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

Skip to comments.

Do we still need a Justice Department?
The Hill (Pundits Blog) ^ | 2/24/2011 | Bernie Quigley

Posted on 02/24/2011 8:38:54 AM PST by Qbert

Jay Carney, the president’s new mouthpiece, gives the impression of the “man behind the curtain.” Little to say, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post reports, few tools in the toolbox, tepid and inauthentic, like one of Don Draper’s paste-up artists, stylish and self-effacing. Who’s afraid of Jay Carney? Who’s afraid of Barack Obama? It is all smoke and mirrors. But the perfect spokesman as the president moves to use the Justice Department in a pure and unconscionable strategy of political revenge. It reveals the inner man. Sarko was right: Obama is a weakling.

The president’s declaration last night that he would no longer have the Justice Department challenge gay marriage seems a random rear-guard action of a president in retreat. No plan to it, just a random attack on the conservatives building strength in the awakening states. California is key. In a state referendum it has voted down gay marriage. California is finding its own sense of dominion: a sense of who it wants to be and how with intelligence and will it will make itself. But last I heard Justice was supposed to be independent from the president. Even those of us who sat in the back of the class and slipped out for a smoke caught that. What is the principle of the Justice Department if it is just a partisan tool?

And so why, again, do we need this? New England, although dominated by New York, still has a sense of itself and a sense of dominion. I can’t imagine how anyone out of the region, especially some crusty political appointee in the Supreme Court who has never been here, could ever fully grasp our truer nature and truths. So they can only dominate via abstraction, and that is what they do. Same with Texas: sense of dominion. You can’t truly know Texas unless, like Rick Perry, whose boots say, “Come and take it,” you are Texan. Same to a degree and growing with the Pacific Northwest. An incidentally, some of the greater literature makes this case: Camus’s “The Stranger” and even better, Andre Malraux’s “The Conquerors.”

But California especially has spoken with the will of its people. Action by Justice or the Supreme Court would be pure detached totalitarianism, same as they experience today in Tibet as the arbitrary, distant and detached rulers in Beijing suck out their life force.

Government shutdown? As Judge Andrew Napolitano said on his “Freedom Watch” show the other night when this occurred in the mid-1990s, Main Street folk opposed, as I did, but not now. The rising question now is who needs it?


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: democrats; doj; dojisajoke; doma; ericholder; holder; holderisajoke; justicedepartment; liberalfascism; obama

1 posted on 02/24/2011 8:38:58 AM PST by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Qbert
We don't need most of the departments in DC. We just need to restrict them to article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. And do it forcefully and strictly
2 posted on 02/24/2011 8:43:12 AM PST by Cowman (How can the IRS seize property without a warrant if the 4th amendment still stands?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
Do we still need a Justice Department?

That depends on your definition of "justice." The current administration's operating definition is incorrect.

3 posted on 02/24/2011 8:45:35 AM PST by paulycy (Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

But then who would prosecute the evil doers selling designer bag knock offs?


4 posted on 02/24/2011 8:56:13 AM PST by jazminerose (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Moronic ``Justice Dept.`` is an Oxymoron.


5 posted on 02/24/2011 9:03:26 AM PST by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
Do we still need a Justice Department?

Certainly not this one.

6 posted on 02/24/2011 9:08:11 AM PST by Pusterfuss (Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Not as long as its sole objective is political; it’s Obama’s Gestapo.


7 posted on 02/24/2011 9:17:41 AM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Imagine what a guy like Walker could do with the power of the Presidency. He knows that he can essentially do whatever he wants to the Dems, since he’s got a majority behind him. Imagine if Obama had tried that right after he was sworn in, with the Dem majority in the House and Senate, and a 75% approval rating! But Obama didn’t - he actually wanted to bargain and compromise.

Walker knows that the way to win is to simply steamroller over your opponents when you have the chance. If you don’t believe in their philosophy, don’t bargain with them. Don’t even listen to them. Let them squawk! Last night, the GOP members of the Assembly were laughing out loud on the chamber floor at the Dems and their talking points.

If he can crush them and strip them of any way to participate, he will have won this crucial battle. It really doesn’t matter how many Dems there are in WI - if you can shut them down, then they are powerless. Make it impossible for them to win another election. make the people who still have sympathy for a Democratic position so disheartened that they give up. It doesn’t matter how small your force is if you can control the political “high ground.”

If Walker was President, he’d crush the Dems nationwide so fast, and so completely, that they would never know what hit them. Make it impossible for them to participate in creating or passing legislation. Kneecap them (metaphorically) so that they can never pass another bill. The 48% of the population who votes Dem would just give up and die.

They don’t know how to use power. It’s obvious that Walker and the GOP does.


8 posted on 02/24/2011 9:20:20 AM PST by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario

“But Obama didn’t - he actually wanted to bargain and compromise.”

—Was that before or after the petulant one told Eric Cantor almost as soon as he became POTUS, “I WON. I’ll trump you on that,” and shut the door on further meetings with the GOP for almost an entire year? Before or after he rammed through stimulus without a single House GOP vote? Before or after Obamacare was shoved down our throats, and his party threatened “deem and pass” and using reconciliation?...

Walker and the WI Gop won even-handedly in the last election. Our democratic process enables them to pass legislation as they see fit. Whether the legislation that is passed ultimately accords with what the voters desire is a separate topic.

What our Constituion and legal precedent does not allow is for a President to violate the separation of powers principles and declare himself to act as the judicial branch.

Sorry...


9 posted on 02/24/2011 9:41:31 AM PST by Qbert ("I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air" - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Probably not... since they never went after that POS that “owned” Global Crossing... that dude, Gary Winnick, sucked out 100s of millions of $s then GX crashed and burned... I lost $3,000+ on that stock while Winnick and his friends (like Terry McAuliffe) walked away rich... Good old Terry when asked about his windfall while the little guy GX stock holders and employees lost every thing... said “It was capitalism.” Both Terry and Gary should have done nickle-plated cuff perp walks (like Ebbers of WorldCom fame), but the Justice Dept. looked the other way.


10 posted on 02/24/2011 9:46:58 AM PST by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trajan88

It’s a shame.

My new line to greedy union members and Libs who want to raise taxes and for us to pay for their benefits. etc. “Go beg you’re rich white liberal masters- surely, they’ll help you out of generous liberal compassion. Until then, buzz off...”


11 posted on 02/24/2011 9:59:32 AM PST by Qbert ("I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air" - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Yes, we do need one.

Our old one, the one we had for more than 200 years, has gone over to the other side.


12 posted on 02/24/2011 9:59:38 AM PST by Iron Munro ("Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy." -- Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Then the Dems deserve everything they get.


13 posted on 02/24/2011 10:08:43 AM PST by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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