Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh the Washington Times! nothing screams "Conservative" like that rag! So HOLDER should resign because he allowed the Black Panthers to protest without non violence? Their goal was to bully and intimidate unlike the Westboro Baptist Church members? You know those idiots who yell at Liberals and tell them they are going to Hell because they support Gay rights?
Oh the Washington Times! nothing screams "Conservative" like that rag! So HOLDER should resign because he allowed the Black Panthers to protest without non violence?
No, he should be removed from office because he chose to interpret law on his own rather than enforce it for ALL voters which is why he's in the position he holds. He is not a member of SCOTUS. Intepretation and enforcement are separate in our system. Well it was until Holder took it upon himself to favor 'his people'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob
Their goal was to bully and intimidate unlike the Westboro Baptist Church members? You know those idiots who yell at Liberals and tell them they are going to Hell because they support Gay rights?
Yes those idiots are idiots. But the SCOTUS has determined they can be idiots. I disagree with the Westboro idiots in their asinine exercise of their First Amendment rights. They cannot violate law though as the BP's did.
State or local could explore a law that could be enacted that (1) Give the family an option to make funerals public or private to include family and friends only, and (2) require a 5,000 foot limit on any protest group and include the motor route of the funeral.
Holder was involved with Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive and Democratic contributor Marc Rich. Holder advised Rich to circumvent standard procedures and to submit the pardon petition directly to the White House......An investigation led by House Government Reform Committee chairman Dan Burton concluded in a 2003 report covering 177 Clinton pardons that Holder had played a significant role in facilitating the Rich pardon, first by recommending the well-connected Jack Quinn to Rich's legal representatives, by failing to fully inform prosecutors of the pending pardon, and by eventually delivering a "neutral leaning favorable" opinion to Clinton from a position of authority
Holder was also involved in Clinton's decision to reduce the criminal sentences of 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army, an organization that has been categorized by the FBI as a terrorist organization. In July 1999, Holder recommended clemency to Clinton
the funniest thing about the gonzalas case is when Judge Napalitano confonted holder
Napolitano: When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge. Unprecedented in American history."
Holder: "He was not taken at the point of a gun."
Napolitano: "We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun."
Holder: "They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively..."
Napolitano: Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy?
Holder: Because we didn't need a court order. INS can do this on its own.
Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.
Holder: We didn't need an order.
Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn't need one?
Holder: [Silence]
Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it.
Do you have video of that interview or are you just quoting the text given on Newsbusters?
Further, considering that they didn't arrest Elian, they sure didn't need an arrest warrant. And since Elian's father was his legal custodian, the police didn't need a warrant to return him to his father. Relatives (usually the estranged mother or father) snatch other people's kid all the time -- and the police don't need a warrant to return a kid to his parents.
And -- think about it. Would you want the law to be any different? If your ex-wife, mother-in-law, sister, etc., took YOUR child, what do you think the law should be: (1) police come and get your kid back; anyone who doesn't like it can file a custody petition and get the kid if they win, or (2) sorry, fella -- if you want your kid back, come to us in a year or so when the case has worked its way through the court system.
The first principle of family law is that THE PARENTS GET TO KEEP THE KID UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHES EITHER AN EMERGENCY SITUATION OR CUSTODY IS CHANGED AFTER A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS.
Are you sure you want to live in a world where the police can not get a parent's kid back for him or her without an Order from the Court of Appeals?
Edit:
Don't worry though, that wouldn't be the first time Napolitano showed an astounding ignorance of federal law:
A little background before we examine this commentator's latest wade out of his depth. Napolitano was once a midlevel state-court judge in New Jersey. Assuming for argument's sake that this experience is a sure sign of actual legal expertise, it would be an exceedingly narrow one: to wit, he might be thought an authority on the constitution and laws of the Garden State. Fox, however, has opportunistically chosen to ignore the "New Jersey" modifier in his former title and focus myopically on the "Judge" part. The network has adopted a convention whereby all Fox News correspondents refer to Napolitano on the air not by name but as "Judge." He then proceeds to expound with glib certainty on all manner of legal issues, including matters of federal law, for which he appears to have little familiarity.
That the "Judge" is out of his league in these areas is often painfully obvious (see, e.g., Ramesh Ponnuru's dissection (http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200403090920.asp - broken link) of Napolitano's shoddy op-ed on the Patriot Act last March). Fox's viewers, nonetheless, are led to believe they are recipients of pearls of wisdom from a jurisprudential giant. It's a good racket and has recently landed the "Judge" on the bestseller list with a tome, tirelessly hyped by Fox, that is presumptuously entitled Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws. (Hint: He's not talking about the government that sits in Trenton.)
Napolitano's latest op-ed should be called something similar. Maybe: "Chaos: What Happens When a Poseur Analyzes a Federal Prosecution." This is a truly excruciating read. There are, no doubt, any number of highly qualified academics and defense lawyers who are sympathetic to the cause of Lynne Stewart — a defense lawyer convicted for actions arising out of purportedly providing legal services to a client — and who would have given their right arms in exchange for space in the New York Times's vaunted opinion page. The Gray Lady, instead, managed to find someone nearly incapable of getting a single fact right, much less of explaining the relevant principles.
Eric Holder should be in jail for his violations of our rights. He isn't an AG for the people, just for "his" people according to him. That is not a person that needs to be in that office.
Other than your opinion, what exactly did he do to violate criminal law?
Oh the Washington Times! nothing screams "Conservative" like that rag! So HOLDER should resign because he allowed the Black Panthers to protest without non violence? Their goal was to bully and intimidate unlike the Westboro Baptist Church members? You know those idiots who yell at Liberals and tell them they are going to Hell because they support Gay rights?
Come on Rob.
Huge difference.
The Westboro people are crazy but for these two thugs to stand outside a voting area and push their potential for violence and try to intimidate people is wrong and you know it.
Carrying a nightstick and dressing like fake army men should tell you they both have real issues.
They are lucky someone did not shove those nightsticks where the sun does not shine.
Other than your opinion, what exactly did he do to violate criminal law?
Obstruction of justice is what he is doing.
Purposely using his job for personal gain and for the betterment of "his people".
I do not think anyone said "criminal".
Willing to bet he has broken many laws that we do not know about in his decisions and his involvement in getting judges to make decisions across the country based on his intimidation tactics.
Well, let's take a look at what Holder said in context, which very few poster in this thread have seemed willing to do.
Quote:
The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.
"Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people."
Bartle Bull is in his 70s. He was around for the Civil Rights movement, and was either completely unaware of what was going on when he was a young adult, or he's being disingenuous. I don't blame Holder for being offended when a 70 year old Bartle Bull says that the two Black Panthers acting intimidating outside a polling station (which Holder says was wrong!) is the most serious act of voter intimidation in the past 50 years.
After all, there were people who risked their lives (and in some cases sacrificed them) for African Americans, "his people," during the civil rights movement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Refugee"?????
