Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. forgot about a brief he wrote on a well known case protecting a terrorist. In the words of the “Church Lady,” How convenient! Holder has called protecting the civil rights of Muslims a “top priority.” Recently, he filed a suit on behalf of a Muslim teacher for not doing her job when she took off school to go to the Middle East for an Islamic function. What about the STUDENTS? Do they have rights? According to the article this Muslim teacher resigned, so what is the suit about? His department has filed other legal actions on behalf of Muslims. Unfortunately, Holder also has filed actions against the American people for wanting to protect themselves such as with the Arizona suit. Then again, what else would you expect coming from this RACIST Eric Holder, who failed/refused to prosecute the members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Holder is a RACIST and puts his beliefs ahead of the law. Holder needs to be FIRED.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Kind words, johngalt. And for those, thank you. Always happy to entertain. LOL

About billy bob’s attempted defense of Holder’s 2004 brief, signing on to an opinion INRE the authority to hold Padilla….

billy bob suffers from not only from the arrogant attempt to rewrite SCOTUS opinions, which never have stated that holding one deemed an enemy combatant indefinitely is beyond the scope of a President…. but a timeline problem. Holder did his Padilla brief in 2004, prior to the 4th’s opinion that upheld Bush’s right to detail Padilla. Oddly enough, the 4th was royally po’d that – after that decision – the Bush admin decided to transfer Padilla over to the federal court system when thefeds indicted him, with cell members, in 2006.

But going to the heart of billy bob’s attempt at a cogent argument… the ability to hold a detainee indefinitely and that legitimacy. ex parte Quirin was a unanimous SCOTUS decision saying otherwise and has been evoked – and cited – throughout this debate. Even the most damaging of decisions in Boumediene did not state… as the 2nd rate paralegal implies… that Bush was acting illegally. What they stated was that Gitmo was deemed to be US sovereign territory in their eyes, and therefore a detainee had the right to contest his enemy combatant status in the federal courts.

If he lost that status battle, there was no written and stated objection by the courts to overrule a prior SCOTUS decision that enabled any POTUS to detain an enemy combatant indefinitely.

Therefore any attempt to prove Bush was knowingly and willing acting outside Constitutional law really boils down to the question of the specific detainee, and his status. That is not a blanket “he was wrong”, but down to an individual and the specific circumstance.

billy bob, for political purposes and suffering from eternal BDS, decides to rewrite the opinions for the unknowing or uninterested.

Devil in the details.

Prozac induced, mentally challenged and O’faithful devotee billy bob isn’t focused enough to concentrate on details. He prefers to give a “nuff said” parting shot – hoping someone would bite on his spoiled bait – and bolt to take a dump on another thread. Do note he hasn’t show up here, nor on the (paraphrased) “you lyin’ cons are making it up about the student loans in the reconciliation bill” thread. When he’s overwhelmed, he simply moves on to make another attempt.

uh… can anyone say ARCHIVES! LOL

Like I said, were I in a court room, nothing would make me happier than to see billy bob at the other table. Slam dunk. An idiot that even a lay person can out think.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Patvann

My sentiments exactly.

I love the back and forth between the esteemed Mata and the neanderthal leftist BRob. Most of us here who think like she does fall far short of her abilities when having a “discussion” with the lefties who visit us. We know we are right, and we know what to talk about, but we cannot hone our comments into razor-sharped instruments like she does when she dissects their arguments and then feeds it back to them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BRob go back to the Huffington post and stick to convincing them that everything Bush is evil and everything PEBO is good.

We arent buying what you are selling, at an over inflated prices at that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I saw that earlier this morning, Patvann. These habeas lawyers are more leftwing activists than mere professionals doing a “patriotic duty” in “upholding the Constitution”.

Thiessen’s book mentions the John Adams Project along with some other instances where these activist lawyers have passed along intell information to their Gitmo clients. They undermine the very process of interrogations themselves, hampering our ability to gather intell that could save lives.

@BRob:

Holder and Co. acted to force the government to abide by the U.S. Constitution . . . and for that, you think they should have their “values” questioned. But the question of their values was clearly addressed by the Supreme Court. They were right and the Bushies were engaging in unlawful, unconstitutional overreach. ‘Nuff said.

BRob,

Why doesn’t Holder make that case himself, if that line of narrative holds soup? Why hide? Why obfuscate? The way you play it, he should be parading the al Qaeda 7+ as a badge of honor for this administration.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

While we are in our regular mode of symbolically running Blob over with trains, here’s a high-speed Amtrack…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117611125872740.html

Treason requires hanging, and I have good rope, wood, and a General Contractors license.
Fuckit. I’ll personally volunteer to shoot them in the head. Bullets are cheap.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ho- Hum. I usually have to pay a lawyer to listen to so much jibber jabber legalese.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Excuse me, billy bob… but what court rules that “the Bushies were acting in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner”? Funny, I’m familiar with Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, Padilla and Boumediene. All opinion briefs live in my files and in my bookmarks.

And as I pointed out, the highest court opinion in Padilla is the 4th who ruled in favor of the government.

It is far above your paygrade as a second rate paralegal to rewrite SCOTUS decisions. The vague “court ruled” comments without citations don’t fly here. You’ll have to find a less informed blog community, bubba.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata, Mata, Mata . . . it’s OK. I noticed that you totally skipped over the most salient point of everything, which is . . . the U.S. Constitution.

See, you cons like to try to ignore the obvious, but what the Court ruled was that the Bushies were acting in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner. Repeat after me:

Unconstitutional. Unlawful.

Holder and Co. acted to force the government to abide by the U.S. Constitution . . . and for that, you think they should have their “values” questioned. But the question of their values was clearly addressed by the Supreme Court. They were right and the Bushies were engaging in unlawful, unconstitutional overreach. ‘Nuff said.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

First of all, I have no idea what “another thing” you’re discussing, billy bob. Is there some phantom message I should be receiving via telepathy?

Your comment #7 doesn’t address civilian courts vs military tribunals. That was never your argument.

What you said was that the High Court backed Holder’s Padilla brief opinion… which it did not. Now I know you are reading challenged, and probably missed that the original post topic is about Holder’s “forgotten” Padilla opinion.

You have been duly corrected.

Nor do the other relevant cases… Rasul, Hamdi (which I repeat was used by the 4th to substantiate their opinion that the Bush admin was fully within their rights to hold Padilla… and is the highest court decision on record for that case), Hamdan or Boumediene state that enemy combatants cannot be held indefinitely. Boumediene.. perhaps the most erroneous decision, IMHO… states that the Gitmo detainees specifically have the right to *question* their enemy combatant status in the courts. And they accomplished this by redefining Gitmo’s sovereign territory status.

In fact, if you bother to read the Hamdi opinion, you’ll find that the court most certainly recognizes that detentions of enemy combatants is not without precedent in ex parte Quirin. But as in everything SCOTUS, they rule on the specifics before them, and related to that case and circumstance alone.

Nor can you offer any parallel universe proof that a civilian court carries more stringent penalties. This is impossible unless you have two side by side trials, convictions and sentencing.

You really need to lay off Alice’s pills in that rabbit hole.

Like or Dislike: 0  0