should be a question of standing in that case. The President is sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, not attack. It should be up to someone impacted negatively to try to have it overturned, not someone sworn to uphold it.

30 posted on 04/05/2012 2:39:43 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

When Holder and OB are out of office next year, I’ll send them a copy of the constitution for their leisure time reading.


31 posted on 04/05/2012 2:41:41 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

they should have several copies available in the prison library no need to waste the postage


32 posted on 04/05/2012 2:44:47 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson