Impeachment Being Considered for Holder, Obama for Not Fulfilling Judicial Duties

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270077

[Mr.Meanie]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270077

ugh. It was ridiculous and embarrassing when the liberals where calling for Bush's impeachment, and it's an embarrassment now. The normal political discourse in this country been so thoroughly highjacked by the wingnuts of both Parties.

[That One Guy]

Impeachment talk is silly but the president choosing which laws are fair laws is also unacceptable.

[Fedaykin]

The admin has not said it will not enforce the act -- only that it will no longer seek to defend its constitutionality/existence when it is challenged in court.

There is no constitutional requirement for the executive branch to defend the existence of a law. It's the Supreme Court's job to deal with that.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Impeachment talk is silly but the president choosing which laws are fair laws is also unacceptable.

If the executive branch refuses its duties, congress has every right to introduce the idea of impeachment. Thats what its for.

[Rigs11]

We should impeach epic from this board for being such a dimwit.all in favor?

[Missouribronc]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270077

Well, that's just plain stupid.

You are such a Republican shill, its straight up pathetic. And speaking of pathetic, that's exactly what the idea of impeaching him because you disagree with a policy is, stupid beyond belief.

[Rohirrim]

Fascists.

[That One Guy]

The admin has not said it will not enforce the act -- only that it will no longer seek to defend its constitutionality/existence when it is challenged in court.

There is no constitutional requirement for the executive branch to defend the existence of a law. It's the Supreme Court's job to deal with that.

The DOMA states that the Federal Gov't will not recognize same sex marriages. If nobody shows up to defend it when it's challenged, it's not going to be enforced. It's on par with telling a DA not to show up in court to prosecute a murder.

Now maybe I misunderstood the article but if I did, whether Obama defends it or not makes zero difference. The way I understood it though is that nobody was going to defend it. In essence, anyone that sued against it would show up to a judge and no government representative.

[Missouribronc]

Fascists.

More unrealistic and ideological ramblings from you, without solutions or proper context. You might as well move to a desert island, because, gasp, people make money and they are driven to create business protocol based on that...

[Missouribronc]

The DOMA states that the Federal Gov't will not recognize same sex marriages. If nobody shows up to defend it when it's challenged, it's not going to be enforced. It's on par with telling a DA not to show up in court to prosecute a murder.

Now maybe I misunderstood the article but if I did, whether Obama defends it or not makes zero difference. The way I understood it though is that nobody was going to defend it. In essence, anyone that sued against it would show up to a judge and no government representative.

No way in hell someone should be impeached for this.

Just plain stupid.

[That One Guy]

No way in hell someone should be impeached for this.

Just plain stupid.

Well I can't claim to understand all the intricate details of it all. I don't claim that he should be impeached and said it was silly above but I don't like the idea of the president choosing while laws are valid in this way. He should've pushed for a change while the Ds controlled everything if that's what he wanted but it was passed by congress and signed by a president - he can't just discard all that and not take the proper steps to remedy it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Well, that's just plain stupid.

You are such a Republican shill, its straight up pathetic. And speaking of pathetic, that's exactly what the idea of impeaching him because you disagree with a policy is, stupid beyond belief.

You're just mad because you grandstanded in that NBA thread about your boy LeBron James, come to find out that you didn't even understand what the conversation was about. ;D

Its okay though, I accept your apology.

As for this issue, political pressure does need to be put on Obama. Its not Obama's choice to enforce the laws he wants to. He is elected president of the people, and its his job to respect and honor the position given to him to enforce their laws. It isnt the United States of Obama. It isnt a dictatorship, no matter how much he wants it to be. Its his duty. He needs to see it through.

As for that Holder clown, that piece of garbage needs to be thrown onto the trash heap of history. He needs to be fired. Yesterday.

[Missouribronc]

Well I can't claim to understand all the intricate details of it all. I don't claim that he should be impeached and said it was silly above but I don't like the idea of the president choosing while laws are valid in this way. He should've pushed for a change while the Ds controlled everything if that's what he wanted but it was passed by congress and signed by a president - he can't just discard all that and not take the proper steps to remedy it.

There is serious concern about the Executive branch avoiding the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government when creating policy under the current administration, but not at the point of impeachment.

The EPA regulations on agriculture is of particular concern, especially because there is no check and balance to the regulations implemented by the Executive department.

[Fedaykin]

The DOMA states that the Federal Gov't will not recognize same sex marriages.

No, the DOMA says that States cannot be legally required to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

If nobody shows up to defend it when it's challenged, it's not going to be enforced. It's on par with telling a DA not to show up in court to prosecute a murder.


The only way this law is broken is if the federal government tries to compel a state to recognize a gay marriage though an act of law or policy. "Enforcement" of this laws boils down to the government policing itself. States could sue the feds as well.

However, the law is frequently challenged in court by gay couples who are affected by it. For example, a gay couple that moves to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and being denied medical benefits for their partner. Defending the law against these challenges is all the admin has said they will stop doing.

Defending the law in court is entirely a separate matter from enforcing the provisions of the law.

Effectively all this means is Congress will have to send their own lawyers to defend their legislation.

[Fedaykin]

You're just mad because you grandstanded in that NBA thread about your boy LeBron James, come to find out that you didn't even understand what the conversation was about. ;D

Its okay though, I accept your apology.

As for this issue, political pressure does need to be put on Obama. Its not Obama's choice to enforce the laws he wants to. He is elected president of the people, and its his job to respect and honor the position given to him to enforce their laws. It isnt the United States of Obama. It isnt a dictatorship, no matter how much he wants it to be. Its his duty. He needs to see it through.

As for that Holder clown, that piece of garbage needs to be thrown onto the trash heap of history. He needs to be fired. Yesterday.

What part of "the administration does not plan to stop enforcing the law" do you not understand?

[That One Guy]

No, the DOMA says that States cannot be legally required to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.



The only way this law is broken is if the federal government tries to compel a state to recognize a gay marriage though an act of law or policy. "Enforcement" of this laws boils down to the government policing itself. States could sue the feds as well.

However, the law is frequently challenged in court by gay couples who are affected by it. For example, a gay couple that moves to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and being denied medical benefits for their partner. Defending the law against these challenges is all the admin has said they will stop doing.

Defending the law in court is entirely a separate matter from enforcing the provisions of the law.

Effectively all this means is Congress will have to send their own lawyers to defend their legislation.

OK, you're right that it is literally a states' right law. In effect though, when it defines marriage, it also defines it for Federal purposes. That's what I'm most concerned with. As an advocate of state's rights, I think they reserve the rights to gay marriage if that's what they want to do.

As for the rest, as long as it's still being defended then so be it. I was under the impression though that nobody was going to defend it - and I still think that's the case. Does Congress have lawyers sitting around for issues like this?

[That One Guy]

What part of "the administration does not plan to stop enforcing the law" do you not understand?

What enforcement IS there? It's a law that says nobody has to do anything. Does that mean if one state tried to declare war on the other to enforce the law, the gov't would step in? Nobody has to do anything through the law, there is no enforcement IN the law. It's just... there.

[Fedaykin]

OK, you're right that it is literally a states' right law. In effect though, when it defines marriage, it also defines it for Federal purposes. That's what I'm most concerned with. As an advocate of state's rights, I think they reserve the rights to gay marriage if that's what they want to do.

As for the rest, as long as it's still being defended then so be it. I was under the impression though that nobody was going to defend it - and I still think that's the case. Does Congress have lawyers sitting around for issues like this?

defending != enforcing. This is really much ado about nothing. Very frequently administrations attack laws while still enforcing them. For example, I'm sure the next wingnut elected will work to get the health care bill repealed while simultaneously enforcing it.

In other words, once again the Drama Llama proves the epithet is appropriate.

[peacepipe]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270077why don't you find an actual credible souce of info.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

ugh. It was ridiculous and embarrassing when the liberals where calling for Bush's impeachment...

Um, no.

First of all, it wasn't just liberals.

Second, Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors were exactly what the founders had in mind when they formulated the remedy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Impeachment Being Considered for Holder, Obama for Not Fulfilling Judicial Duties

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270077

Which was more predictable?

That the fringe right would call for Obama's impeachment...

or:

EpicFail would be the first to break the news?

Ha!

[Fedaykin]

why don't you find an actual credible souce of info.

He likes to keep his hypocrisy quota high.

[elsid13]

There is serious concern about the Executive branch avoiding the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government when creating policy under the current administration, but not at the point of impeachment.

The EPA regulations on agriculture is of particular concern, especially because there is no check and balance to the regulations implemented by the Executive department.

That is not true at all. Congress at any time can remove/stop regulations, and courts also have power. There is over 200 years of Admin law that covers this.

[Crushaholic]

An impeachment over that, would be silly. Of course, there are still people out to prove that Obama is not a U.S. citizen...ROFL!