Holder pledges to defy the Supreme Court


"Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday that the state of Texas must get pre-approval from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes to voter laws.
The announcement came just a month after the Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, legislation that prohibits discrimination in voting."  US News


I don't altogether understand what Holder thinks he is doing.  The Shelby County SCOTUS decision denied the US the right to block Texas' Voter ID Law.  Now Holder wants to sue Texas over this law.  Would this not be a criminal interference in Texas' electoral law?  He also wants to associate the United States with another ongoing lawsuit in such a way as to cause a federal district court judge to order Texas to continue pre-approvals as though the Supreme Court had not cancelled that part of the Voting rights Act.

Are these not impeachable offenses?  pl  



This entry was posted in government, Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Holder pledges to defy the Supreme Court

  1. The Twisted Genius says:

    It’s all politics. The Supreme Court made the correct decision in striking down that provision of the Voting Rights Act. The data used to control voting laws in the affected states was woefully out of date. It was never updated because most, if not all, of those states would be out from under the federal yoke if current data was used. Democrats will never push for updated information because it’s not to their advantage to do so. Holder is attempting to use other provisions of the Voting Rights Act to prevent Republican controlled states from implementing voter ID laws and redistricting plans that would benefit Republicans. Holder is not doing this to protect the rights of voters. He’s doing it to get more Democratic votes to win elections, pure and simple. Republican state legislatures are not using new voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud. They are doing so to suppress more Democratic votes and win elections. Politicians on both sides are shamelessly gerrymandering voting districts to favor their sides. Politics, lies and hypocrisy. What a sordid business.

  2. Kyle Pearson says:

    Holder is likely going to base his lawsuit on Section 2, which still holds. Texas has already signed the new law into effect, so what he’s doing is no longer “preclearance,” but instead a legal response to an unfair law based on the assertion that it’s racially discriminatory.
    From the Heritage Foundation:
    “Significantly, this decision does not affect Section 2, which is a permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting and can still be used to challenge discriminatory practices if they occur. While discrimination still exists and should be addressed, the widespread, blatant discriminatory governmental practices of the Jim Crow South are a thing of the past, and this is a cause for celebration.”

  3. Kyle Pearson says:

    With all due respect to the Colonel, i didn’t see “pre-approval” mentioned in any quotes from Holder in either of those articles.
    It looks to me like the US News writer/editors were conservobaiting….

  4. turcopolier says:

    Holder’s actions are Obama’s. This is a stake through the heart of the federal republic and an act of defiance towards the Supreme Court. pl

  5. GulfCoastPirate says:

    It is no such thing. The SC did not invalidate the entire Voting Rights Act. It only dealt with that one section on pre-clearance. The federal courts have already ruled the redistricting the Republicans wanted to impose discriminatory and created their own districts for the last election. Now, based on the SC action, the Republicans want to bring the old maps back that have already been ruled in violation (so much for those whining about old data – this is the most current data).
    As a lifelong Texan I say kudos to Holder and Obama for attempting to uphold the voting rights of ALL Texans. This has nothing to do with stakes in the heart of any federal republic and everything to do with a bunch of white, right wing bigots in Texas trying to prevent minorities from having any say in their state government. Would you prefer that Holder and Obama stand around and do nothing while a bunch of bigots try to return the state to the 1850’s? As a Texan I want no such thing and hope Holder succeeds in his efforts.

  6. r whitman says:

    Its the American way. I suspect that some future Supreme Court will outlaw the collecting of racial statistics much as we now outlaw the collecting and using of religious statistics officially.

  7. turcopolier says:

    There is a theory that the conservatives on SCOTUS are engaged in whittling away at the VRA, one slice at a time. This effort on Holder/Obama’s part will put the VRA back in the hands of SCOTUS. pl

  8. GulfCoastPirate says:

    That’s OK. Let the courts continue to sort things out. If the conservatives on the court want to continue turning the court into a laughingstock then so be it (does anyone really believe corporations are people and should have ‘rights’?).
    Here is the bottom line. If a state is half minority while the legislature is 80% white is the court really going to try to make the case that is fair representation and the federal government has no interest in rectifying obvious discrimination of that type given our past history? Would the Republicans really cheer/support such an outcome? As it stands now they are digging themselves such a deep hole that they may never recover once the obvious gerrymandering across the country is rectified. They hate women having any freedom. They hate minorities having any freedom. How many old, white men are left for them to cater to each election cycle?

  9. turcopolier says:

    “If a state is half minority while the legislature is 80% white” Which state is that? Let’s stick to something that vaguely resembles reality.
    Are you a self hating old, white man? pl

  10. turcopolier says:

    Is this is what you are talking about?
    According to the 2010 United States census, the racial composition of Texas was the following:[citation needed]
    White American 80.9% (44.8% non Hispanic White, 36.1% white Hispanic)
    Black or African American: 11.8%
    Native American: 0.7%
    Asian: 3.8% (1.0% Indian, 0.8% Vietnamese, 0.6% Chinese, 0.4% Filipino, 0.3% Korean, 0.2% Pakistani, 0.07% Japanese, 0.05% Laotian, 0.05% Cambodian)
    Pacific Islander: 0.1% (0.02% Guamanian, 0.01% Samoan, 0.01% Tongan, 0.01% Native Hawaiian)
    Some other race: 10.5%
    Two or more races: 2.7%
    37.6% of the population Hispanic or Latino (of any race)(31.6% Mexican, 0.5% Puerto Rican, 0.2% Cuban)wiki on Texas
    “White American 80.9% (44.8% non Hispanic White, 36.1% white Hispanic)” pl

  11. The Twisted Genius says:

    Those census figures aren’t very helpful, except in pointing out how subjective the concepts of race and ethnicity are. Looks like it was a “choose all that you feel applies to you” question. I found a simpler breakdown of the last Texas legislature in the Texas Tribune. I don’t have any idea which way this paper leans politically. Like all legislatures in the U.S., white males are over represented. What I found most interesting was that a third of the members were lawyers (no surprise here) and a third were business owners/CEOs.

  12. GulfCoastPirate says:

    No, I’m an old, white man who doesn’t want to return to the 1850’s.

  13. GulfCoastPirate says:

    It’s even worse than I thought. Whites (non Hispanic whites) make up less than 45% of our population. Now tell me what our legislature looks like. Do you really think those are sustainable trends or that the federal government has no interest in those percentages when it comes to representation?
    I’m a little surprised at the small percentage of Asians given their numbers around the Houston metropolitan area.

  14. Alba Etie says:

    Col Lang
    We may have disputed claims about the population make up of our Texas Electorate. But what is not in dispute is that a federal judge found the 2011 redistricting in Texas to exclude and disadvantage Hispanic voters in Texas . And this is just another example of the paralysis of our national governance in Congress. I am highly confident that the same type of gerrymandering goes on in California too – with Pelosi & her posse. The Justice Dept decision to intervene in Texas ( though I am not a lawyer , and do not pretend to be one one on the internet ) – is based on Sec 3 of the VRA’s act . The BHO administration basically filed for standing in the MALDEF et al case that is challenging the 2011 redistricting here in Texas . Furthermore MALDEF et al will have to prove up that current Texas elections are discriminating against minority voters .
    In the political realm , IMO – this will benefit the Democrats here in Texas, as they can continue to play the victims to the ‘mean old white guys ” . And while I am not a self hating old white guy – I do agree with GCP that this is a controversy the Courts need to decide . And if it goes to SCOTUS so be it – and like GCP I too believe that Corporations are not people . This may all be part & parcel to the work needed for reframing our Overton Window – and preserving out commonsense comity .

  15. Will Reks says:

    If the conservative majority Supreme Court thought that Sec 2 of the VRA was unconstitutional they would have struck it down. They may yet do so in the future. That may be the plan.
    In short, Holder’s action is the legal recourse to DOJ’s concerns about Texas which the SC left as an option after striking down Sec 5.
    I would prefer the VRA apply to every state equally with regard to federal elections. I also support independent redistricting in every state.

  16. haldlock says:

    Actually it’s Section 3, the ‘bail in’ provision. See: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/u-s-asks-new-limit-on-texas-vote-laws/#more-167799

  17. Tyler says:

    What a surprise, more over the top reaching and grasping by the Tribal Prsidency. Holder knows his actions are illegal and a giant fuck you to the SCOTUS. All of you quoting the legal sophistry about Holder fail to realise that he’s attempting to use a formula in the struck down Section 4 part to apply Section 5 to Texas.
    The VRA, the CRA…all illegal and unconstitutional nonsense.

  18. Alba Etie says:

    Yes -truly independent redistricting in verey state- with some kind of nationally accepted CAFE standards perhaps . And term limits for all CongressCritters too .

  19. turcopolier says:

    Term limits in the federal legislature have been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I would like to know how you would arrange for “independent re-districting” and who would do the re-districting. pl

  20. stickler says:

    Alba Etie and our gracious host should be aware, when talking about ending gerrymanders, that California voters passed an initiative in 2010 which took redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and put it in the hands of an independent commission:
    Several states besides CA have gone down this road, and the Republic hasn’t fallen yet. There may be very good reasons why Texas’s GOP is so hell-bent on gerrymandering the state. I haven’t heard those reasons yet.

  21. Fred says:

    You mean the voters, led by a billionaire’s son? Perhaps he’s one of the Gracchi brothers reincarnate. Spending his (or his daddy’s) money this way is bound to make things better. Perhaps the people of Texas look forward to a California billionaire buying a ballot initiative in their state but I rather doubt it.

  22. Will Reks says:

    Term limits are problematic. This hasn’t been a good experiment on the state level in my opinion. See California. There is a lack of experienced politicians who are invested in good governance and passing sensible legislation. It becomes a revolving door of short-term legislators who do the bidding of special interests and then go to become lobbyists and otherwise profit off of the connections they make. This already happens, obviously, in Congress to a great extent but I think term limits would make things that much worse.

  23. Alba Etie says:

    It would have to come from a bottom up effort . Not exactly sure how that would be accomplished . Maybe by some type of popular vote by county .Was unaware that SCOTUS had ruled terms limits unconstitutional .
    Is this what is meant by activist judiciary ?

  24. Will Reks says:

    I’ve read that Democrats were still able to game an advantage due to being the more organized party in the state. They were able to get a supermajority in the legislature after the 2012 elections.
    The benefit is that districts become more competitive overall as candidates don’t have the luxury of only appealing to their most liberal or most conservative constituents. Over time this will moderate both parties.
    It’s bad enough that each house district has an average of 700,000 people. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed56.asp

  25. Alba Etie says:

    Thank you Stickler. How has the political shake up in California shaken out ? Perhaps the same remedy can be applied to Sen Schumer and his New York cohort regarding gerrymandering there.

  26. Will Reks says:

    Seems, as Alba Etie noted, that it is Sec 3 involved here. I’m not sure how you can argue that because the SC invalidated some parts of the VRA it should somehow prevent the DOJ from a challenge based on other still valid parts of the VRA. The Roberts Court guaranteed such a challenge with its ruling.

  27. turcopolier says:

    will reks
    Who is the federal judge in San Antonio? pl

  28. GulfCoastPirate says:

    I can’t say I read the Tribune much but when I have I don’t remember them being overly opinionated. It’s my understanding they try to be informative more than anything.
    There are a couple of things to remember about the Texas Legislature.
    1. It doesn’t pay much – mostly for expenses and that’s about it so it’s no surprise to me that lawyers and business people who can get the time off or work it into their schedule dominate. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Given the ‘special sessions’ that tend to be called that means more time off for regular folk. It’s somewhat of a hindrance to more diversity of occupations in Austin
    2. The current legislature is a product of the map imposed by the federal judge who rejected the Republican map. IIRC we had to wait until May or June of 2012 before we knew who would be running where. The map the judge rejected is the one Abbott and the Republicans want to impose and there has already been a suit filed against it.
    3. It’s hard to pass legislation in Texas because of the rules of the legislature. That’s why the Republicans dealt with abortion in special sessions. Once they called the special session they could impose any rules they wished and this time broke a long tradition and imposed a simple majority. It was their version of the nuclear option.

  29. GulfCoastPirate says:

    You are a prime example of why Holder/Obama did the correct thing.
    The ‘tribal presidency’? I’m sure no bigotry was intended.

  30. Tyler says:

    You’re like the stereotype of a leftist. “your rights end where my feelings begin” nonsense.
    You’re the prime example of why the Founders had to enumerate the Bill of Rights, else you would have traded our freedoms in order to be swaddled in bubble wrap.
    You don’t realize it, but your idiot insistance on believing in your false dogma of ‘equality at all costs’ is going to result in a repeat of 1860. Go argue for tranny bathroom rights while you’re at it.

  31. Richard Armstrong says:

    I could not have crafted a more perfectly formed ad hominem attack if I tried.

  32. scott s. says:

    We also have an interesting voting case here in Hawaii, this involves who is to be counted for apportioning state legislative districts. The state decided that military / military dependents (if the member is not domiciled in Hawaii) stationed in Hawaii and students not paying in-state tuition are excluded from census numbers used for re-apportionment. This is being sued as Kostick v. Nago in the federal courts. Last action was the Ninth Circuit found for the defendants last week. There is speculation that USSC would agree to take the case on writ from the 9th circuit. This same issue affected me after the 2000 census, as at the time I was Hawaii resident (paying HI income tax, voting, driver’s license etc) but because my wife was active duty New York domicile, I was not counted for representation. At the time the Republicans were pushing this, under the idea that by knocking out military from apportionment it would allow for an additional neighbor island (i.e., non-Honolulu) senate district which supposedly favored Republicans (in actuality it is clear no such advantage exists for Republicans on neighbor islands). The thing is, I live in a neighborhood close by Schofield Barracks (25th ID)and Wheeler AAF (25th CAB) and also with many military from other bases around Pearl Harbor so it makes a difference here. It also happens that we now have 2 of only 8 Republicans elected in the State from this area.

  33. Larry Kart says:

    These two responses, the latter from what is typically a conservative source, do not suggest that Holder’s move here is legally out of line, let alone an impeachable offense:

  34. GulfCoastPirate says:

    A repeat of 1860? Hilarious. When will this popgun war of yours start?

  35. Stephanie says:

    As GulfCoastPirate notes, Texas’ actions have already been ruled discriminatory. (The Texas GOP is practically bragging about it.) The question is what can be done in response.
    True, the Court struck down only the coverage requirement in Section 4 of the VRA, but in doing so effectively cut out the heart of Section 5 as well. I believe Holder is relying on Section 3, a more clunky way of taking the kind of action that the pre-clearance requirement would have enabled straightforwardly.

  36. turcopolier says:

    Stephanie, Larry Kart et al
    Yes. Unfortunately this is probably not an impeachable set of actions but the next round in SCOTUS will be interesting. pl

  37. turcopolier says:

    Where is the citation for Tyler having said something about 1860?

  38. Fred says:

    “The current legislature is a product of the map imposed by the federal judge who rejected the Republican map.”
    So the map voted or did the political opponents just not bother to field winnable candidates?

  39. Fred says:

    They have already traded our freedoms away, or have you forgotten the litany of unconstitutional conduct by the President and the complicity of the elected representatives who are members of the Democratic Party?

  40. Fred says:

    1860, as in a hardening of attitudes amongst political opponents. There have been other observations to this point that might be a bit more diplomatically and the direction this takes the country is hardly hilarious.

  41. The Twisted Genius says:

    “You don’t realize it, but your idiot insistance on believing in your false dogma of ‘equality at all costs’ is going to result in a repeat of 1860. Go argue for tranny bathroom rights while you’re at it.”
    This was just part of the fencing match between Tyler and GCP… you know… lunge, parry, riposte. We’re just waiting for the Arrêt.

  42. Larry Kart says:

    Tyler said this, in response to CGP:
    “You don’t realize it, but your idiot insistance on believing in your false dogma of ‘equality at all costs’ is going to result in a repeat of 1860.”

  43. LFS says:

    The Constitution only specifies proportional representation, and the number of citizens in each district–the borders are the playthings of local rent-seeking mafias that need to be taken out of the electoral equation. It is a trivial calculation to divide any state into districts that are equally sized, with each unit having the smallest possible perimiter that will contain the required number of citizens. Run the program against the census data, get a committee of statisticians to validate the algorithm, and draw the districts independent of the racial or demographic attributes of the citizens within. The opposition to that simple exercise would come from “Campaigns Inc.” which needs to gerrymander in order to maximize cash flow.

  44. Thomas Alan Parker says:

    You mean this?
    Tyler said in reply to GulfCoastPirate…
    You’re like the stereotype of a leftist. “your rights end You’re the prime example of why the Founders had to enumerate the Bill of Rights, else you would have traded our freedoms in order to be swaddled in bubble wrap.
    You don’t realize it, but your idiot insistance on believing in your false dogma of ‘equality at all costs’ is going to result in a repeat of 1860. Go argue for tranny bathroom rights while you’re at it.

  45. Tyler says:

    Yet I’m still right.

  46. Tyler says:

    You’ll know it when it happens.

  47. Alba Etie says:

    Col Lang
    Tyler replies to GCP ,26 July 2013 @ 5:26 pm .
    And judging from passions exhibited here from time to time Tyler might just be right about 1860. Another American Civil War would be the height of folly & hubris for all of us.

  48. steve g says:

    Touche!! As both reside in the
    SW, AZ and Tex, I thought an
    informal gathering at the OK
    Corral,Tombstone, would be appropriate.
    Tyler,an Earp, and GCP a Clanton.
    John Wayne .44’s the choice of weapons
    at 10 paces!

  49. GulfCoastPirate says:

    I think we all knew exactly what he meant and personally I did find it hilarious. It’s not so much a hardening of attitudes as his type learning to grow up and be adults. Enough of the childlike temper tantrums. If we all don’t give them their way what are they going to do – defund Obamacare, shut down the government, renege on government debt, start a new civil war? That’s certainly his implied threat with his statement.
    Well, now that you mention it maybe ‘hilarious’ isn’t the correct word. Maybe preposterous would be a better word choice.

  50. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Will it be on the evening news?

  51. turcopolier says:

    1860 is the year before the civil War began. pl

  52. Jane says:

    No, Holder’s actions are perfectly appropriate legally. The Supreme Court struck down the portion of the VRA which applied a blanket requirement that certain states had to seek pre-clearance. They did not strike down a portion of the law which said that if you can show that a particular jurisdiction has discriminated against a class of voters, you can then require that jurisdiction to submit to pre-clearance. Holder believes that the recent redistricting attempted by Texas meets that standard. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will agree since that matter has not yet come before them.

  53. GulfCoastPirate says:

    More hilarity or is it maybe amnesia? The country and your freedoms were sold out when the Republicans passed the Patriot Act. Many of us in the computer business knew what was going on as far back as 2002 but it was the Patriot Act that ‘let the dogs out’ – so to speak. The situation was bad enough that a Democratic led Congress passed the FISA bill in 2008 which included amnesty for those companies that had cooperated in a half decade of illegalities so Obama could artfully decline to prosecute Bush and his compadres. While Obama has certainly been horrible in this area and deserves every word of criticism written about his actions, he wasn’t the one who passed the bills that supposedly authorized that of which you speak.
    If you really care about your freedoms then you should listen to Senators Udall and Wyden along with people like Greenwald and Snowden. You are most certainly being lied to by the likes of Obama, Clapper and the rest of the NSA apparatus as it is technically impossible for them to be doing what they are telling you they are doing. If they are scooping up everything (which it appears they are) then they are getting content as well as ‘metadata’. Of course, you were lied to also before Obama came along but I suppose you find Republican lies acceptable.
    Whether you find that to be an acceptable trade-off for the protections they say they are providing in return for their spying is for you to decide. Personally, I find it unacceptable and want the entire Patriot Act rescinded. Let me know when your Republican friends who passed that monstrosity get around to doing so.

  54. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Yes, I know. As do we all. It was also the year Lincoln was elected and it was the refusal of many in the South to accept the results of that election that led to 1861. How do you think many of that outlook will react if Hillary is elected to follow Obama (and no, I’m not a fan of Hillary)? I don’t think he mistyped the year. I think he chose it intentionally.

  55. Fred says:

    “It’s not so much a hardening of attitudes as his type learning to grow up and be adults. Enough of the childlike temper tantrums. If we all don’t give them their way what are they going to do…”
    Yes, they don’t get their way in arming the FSA, just ship weapons anyway:
    Don’t get their way in passage of carbon emissions rules, just impose them anyway:
    Don’t get congressional approval to spy on all US citizens, just keep doing it anyway:
    But not to worry, GITMO is still open for business and Barrack has not jailed any bankers responsible for the financial crisis our country is still in. That apparently is adult behavior at its finest.

  56. Tyler says:

    But your side is the one that throws a temper tantrum whenever it doesn’t get its way, which is what we’re arguing about with Big Chief Holder deciding he don’t like him no Supreme Court ruling and he gonna do what he wants.
    Its not going to be a temper tantrum (which the Left loves to engage in), its going to be a breaking point because there’s always some new line that has to get crossed before your side and its idiots reach its more perfect utopia. Forget about the rest of the country that isn’t Fantasy Island – they don’t count is the mantra of the Left here.

  57. Tyler says:

    No Fred, you’re right. Some of us have our feet on the brakes trying to do something before we plunge over the cliff. Yet you wave a white sheet at idiots like GCP up there and they have a panic attack because “equality”.

  58. Tyler says:

    If I’m going to talk about a Civil War in the US, I’m going to talk about 1642 in England, you dork.

  59. dan of steele says:

    this is slightly off topic but since the discussion is about Holder I am wondering if anyone else is as flabbergasted as I am that the AG would find it necessary to promise the Russian president that he would not torture or execute Snowden.
    regardless of whether you consider Snowden a whistleblower or a traitor, why does Holder find it necessary to promise not to do what is already illegal by all international law?
    dungeons, summary executions, spying on the populace, rampant government corruption….that is the stuff I was told the Russians did. Is that why we feared them so much? or was it just envy at the time?

  60. Tyler says:

    I’d choose disunion over despotism, Alba.
    A house divided cannot stand.

  61. Tyler says:

    lol Look at you getting so huffy because I think that secession is the best path forward as opposed to Fantasy Island tyranny.

  62. Tyler says:

    No they’re not. Holder’s actions under Section Five need the formula in Section Four, which was struck. He can’t argue anything under Section Five because there’s no way to judge it. He’s just making up law at this point.

  63. Richard Armstrong says:

    I have no wish to wrestle with you for I will become muddy and you will no doubt enjoy yourself.

  64. Tyler says:

    Yeah GCP, just ignore that your Democratic friends were just as complicit in passing the Patriot Act as well as pushing for more NSA surveillance and drone assassinations of US citizens.
    History didn’t suddenly begin and end between 2000 and 2008.

  65. Tyler says:

    I mean seriously, the best you can do is bring go “b-b-b-but the PATRIOT Act!” when Obama is busy embracing and doubling down on the Unitary Executive doctrine? Are you inane or just trolling?

  66. Fred says:

    The Patriot Act of 2001 passed 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate with one senator not voting. Pray tell when did the Republicans ever hold 98 seats in the US Senate?
    I should listen to Senator Wyden? He voted for the Patriot act. You should really get your facts straight.

  67. Fred says:

    I would not label my comments to GCP a ‘white sheet’.

  68. Alba Etie says:

    I disagree- that part of the VRA that was struck down by SCOTUS left standing Sec 3 . What the court will decide is if Texas did disenfranchise minority voters with the 2011 redistricting map – because that is the one Texas is now seeking to make oficial. This is not Tyranny , and I am not ready to dissolve These United States over issues of voting rights that must be decided in court . I daresay if Holder is just making up law as he goes along then certainly the Courts will decide for Texas.

  69. Tyler says:

    Sorry, that “you” wasn’t directed at you personally, but meant more in a general sense. I should have made that clearer.

  70. Tyler says:

    Except without Section 4b, he can’t apply the formula to any state, which makes him trying to use Section 3 a ridiculous end run since the only ‘formula’ that exists is the one that’s in his head.
    Of course I expect the Left will give him a pass on this, like they did with the wiretap fiasco, Fast and Furious, and all the other shit he does.

  71. Tyler says:

    Hope for a velvet divorce, because right now the US is two groups of people who cannot stand each other.
    BTW this is what the DOJ is up to instead of going after bankers who crash our economy:

  72. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Huffy? Hardly, although certainly amused at your antics. Thanks for the laughs.

  73. GulfCoastPirate says:

    It was passed by a Republican led Congress with a Republican president signing the bill. Those are the facts.
    Wyden has been talking about the collection of intelligence on Americans and the misuse of both the Patriot Act and the subsequent FISA bill for quite some time. The point is none of this started under Obama and none of the so-called legal authorizations are derived from any bill passed since Obama has been president so get your facts straight yourself.

  74. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Do you and your friend have reading comprehension problems? Your statement implied that what has recently been revealed is somehow related to Obama. That simply isn’t the case; however, if you two would prefer to wallow in your own ignorance as opposed to understanding the structural and ‘legal’ authorizations for what has recently been revealed were set in place long before any of us knew of Obama (and will continue after Obama even if you should get a teabagger elected) then by all means don’t let me stop you.

  75. GulfCoastPirate says:

    ‘Don’t get congressional approval to spy on all US citizens, just keep doing it anyway:
    LOL – More Democrats voted for it than Republicans. Like I said, let me know when your Republican friends get around to cutting off the funds for this crap. They had their chance and couldn’t produce as many votes as the Democrats voting against their own president.

  76. Fred says:

    It was passed by the Republican led House, where were those Democrats? Oh, yes, 145 of them voting for the bill. How about the Democratic led Senate – here’s the roll call vote, Fiengold of Wisconsin was the only Senator to vote against it.
    It didn’t start under Obama? So what?

  77. Fred says:

    No offense taken.

  78. Charles I says:

    And is SCOTUS part of the LEFT?

  79. Charles I says:

    Guilty conscience, lawyer’s habit of addressing all the issues they can perceive or imagine may be used against them, and self projection too.

  80. Tyler says:

    Right on cue: the ‘rolling with the punches’ defense.

  81. Tyler says:

    I think you need to stop projecting so much and take your own advice and making excuses for the Chocolate Messiah. “B-b-b-but the legal framework was set in place before Obama”, yeah no shit and we didn’t like it then. The fact Obama doubled down on it (quick! name how many USCs Bush killed with drones!) doesn’t make it right.
    Sorry, but your willingness to make excuses for Obama because he has a D next to his name unmasks your shallow pretensions to trying to wrap yourself in ‘civil rights’ but shows that you’re just interested in power ‘as long as its our guy’.
    At least be honest about it.

  82. Tyler says:

    No, but the media, his enablers in the Congress, and all the rest are.
    Holder should be in prison for his actions in Fast and Furious. The man has the blood of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on his hands.

  83. stickler says:

    Well, so far I’d say it’s working out pretty well. Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, the Governor’s mansion, and the state’s fiscal crisis has finally been solved. The results speak for themselves.
    I don’t think the Dems “gamed” anything (and there were a few long-term pols who lost in 2012 or dropped out before the race), as much as the CA GOP destroyed themselves as a relevant force in the state. (Pete Wilson’s legacy.) One-party rule is always bad in the long run, though, so let’s see what happens there in the years to come.

  84. Mark Logan says:

    He apparently believes Snowden cited those in his plea to Russia for political asylum.

  85. Kyle Pearson says:

    Much obliged for the clarification, Mr. Lock.

  86. walrus says:

    Arguing about who gets to use the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Comments are closed.