Obama administration sided with Roberts' court in recent denial of DNA access to prisoners

[AlexanderProgressive]

NYT editorial (June 18):
"We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to side with Alaska in this case — continuing the Bush administration’s opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19fri1.html?_r=1

Glen Greenwald (Today, June 20):
"There's one important fact missing from all of that analysis: namely, this was yet another case where the Obama DOJ sided with the Bush administration and advocated the position that the conservative justices adopted. The Obama DOJ aggressively argued before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis. Indeed, its decision to embrace this extreme Bush position caused much controversy and anger back in February."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/20/dna/index.html

This is sad.

[tekisui]

1. Boo.

:thumbsdown:

[Betty]

2. he's not going to win anyone over

repigs will hate him no matter what he does, and all he is doing is pushing away the people who have supported him.

[KansasVoter]

3. This is a horrible deal......

The guy is willing to pay for his own DNA test. The police don't want to release the DNA. Now why would the police care unless they are worried about looking like they screwed the case up. It will cost the city nothing.

100s of people have been freed in DNA reexaminations. What a joke!

[merh]

4. Christ on a crutch folks, I wish you all would stop getting your

panties in a wad when the DOJ/Solicitor General's office defends a lawsuit.

Just as a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney that will argue their case, that will stand up for them in a court of law - so too does the prosecution, the "state", the cops, law enforcement, have the right to an attorney to represent it/them in a court of law, to argue their case.

That is what the Solicitor General's office/DOJ does, it represents the USA in litigation filed against the USA, in appeals involving the USA>

Stop being offended that they are doing their fucking jobs, you will put yourself in some frustrated hell given there are thousands of cases on file throughout the USA that involve the USA as a defendant or on appeal.

[dsc]

7. Alaska was being sued, not the US

the DOJ filed as friend of the court.

[merh]

10. In Decmeber of 2008

I guess you have this wild expectation that Obama should have told the DOJ to cancel all of the cases that the Bush admin was involved in.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-6.htm

I know, I know, Obama should micromanage all of the executive department agencies, he should read every brief and tell the DOJ what to do.

And the DOJ has an interest considering there is a federal law that would be impacted by the court's decision.



http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-6_PetitionerAmCuUSA.pdf

But reality and the facts, real world considerations don't seem to mean much when you can smear Obama.

What is sad is that your emotions keep preventing you from understanding the process. One has to understand it to be able to work within it and to properly use it to your advantage.

[dsc]

11. so let me get this straight

You were totally wrong in your justification for what the DOJ did and it is somehow my fault. Incidently, it isn't micromanagment to change what is argued before the Supreme Court. This is an important case and certainly could have been reversed if Obama's appointees saw fit to do so. But bottom line you wrongly stated the US had been sued and the DOJ had to do this. You were wrong. The fault in your being wrong is yours, not mine, not Bush's it is yours.

For the record he is your post that I answered.

Christ on a crutch folks, I wish you all would stop getting your
panties in a wad when the DOJ/Solicitor General's office defends a lawsuit.

Just as a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney that will argue their case, that will stand up for them in a court of law - so too does the prosecution, the "state", the cops, law enforcement, have the right to an attorney to represent it/them in a court of law, to argue their case.

That is what the Solicitor General's office/DOJ does, it represents the USA in litigation filed against the USA, in appeals involving the USA>

Stop being offended that they are doing their fucking jobs, you will put yourself in some frustrated hell given there are thousands of cases on file throughout the USA that involve the USA as a defendant or on appeal.

it was both snarky and totally, utterly wrong.

[merh]

13. Let me continue to educate you, even though you don't pay attention

or even try to understand.

My words"
That is what the Solicitor General's office/DOJ does That is what the Solicitor General's office/DOJ does, it represents the USA in litigation filed against the USA, in appeals involving the USA

As their jurisdiction statement reads, the USA has an interest in the case because their is existing federal law that it would affect. I know reading what is provided seems to be difficult for some, but I thought better of you. (Not really, I know you don't read what is provided to you.)

The Office of the Solicitor General is tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts. The general functions of the Office can be found at 28 CFR 0.20.

The SG in 2008 filed the amicus, it was not "Obama's" SG or DOJ that filed the case. The SG is doing her job.

My response was not wrong, it is you that is wrong - that is your norm.

[dsc]

14. It required that the DOJ file a response it didn't require them to side with Alaska

the clear implication of your post what exactly that. It also clearly implied that the US had been sued. Again, here is your post, in its uneditted entirety.

Christ on a crutch folks, I wish you all would stop getting your
panties in a wad when the DOJ/Solicitor General's office defends a lawsuit.

Just as a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney that will argue their case, that will stand up for them in a court of law - so too does the prosecution, the "state", the cops, law enforcement, have the right to an attorney to represent it/them in a court of law, to argue their case.

That is what the Solicitor General's office/DOJ does, it represents the USA in litigation filed against the USA, in appeals involving the USA>

Stop being offended that they are doing their fucking jobs, you will put yourself in some frustrated hell given there are thousands of cases on file throughout the USA that involve the USA as a defendant or on appeal.

end of quote bold mine

Alaska's AG had no choice but to defend. The national DOJ could have done any of the following. Not filed at all, filed in the side of Alaska, filed on the side of the appellant. It chose to do the second, but it was a choice. Your post clearly implied the direct opposite and pretty much stated it as well. Your second defense is admittedly more cogent. It likely would have been difficult for Obama to change the position of the DOJ but it wouldn't have been impossible but admittedly it likely wouldn't have mattered. The DOJ wasn't defending a lawsuit, the USA wasn't be litigated against. The OP clearly stated both things. You were 180 degrees wrong. That isn't my fault. It isn't the OP's fault. It isn't Obama's fault. It isn't Bush's fault. It is your fault.

[merh]

15. Their duty to enforce the laws of the federal goverment required that they file

with Alaska, go read the jurisidictional statement. Then go pull the federal statute referenced in same. I know - it would mean you would have to use some reason and independent thought, but you have that in you, I am sure of it.

Let me help you http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C228A.txt

Then go to the SG's brief at pages 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-6_PetitionerAmCuUSA.pdf

See how they spell it out, that most states have adopted laws similar to 18 USC 3600 and that for SCOTUS to adopt a "constitutional standard" would be beyond the guarantees in the constitution and would impact the existing federal and state laws.

The DOJ/SG/AG represent the interests of all of the USofA. That means the taxpayers who have an interest in how the government is operated and how the crimes are prosecuted and enforced and how the convicted are sentenced and housed.

Holder, as AG, is responsible for the federal prison system and all laws that impact or have a potential to impact that system are his concern and if, he or any other AG, considered the potential ruling to have an impact on same, then they were obligated to file to let the court know their position so that they could continue to enforce the laws and do their jobs.

Alaska lost the case in district court and in the 9th circuit, they asked SCOTUS to hear it, they didn't have to ask SCOTUS to consider it. They did so because they believed it their duty under their laws.

My reminding people that Obama is not the DOJ, that he cannot micromanage the Agency nor should we expect him to do so, is not agreeing with the arguments and/or the results.

My post is correct, your posts are not based on anything more than your need to argue. You back your opinions up with nothing. You just like to yell "you are wrong".

I cannot help it if you are ignorant of how our government works and the different responsibilities of each division and branch. You may want to consider thinking beyond the obviously smeared articles as written and use reasoned thought. It isn't asking that much.

[incapsulated]

21. You are making a leap

Yes, I could see how this would possibly create a "constitutional standard" that would effect federal law.

I do not see that this *obligates* Holder to fight *against* it.

You are saying that just because it could have an effect on federal law, it must be opposed, and the DOJ is obligated to oppose it.

Uh, what if it's essentially RIGHT?

And it's not micromanaging for Obama's Attorney General to be held accountable for a Supreme Court case or for Obama to be aware of it.

[merh]

22. No leap - JUST READING THE BRIEFS

and understanding the laws - you know - the constitution and the federal laws -

It is micromanaging to expect Obama to tell his AG's don't file a thing until I read it, don't file anything that supports Bush filings. That is what you expect - anything to blame Obama.

Guess what, the rule of law requires the executive branch to ENFORCE the laws and the statutes require the SG to defend them and the constitution when it is before SCOTUS.

You would understand that if you cared enough to (a) understand; (b) read and research, look up the laws; and (c) understand what you read.

I'm made no leap, I merely read the brief and understand them.

You need to try it.

[incapsulated]

27. And hey, this constitutional Professor agrees with me

"Obama and DNA Rights

As a state senator, Obama sponsored and lobbied for legislation that gave all inmates a post-conviction right to DNA evidence -- the same right that Osborne asserts in this case. The government's position does not prevent states from passing laws to establish this right in the future; instead, it seeks to rebut the inmate's argument that due process establishes this right.

The Bush administration was not required to take a position in this case. Although the Bush administration decided to submit a brief in the case, the Obama administration could have refused to defend it, withdrawn it, or even switched position. And while the Solicitor General has a culture of maintaining the same positions as the previous administration in pending cases, critics argue that the issues this case raises are so substantial that the Obama administration could have legitimately abandoned Bush's argument."

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/03/first-bush-now-obama-department-of.html

But what does he know, YOU know it all.

[merh]

28. No, never said I know it all. I said that the Bush admin filed the

brief and the DOJ maintained the position because the federal government has an interest in any SCOTUS ruling that would adopt "constitutional standards" that go beyond the existing federal and state laws which provide for DNA testing if certain facts exist. What your little blog fails to mention is that congress did adopt laws that provide inmates a post-conviction right to DNA evidence if certain conditions relative to the trial and their sentence exists. Go read the statute I provided. Notice how that little ole blog you linked doesn't even touch upon it.

(a) In General. - Upon a written motion by an individual under a
sentence of imprisonment or death pursuant to a conviction for a
Federal offense (referred to in this section as the "applicant"),
the court that entered the judgment of conviction shall order DNA
testing of specific evidence if the court finds that all of the
following apply:
(1) The applicant asserts, . . .

Notice how the DOJ brief discusses it and the state law that deal with DNA testing.

Seriously, my pointing out that the DOJ is just doing its job does not mean I agree with their arguments and position. I simply understand them and why they filed their brief. They represent all of the USofA, the accused has its attorneys and the police, prosecution, courts, prisons have their attorneys and that happens to be the DOJ.

[HughMoran]

41. You might as well be talking to a giant bolder

There is no "winning" an argument on DU. Say your piece and move on, or be sucked into the vortex.

[treestar]

39. And it all continued until Holder was sworn in, too

So that makes it less than the 5 months.

Holder can't micromanage every case, either.

[sisters6]

8. “There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it.”

I hope you never have a friend or relative who believes he/she has been wrongly accused.


...........Much as the four dissenters — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter — saw, Alaska was wrong to block testing when DNA technology is available that may prove someone is unjustly being kept behind bars. Overturning Alaska’s denial of due process should have been an easy call.

As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, “There is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it.”

[merh]

12. Get this straight - I don't blame Obama for all the ills of the world.

The DOJ has it's job, the Solicitor General has its job. They did their job. To correct the OP and point that out does not mean I like the opinion or agree with SCOTUS - to think that my post reflects I do means you can't read.

The DOJ/SG are not to blame for this lawsuit or the SCOTUS opinion, they were doing their job. As is obvious, the State of Alaska, the District Attorney's Office, are the one's that appealed the action. It wouldn't have been before the court had it not been for them.

And you don't have a clue about me and you need to keep your personal comments and hopes and wishes to yourself. To hope bad things for others is childish, as is not dealing with the truth about the matters before you.

[sisters6]

16. Get this straight. I never said you did. nt.

[merh]

17. The article does blame Obama and that is why I posted my post.

You jumped my case - you were wrong and you wished not nice things on me or those I care about, that was not only wrong, it was uncalled for.

[Cha]

19. Thanks for trying to clarify this, merh,

but, these posters need something to rage on and this do as much as anything.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioBlue]

33. Thanks for your posts. It helps me understand the issue

rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction to a headline

[katandmoon]

5. This is truly tragic. Yet another example of how utterly screwed we are. Obama's DOJ = Bush's DOJ.

[lunatica]

6. Reminds me of how 'witches' weren't allowed to defend themselves either

To say that prisoners have no Constitutional rights to access evidence for DNA analysis is exactly the same thing. There's the presumption that no matter what there are no innocent prisoners. It's patently ridiculous in this day and age, and I would say it's un-Constitutional and even anti-Constitutional. It looks like we're turning into a totalitarian country where the government picks who gets to have rights and who don't? This is just wrong. Since when can't people do what they can to prove their innocence?

[undeterred]

9. Another anti-scientific administration?

I hope not.

[boppers]

31. Science only matters when the results are significant.

Should convicted prisoners be allowed to test every piece of evidence, one at a time, taking up years of resources, when the tests would have no bearing on a finding of innocence or guilt?

That's what we're talking about in this case. It's not about being anti-scientific, it's about recognizing delay tactics, that have no bearing on an outcome.

[MasonJar]

18. Criminal behavior on the Obama administration part. Let me see...

didn't I see a D by Obama's name when I went to vote for him? I am beginning to wonder where he is coming from. He is as centrist as the most right wing DLCer.

[incapsulated]

20. Ok, a few questions, points

One, why didn't the DOJ pull their support for this case? Could they not?

Second, no one can tell me that a Supreme Court case is some minor, easily overlooked issue that Holder is unaware of.

[Dr Fate]

24. IT'S NADER'S FAULT!!!

If you far left freaks had not voted for Nader, this wouldnt be happening!

[Beacool]

25. I heard about this case and was appalled that the man was not allowed

to have a new DNA test to prove either his innocence or guilt. It seems to me fundamentally wrong and unjust that people in prison should not be entitled to have new DNA tests performed when the technology either didn't exist or was very primitive when they were convicted.

I didn't know that the DOJ subscribed to Robert's view on this issue.

Very disappointing.

:-(

[boppers]

30. How would the test prove innocence or guilt?

Are you familiar with the case?

[Beacool]

34. Because part of the evidence used to convict him was from a condom found at the scene.

"The inmate at the center of the case, William G. Osborne, is in prison in Alaska after a 1994 rape conviction based in part on a DNA test of semen from a condom recovered at the scene.

The state used an old method, known as DQ-alpha testing, that could not identify, with great specificity, the person to whom the DNA belonged. The high court sided with Alaska in its refusal to grant Mr. Osborne access to the physical evidence, the semen. His intent was to obtain a more advanced DNA test that was not available at the time of his trial and that prosecutors agreed could almost definitively prove his guilt or innocence."

I haven't read the case, but it was discussed on PBS this past week at some length. Roberts may have a point, but Alaska is one of only four states where inmates cannot access DNA evidence that may prove their innocence, or for that matter, guilt if they were lying. It seems egregious to let someone remain in jail if new DNA technology could prove his innocence. I understand that trials are about points of law and not about justice, but it still goes against the grain to not seek the truth. Too many people have been proven innocent after new DNA tests were performed to ignore the issue altogether.

[boppers]

49. I'm not sure DNA mismatching would be enough.

I suppose the balance to be struck is whether or not evidence that was unrelated to the case was mistakenly introduced, but the biological evidence was only one part of the evidence.

The tire tracks at the scene matched Jackson's tires, his car matched the victim's description of the car, the victim picked them both out of a lineup, her pocketknife was in Jackson's car, semen from the condom loosely matched Osborne, as did hair on the condom and victim, and Jackson identified Osborne as the other attacker.

So, if the DNA had a mismatch:
The tire tracks at the scene matched Jackson's tires, his car matched the victim's description of the car, the victim picked them both out of a lineup, her pocketknife was in Jackson's car, and Jackson identified Osborne as the other attacker.

[Beacool]

50. I understand,

but why not allow the DNA test to take place? If the other evidence is strong enough, then it won't really matter but the doubt would be dispelled.

One thing though, identifications are a tricky thing. A great number of people identify the wrong individual in a line up.

[Enthusiast]

37. I agree with you, beacool.

We have numerous instances where DNA evidence has exonerated the already convicted prisoner. I don't understand this. I know why they did it in Texas, to save face. I don't want justice West of the Pecos.

[Beacool]

47. Exactly!!

There are some cases where the convict has been on death row and proven innocent with new DNA testing. Wasn't the governor of Ohio who ordered a moratorium on death penalty cases because there were so many cases overturned? I'm not sure if I got the right state.

[Enthusiast]

54. Illinois, I believe.

Testing those prisoners on death row was quite a revelation. And all the while Dubya Bush said he was sure the ones executed Texas were guilty because they convicted by a jury of their peers. What a horrible human being, Dubya. Dubya never had to deal with a justice system that wasn't weighted in his favor. Willful ignorance.

[boppers]

29. The test would not prove him innocent, this is fishing expidition BS.

Basically, the defendant was convicted of rape and murder.

A condom was found nearby. He wants to test it. A match, or not a match, would make no difference in the case.

It would, at most, prove that he wasn't wearing that particular condom during the rape and murder.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. You are correct, Boppers,

except for the fact that the victim didn't die. She was raped, shot and left for dead, naked in a snowbank. The condom became important evidence because the victim remembered that it was blue and that Osborne was the one wearing it. If the DNA in the condom matched him, that would be just one more piece of evidence. If it didn't match, it would just mean that someone else at some other time was wearing a blue condom. I've seen condoms laying around out there on many occasions, but I've never seen a blue one.

For everyone worrying about Alaska, DNA testing is pretty routinely done nowadays, and a bill has been introduced to make it easier for formerly convicted persons to have later tests done. In this case, the defense attorney did not choose to have more extensive testing done because he was pretty sure his defendant was guilty. He was hoping that he could insert a little "reasonable doubt" into the mix, but there was too much evidence against Osborne.

Osborne was ultimately paroled, but ended up committing another crime, a home invasion for drugs and money, and going back to prison. I'm not too concerned about what happens to him. What he and his partner did to this girl was heinous.

Here's the local coverage of the SCOTUS decision.
http://www.adn.com/front/story/836388.html

[crimsonblue]

32. ....

sigh.... am I living in bizarro America still?

[girl gone mad]

35. Wait.. I thought this was all Nader's fault.

I'm so confused.

[TexasObserver]

36. Sadly, it appears that the Obama DOJ isn't much better than Bush's.

The president is making a big political mistake. He isn't going to convince a single person who voted against him to come over to his side, no matter what he does. He is going to lose the votes of many who helped him win, by his continuing cowardice in failing to reverse some of the more atrocious aspects of the Bush administration.

Winning elections is about exciting the base, first and foremost. If he keeps this up, I'll be looking for another Democrat to back for president in 2012, and I'm sure other long time Democrats will, too. If he can't figure out the Democratic side of issues, he's not the Democrat I want as president.

I hate to say it, but all those folks I argued with on his behalf a year ago are right. He talks a good game, but it's mostly talk.

[treestar]

38. Read Merh's posts above

Instead of plowing ahead with ignorance.

[TexasObserver]

40. Those posts reveal a lack of understanding of the law.

The president selects the Attorney General, who is the president's representative for operating the Justice Department. The president picks the AG, and the AG serves until the president wants him to step down. The president is head of the executive branch, and the AG is part of the Executive Branch.

It is political policy which determines the cases that an AG will take, will pursue, or will decline to pursue. The president sets the political policy and determines the direction he wants the AG and Justice to take. Contrary to your misapprehension of how the process works, it is very political. The AG has limited resources, and whether those resources will go to fight for things the previous administration championed or something else entirely is up to the AG.

Whether the AG defends as proper state laws that make homosexual contact a crime or fights those same laws as inappropriate is entirely within the POLITICAL judgment of the AG. You wrongly believe that the AG must champion every law and zealously defend every challenge to the law.

Throughout our history, progressive ideas challenge laws, and it is the change at the top, where POLICY is set, that often helps bring about progressive change to the law. See the roles of IKE, JFK, and LBJ in doing just that in the 1950s and 1960s.

YOU need to understand law better. It's been my business for 35 years now, and fighting the simplistic notions many have about how the law works is a full time job. The law is whatever the judges say it is. For every law, there is another line of law that can challenge and overcome it. A federal law that has been passed by congress and signed by a previous president can be unconstitutional. The DOJ can and will attack the same law you find sacrosanct, on the grounds that it violates the constitution.

The case at issue is a perfect example. The DOJ should have supported the right of the criminal to the DNA testing, and could have done so by maintaining that the law in question violates the convicted man's due process rights under the 14th amendment.

Your mistake, and that of the poster you mentioned, is that you believe LAW is something static, that it is only statutory, and that once passed, every statutory law deserves the same degree of support and respect from DOJ. They do not.

[merh]

42. No, your post reflects a lack of understanding of the system.

It also reflects your failure to read the briefs.

The DOJ is not the president's law firm, they are not his flunkies to do his bidding. They are not his political tools. Bush used them in that manner and over 1000 political persecutions/prosecutions were carried out - political prisoners sit in jail because the AG acted as you write they should act. Bush used them in that manner and they wrote opinion memos that are now used to justify and excuse war crimes committed in our name.

Holder is the AG and as such, he is an adviser to the president. But he is more than that, he is the head of the DOJ that is statutorily obligated to enforce and defend the laws passed by congress. The AG is also by statute, the head of the federal prison system.

The executive branch does not write the laws and does not interpret the laws. They enforce the law.

You write: The case at issue is a perfect example. The DOJ should have supported the right of the criminal to the DNA testing, and could have done so by maintaining that the law in question violates the convicted man's due process rights under the 14th amendment.

What law in question would you be referring to? Alaska's law? Alaska has no law. Alaska argued that there is no constitutional right afforded to the convicted to have DNA tested.

The federal government does provide the right to DNA test, as do over 40 states - congress passed legislation which was enacted that affords the testing. So too have a majority of the states. Holder as the AG has a vested interest in any laws or SCOTUS decisions which impact the federal prison system and the federal prosecutors office. Since congress adopted legislation which provides for DNA testing the AG and the Solicitor General both had an interest in the Osborne case and its outcome.

Our justice system, the adversarial system that is our justice system, provides that the accused/defendant has the right to an attorney. It also provides that the people are represented - the prosecution, law enforcement, and the prison system. In this instance the AG/SG are representing the interests of the state - the government agencies who are responsible for carrying out existing laws.

Until a court holds a law unconstitutional, said law "deserves the same degree of support and respect from DOJ." You find me case law, that holds otherwise. It would appear you have an issue with the rule of law. The rule of law requires both citizens and governments to be subject to known and standing laws. What you advocate in your post is that the DOJ under Obama be used the way Bush used them.

[TexasObserver]

43. If your arguments had merit, I'd have already responded to them.

They don't. You're just another garden variety authoritarian who thinks he understands law, but doesn't.

[merh]

44. LOL, it is you that doesn't understand the laws.

I'm not an authoritarian. I hold fast to the rule of law. It is how our government works and when it is distorted, as you write it should be, is when our society suffers.

You don't debate because you cannot. You mistake what the appeal was about and you have failed to read the briefs, I bet you didn't even read the SCOTUS opinion.

One has to know how the system works to be able to work within in it and to challenge those who ignore its rules. It is the ignoring of the rule of law that has allowed statutes as DOMA and DADT to be passed. Now that they have become law it is only through an understanding of the rule of law that they can be repealed or found unenforceable because they violate the constitution.

[TexasObserver]

45. I don't care to invest time arguing with you. It's a waste of my time.

I read your posts earlier in the thread, and found them lacking. You have a fairly ordinary but inaccurate view of how the law is shaped by decisions of the executive branch and the AG. I find your point of view terribly lacking, but I don't see any point arguing with you, any more than I'd want to argue with Beck or Limbaugh, who share your point of view.

[merh]

46. LOL - my understanding is supported by the law.

The constitution, the statutes adopted pursuant to the constitution and the case law. I've provided links to laws which support my position.

Beck and Limbaugh support your position, they believe the president gets to control his DOJ and tell them what to do and how to control the laws of the nation. They think he was within his right as president and CnC to order the torture, to circumvent the laws passed by congress and the lawful treaties entered into pursuant to the constitution.

Your posts are more supportive of Bybee and Yoo than they are of the facts and the rule of law.

You cannot debate the issues so you chose to try to insult and you do a poor job of that.

[Thrill]

52. Dadly some of Obama's top DOJ people are still held up in the Senate

[newinnm]

53. Who is holding them up?

[Thrill]

51. Fight to get Dawn Johnson confirmed or nothing will change at DOJ

. Either force her confirmed or don't complain about this stuff