Posted on 07/25/2010 5:47:37 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
There may be more incompetent Attorneys General who have served Presidential administrations in U.S. History, but few if any of them have had a worse record than the present head of the Justice Department. And should the miraculous happen, and President Obama do the unthinkable, and cut taxes for small businesses, and thereby win re-election in 2012, I wouldn't expect to see Mr Holder make it to term number two.
In blunder after blunder the President has already repeatedly been forced to back away from the decision making at the Justice Department. But the trail of disasters has left legal litter for the administration to clean up in even more ways than they could have predicted.
Holder has overreached so many times people have begun to wonder if his arms were attached backwards at the joint.
Yet no over-reach will have been more embarrassing than the shellacking he is taking in the DOJ vs. the State of Arizona. If the early signals are indicative of the judge's final outcome I personally don't know how he survives in the administration.
Since the administration announced it would be suing the state of Arizona of its own rights to enforce the law within it's boundaries, legal scholars I've spoken with have by the dozens scratched their heads, and issued muted puzzled responses on what the clear legal strategy was for Holder to win. Evidently the judge in the case, Susan Bolton - a democratic appointee - had some of the same strange curiosities. She is openly questioning the grounds on which the government brought its case against state law SB 1070 - the non-controversial state law that allows the local police and sheriffs to assist federal authorities in determining the legal status of those coming into contact with the state.
As most of America now knows, SB 1070 maintains the same guidelines as federal immigration law, but goes one step further in toughness--against those in law enforcement. It clearly penalizes abuse of the statute by an entity attempting to racially profile with enforcement of it.
The DOJ under Eric Holder's direction is attempting to argue that the state law preempts federal law. The judge has openly, almost mockingly, poked holes in the thinking behind such a claim. Bolton has also openly wondered why the government should concern itself in any regard with a state's desire to be seen as hospitable or not.
Since these two arguments seem to be the primary planks of Holder's case against Arizona, I expect this case to be dealt with quickly, and Holder to be again seen as the laughingstock or worse yet ruthless pragmatist he's come to be seen as in the legal community. I even have repeatedly told the students as much at the various Summit conferences I've been speaking to this summer.
Few reputable legal scholars believe Holder and the DOJ had a leg to stand on to begin with. Even Holder himself seemed to intimate that he might lose the case while being questioned on CBS two Sundays ago. Pledging that if he lost this first round he might find legal bearing to file a suit on the basis of racial profiling--an element the law itself strictly prohibits and prescribes penalties for in advance. Good luck there too genius.
It's been a rough go for the DOJ under Obama. Holder has on more than one occasion found himself back tracking, apologizing, and being left out in the cold to pay for everything from trying to bring the caged animals of Gitmo to New York City to stand trial, to (at the request of the NAACP) looking the other way when overt racism was used to intimidate and prevent voting--by members of the Black Panthers--an overtly racist group the equivalent of the KKK. He, according to multiple witnesses at the DOJ, has even gone so far as to implement a policy of non-pursuit of cases before the DOJ in which perpetrators are black and the victims are white.
Holder's public and repeated condemnation of the people of Arizona, the legal passing of law's in their state, and even the purposeful misrepresentation of those laws for the purposes of how they reflected upon the intents or lack thereof of the administration are deplorable.
But his ill-advised lawsuit against the statute in Arizona is now making him look incompetent or worse yet, incapable.
Repeatedly Holder presents viewpoints that are in keeping with his political aspirations but run contrary to the rule of existing law, and the position of Attorney General is not the spot for radicals with an agenda to implement best serve the country, or even the President himself. (Remember when Holder's crew took over custody of the Christmas day bomber, read Miranda rights, and watched the man with dangerous panties suddenly stop talking?)
Holder's overt racist policies at DOJ, his incompetence in actual legal matters, his sense of being completely out of touch with the people of his own nation add up to someone who needs an early retirement. For his racism, incompetence, and isolationist worldview begin to be attributed to his superiors if not kept in check. And thus far he has been anything but kept in check.
The ultimate failure of DOJ vs. Arizona will be yet another embarrassment for the Obama administration.
The question for the President will be, how many more of these laughingstock facials can be endured before he does what desperately needs to be done, put Holder to pasture?
My sense is, it won't be long.
His stupendous incompetence will prevent much damage being done and will be an incentive to vote Obama out.
The problem 0bama has, as I see it, is the decisions Holder is making are the same decisions 0bama would make himself. The reason Holder is having trouble is all the DoJ decisions are right out there in plain sight unlike other czar-led offices who operate in the background and whose decisions aren't seen or felt for months even years later.
0bama agrees with Holder otherwise he'd have been fired long ago. He backs away saying 'that wasn't me that was the Attorney General's decision...' Any sane person would fire someone who makes them look so bad so often.
The DOJ lawsuit against Arizona isn't about law. It's about politics and pandering to the pro-illegal lobby that the Obama Admin is doing something for them. Only in that context does the lawsuit make any "sense."
He’s Obama’s legal arm,no more and no less. You’re totally correct on that.
The other side of the coin of course is Obama’s absolute ease with tossing allies under the bus.
The NYC trial for the terrorists never made sense to me since Holder grew up in NYC and went to high school there. One would think he would have some sense of the danger he was putting the city in.
Holder isnt doing anything that Obama doesn’t know about and condone.
He is taking the rap for the head Kenyan.
They are just trying to separate Obama from the reality of Obama. They are in denial.
The question for the President will be, how many more of these laughingstock facials...
Facials? Maybe the author meant farcicals?
Holder is but one of a number of folks in the nobama regime that are prime examples of the Peter Principle. What a shame that Dr. Peter is no longer around. I'm sure he would have been delighted in studying this working laboratory that proves his principle over and over.
I wouldn’t count on the judge to uphold the Arizona law. Even if she does, the decision will be appealed to the Circuit Court. This battle is at an early stage.
Call me when he breathes his last. I’ve got the Champagne waiting!
Exactly! Holder is Obama’s sock puppet, just like Obama is a sock puppet for George Soros.
We may only wish that Eric Holder would not last. He will last precisely as long as the now failing obama regime shall last. And I don’t see the “ethical” occupant of the Oval Office surrendering anytime soon.
Of course, the actions of the current occupant of the Oval Office may still be largely nullified by widespread acts of non-compliance and civil disobedience, and by a Congressional majority that shows a little backbone. Of that majority, party label means little, but dedication to Constitutional imperatives means a lot.
“Molon Labe” were the words of Leonidas when his 300 were called upon by the Persians to throw down their arms. Literally translated, “Come and take them”, meaning the weapons would have to be pried out of the cold and clenched hands of the dead defenders.
You have it exactly. Holder is doing exactly what Obamarx wants him to do.
FLASHBACK:
http://cbs11tv.com/national/Eric.Holder.attorney.2.919893.html
Jan 28, 2009
Senate Panel Approves Holder Nomination For AG
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he supports Holders view that the country needs to interrogate terrorism suspects based on American values.
I am confident this new attorney general will have a balanced approach and I look forward to working with him. I know hes made mistakes and so have I, Graham said.
//
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/871483.html
Tuesday, Jul. 21, 2009
USC to get new business building
Funds will come from leasing current building to Department of Justice
An estimated 250 Justice Department employees working in different locations near Washington, D.C., will be relocated to Columbia over an unspecified period.
Graham said U.S. taxpayers will save $42 million by having Justice Department employees working in South Carolina, which has lower costs than Washington.
It was almost too good to be true, Graham said of the plan. But it proved to be true.
Graham, a Republican, praised U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, both of whom were appointed by President Obama, a Democrat.
I cant thank Eric Holder and David Ogden enough, Graham said, adding they offered their support for a leasing plan that was initiated during the administration of George W. Bush.
Obama is a joke, a very bad one as POTUS's go. He is going to leave such a bitter taste in the mouth of the electorate that it may be decades before another person of color is elected.
Alberto Gonzalez (under GW Bush) was weak and awful. It is a tie between him and Holder and both (amusingly enough) got their jobs for diversity/affirmative action reasons
When will the people of SC oust Lindsey Graham? It is no longer enough to have an R behind his name. He has proven himself a traiter time and again.
“Facials? Maybe the author meant farcicals?”
No, he used the correct word. It’s a porn reference. Need I say more?
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.