Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
27. Remember how everyone was upset when Bush/Cheney got Republicans hired into the DOJ....
Sun Feb 19, 2012, 12:23 PM
Feb 2012

just because of their political party? And they pressured some Republican DOJ and federal court system lawyers to file suits or persevere in suits against Democrats, when the lawyers didn't think it was warranted?

We all said at that time how wrong that was, and how illegal, since the White House is supposed to be separate and apart from the judicial system, and to hire anyone in the US, or fire them, based on political party, is against the law.

You seem to resent the facts. But they are facts. It's confusing, since the DOJ does represent the executive branch in some lawsuits, and defend the Prez in lawsuits, etc. But he is defending the office of the Presidency, not the person. The Prez may have some influence, but it's not his call to fight or not fight a lawsuit, ultimately. He has his own job to do, the DOJ has its job to do. And the repercussions of a lawsuit doesn't apply just to one Presidency, so the DOJ is free to pursue litigation without interference from others. That's my understanding, anyway.

But the DOJ AND the W.H. will defend the lawsuit on the substance, though, we know, because the W.H. started and has continued the policy, claiming it's legal. So we know it will defend that position in court. It's just that, for now, the defense based on the standing to sue is a usual thing to start with and hopefully end it before it runs into more time & money and a possible loss based on the substance.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If we had been allowed to "look back" in 2008, this would have all been annabanana Feb 2012 #1
This is why you never give up your rights, not even a little bit Mojorabbit Feb 2012 #2
+1 Vincardog Feb 2012 #3
True but since our rights are surrendered for us and sometimes done so covertly TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #4
Thank you for saying woo me with science Feb 2012 #6
You are welcome as always but I hate having to say it. TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #11
+1 woo me with science Feb 2012 #10
This is why both parties are EXACTLY the same on Liberty and privacy issues Dragonfli Feb 2012 #5
It is collusion, plain and simple. woo me with science Feb 2012 #8
Heh, even Saint Dennis Kucinich voted for H. J. Res. 64 which enabled warrentless wiretapping. joshcryer Feb 2012 #16
My biggest disappointment and shock from Obama is his..... Logical Feb 2012 #7
This does not constitute 'support'. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #35
Every day there is a new one. Every day. woo me with science Feb 2012 #9
Kick. woo me with science Feb 2012 #12
Do you seek out negative Obama/Democrat articles or are they sent to you? great white snark Feb 2012 #13
Common Dreams has always been a trusted source on DU over the years. girl gone mad Feb 2012 #14
Maybe he is just looking for pro-democracy and pro-civil rights articles. AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2012 #15
Do you have an opinion on the article or would you rather engage in drive-by personal attacks? Better Believe It Feb 2012 #17
You haven't posted an opinion on the article. FSogol Feb 2012 #28
Its a real shame when posting the simple facts ... bvar22 Feb 2012 #36
Your bolded line contains a misleading attempt to bash Obama. FSogol Feb 2012 #44
Don't let people discourage you. Rex Feb 2012 #29
Do you have an opinion about this specific policy, _ed_ Feb 2012 #20
+1...nt SidDithers Feb 2012 #23
-1 ...for stalking Better Believe It L0oniX Feb 2012 #46
Yes he does treestar Feb 2012 #40
What if the ACLU lost this case? Wouldn't it then become permanent as opposed to the possibility FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #18
By a more liberal administration? Fumesucker Feb 2012 #25
Doesn't have anything to do with liberalism. That's besides the point anyway. FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #26
Yeah, the conservatives are going to come down hard against a warrantless wiretapping bill.. Fumesucker Feb 2012 #45
Maybe it's a trick? Scalia will feel dirty if he agrees with Obama Lucky Luciano Feb 2012 #19
Must be brazillion dimensional chess, woo me with science Feb 2012 #21
I thought this has been litigated during the Bush era already. BTW, the White House doesn't... Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #22
Nothing ever has anything to do with the President. woo me with science Feb 2012 #24
Remember how everyone was upset when Bush/Cheney got Republicans hired into the DOJ.... Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #27
What part of... bvar22 Feb 2012 #30
The part Jakes Progress Feb 2012 #31
This may shock you, but the DoJ is part of the Administration. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #39
Right and the POTUS gains nothing by simply having the DOJ roll over on the case treestar Feb 2012 #41
Everybody knows the ACLU is jampacked with troublemaking "professional leftists". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #32
Ignorance fueled Outrage. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #33
+1. Spot on. n/t FSogol Feb 2012 #34
Is that a fact? bvar22 Feb 2012 #37
Really? The Doctor. Feb 2012 #38
No. bvar22 Feb 2012 #42
Please take an advanced civics class. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #43
It is YOU who needs the class in Civics. bvar22 Feb 2012 #48
The DoJ is supposed to be independent of the White House. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #49
Don't you ever get dizzy from all the spinning? bvar22 Feb 2012 #50
They want selective justice. If a Republican didn't challenge some despotic law... joshcryer Feb 2012 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Administration Asks...»Reply #27