Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder? (Last Thing This Country Needs)

After 5 1/2 bumpy years of controversial service, the besieged but bolstered attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned. But is this close friend and confidant of President Barack Obama's really stepping down for some benign reason at a critical time for our country, or is there a sinister and strategic plan behind it all?

First, it's far more than a coincidence that the United States' chief lawyer is leaving office with more unanswered questions about crucial life-and-death national dilemmas than any previous attorney general. Though most have been accused of sitting on issues, none has been so assailed as Holder for personally stonewalling investigations, covering up government involvement and refusing to deal with politically explosive controversies. Holder has not prosecuted such monumental and rights-infringing crimes as the Fast and Furious debacle; the Benghazi, Libya, tragedy; National Security Agency wiretappings; press infringements; drone attacks on U.S. citizens; and the Internal Revenue Service scandal.

The Bronx, New York-born 63-year-old Holder proudly boasted that he had "taken steps to protect the environment," taken swift action in Ferguson, Missouri, and even opened a broad probe into the police department in Ferguson. However, he -- like our president and even Secretary of State John Kerry -- hasn't said a single word over the past six months about Marine reservist Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi's being wrongly imprisoned in Mexico.

Sadly, it has been recently reported that Tahmooressi, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, is "highly despondent" because of the drastic deterioration of his mental health. And still, Holder refuses to speak up on behalf of this suffering, imprisoned American patriot.

If Obama invoked executive privilege when Holder sat before Congress to protect him from his role in Fast and Furious, who's to say he isn't protecting him again -- or vice versa -- through Holder's resignation? What better way to avoid the line of fire than to move completely out of the way? And what if Obama and Holder are not only protecting themselves from some past public sin through his resignation but also prepping Holder for some future position by his absence from the public stage?

That's exactly what Rush Limbaugh proposed this past week. He explained the scary scenario this way:

"After you perform your six years of government service, you then retire to the private sector and get paid off for it. People hire you who are grateful for what you did, or you go back to your law firm, where you are a rainmaker, don't even have to do any work.

"They put your name on the letterhead, on the door, and you attract clients and get a percentage of what walks in the door. There is any number of ways this can happen. But there's also another possibility regarding Eric Holder. I just want you to prepare yourself. It may happen. We still have two years to go.

"There may be a Supreme Court vacancy, and I can see Barack Obama nominating Eric Holder to fill it, and it would be much easier for Eric Holder to make the jump from private-sector law firm rainmaker after six years at (the Department of Justice) to the Supreme Court than from DOJ straight to the Supreme Court. I don't know how much that would matter, but don't rule any of that out. I don't think there's any scandal. I don't think it's Fast and Furious. I don't think he's worried about the Republicans investigating anything if they win the Senate."

It is worth noting that Rahm Emanuel resigned as Obama's chief of staff two years before the end of the president's first term in order to attain the post of mayor of Chicago -- a resignation that Obama labeled as "bittersweet," which he also did with Holder's.

Hillary Clinton was next, with her resignation as secretary of state, which most people think was in order to run for president in 2016.

Now, two years before the end of the president's second term, could Obama and Holder's scope be set on SCOTUS? Given they are the kings of corrupt calculated chess moves, I believe the odds are incredibly high.

Having finished their insider dirty work, this trinity of terror (Emanuel, Clinton and Holder) is being sent out like apostles onto the mission field to infuse Obama's Cabinet's secular progressive agenda into the deepest roots of the land.

Liberal legacy and progressive perpetuity is the name of their game and their master plan.

Next week, I will give even more evidence of this master plan and explain exactly how and when a SCOTUS seat replacement would occur.

Meanwhile, anyone who believes this coming election is not important or that we dont want another RINO in better reconsider that thought. I don’t care whom runs at this point, we had our shot and could not get in the mix those we wanted so now is not the time to sit on our hands, it is time to show up and vote out the commies, even if we need put in a semi commie. Addition by subtraction is not a winning senario. We did that last election and look what we got.

I'll be looking at voting records. I might could be convinced to work with an 80/20 friend, but I ain't votin' for anything less, Republican or not.

I think we need to put all Pubbie Senators on notice that a vote to confirm Holder is a vote to have us all sit at home the next time they’re up for re-election.

The problem is that until at least the end of the year, Reid can get any far left wing liberal that Obama appoints confirmed without a single Republican vote. Under the current 55/45 split in the Senate, Reid can lose up to five democrats and still get confirmation (with Biden casting the tie breaking vote).

If the Republicans retake the Senate in November, then we can expect a flood of liberal confirmations during the lame duck session. Any democrats that are currently pretending to be moderate in order to try and get re-elected will have nothing to lose after the election, particularly any democrats that have already lost.

The left wing cabinet appointments do not concern me as much, since they can all get thrown out by the next President. The left wing judicial appointments scare the crap out of me, since they will be legislating from the bench for a generation to come.

“I might could be convinced to work with an 80/20 friend, but I ain’t votin’ for anything less, Republican or not.”

Neither of our states has a senate race this year so this is theoretical on my part. Here given the choice between Scott and Crist, even with Scott being less than your 80% threshold, I will vote for him. I don’t want that suntanned AH turncoat light in the loafers jerk back in office now espousing a fully leftest platform. We had a chance to dump our RINO congressman in the primary, the tea party guy got swamped. I will vote for him rather than a commie simp dem any day of the week regardless. But getting back to the Senate races, McConnell will be the majority leader in any GOP senate. He is a RINO for sure but would you rather have him or Reid back in so none of the house initiatives ever get their day in court. Would you rather Obola have an unrestrained shot at getting in a full blown leftest onto the SC? I don’t. Granted some RINOs will vote in whomever Obola selects, I have to think if it is really a horrible choice, someone will come to their senses. I don’t want another Miyor or Keagan that is for sure and I bet Obola can find someone farther from the left if given an unfrettered chance.

I know I will never convince anyone who believes it is my way or the highway but sometimes one has to smell the roses.

Will a Republican controlled Senate stand up to Obama? Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of RINOs in the Senate. All I know for a fact is that a Democrat controlled Senate will continue to allow Obama to do whatever he wants.

Also, keep in mind that in a Republican controlled Senate, it will only take 40 Republicans to filibuster. In a Democrat controlled Senate, there is no filibuster unless Reid wants to allow one.

I’ve made the argument that SCOTUS is too important to allow another Obama appointee. I get that.

I just don’t know if I believe it anymore. Is preventing Kagans and Sotomayors the goal or is getting Scalias and Thomases the goal?

If the answer is both, how can we accomplish that with RINOs? They will give us Kennedys in order to prevent Kagans and Sotomayors. Is that any better?

I will defer to the Rolling Stones on that one: “You cannot get all you want.”

In a perfect world obvisouly we would prefer to get Scalias and Thomases on the court. Right now, with Obola in the hut, there is not a chance in a quad trillion that will happen. If he made an appointment ala Kennedy (a Reagan appointee I believe), I would be very happy as he would get in. Meanwhile, if he appointed Sharpton or someone like that, with a GOP senate, I am reasonably sure he would not get confirmed. When things change and we get a 100% conservative in the WH, then there is a possible Scalia in our future with a GOP senate. Till then, only a pipe dream.

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.