Posted on 10/04/2010 11:30:46 AM PDT by Red Steel
“Did you get new orders from DOJ Holder today???’
I don’t get orders from anyone other than my wife, who does not work for the DOJ.
Honestly, if you think that’s a clever retort, it’s not. Not even close. But if you actually believe it, there is something psychologically wrong with you.
Tap-dancer: What did she mean when stating discovery would be an “embarrassment,” for whom or to whom???
Hey, oldie: Do you have a degree in that field also, or did you just major in Alinsky, learning the deflecting tactics from the real issues???
Sigh. Since you are apparently can't actually find and read anything yourself, but are merely content to mindlessly parrot whatever "Cut-and-Paste" confusion exists in that simple mind, here's a short synopsis:
As we previously noted, in its New decision, quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 218 (1962), CAAF observed that “judicial review of ‘a political question’ is precluded where the Court finds . . . ‘the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. ’” United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 108-09 (C.A.A.F. 2001). And in her ruling, here’s how Judge Lind used “embarrassment”: “The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of poltiical decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”
In other words, Judge Lind used the word “embarrassment” in precisely the political question doctrine context (and using almost exactly the same words) as CAAF in New and the Supremes in Baker v. Carr. And all the breathless birther commentary saying that she was attempting to avoid personal embarrassment to President Obama is just so much guano.
I don't expect that you're capable of comprehending what that means, but others are. You really shouldn't try to engage in a battle of wits when you don't have any. And the Alinsky worship is just pathetic. In case you don't know it, people were using sarcasm on idiots like you, who insist on behaving like that in public, long before Alinsky was ever born.
You are such a "tired_old_con-MAN" and has showed nothing else here on FR when you joined as as a new-bee on Oct. 3rd. 2009 by trying to hijack the Constitutional eligibility threads amassing a stunning 350+ anti-constitutional spams in three months, and you still show up her to serve your dear leader the same way, Baracka Hussein Abu Amama, mmmmm...mmmmm...mmmmm!!!
Staggers the imagination....
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.