Reply #60

In the discussion thread: So is the Department of Justice Independent from the White House or Not? [View all]

Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #57)

Sun Feb 19, 2012, 06:44 PM

treestar (40,421 posts)

60. If there is a law that includes warrantless wiretapping

It is the government's job to argue that it is constitutional. That doesn't stop the challenger from arguing that it is not. The Court then decides. This argument is saying not to defend a law so it does not go to court so the conclusion remains up in the air. It's living in some lala land where the POTUS is the Court.

And then you could not say anything if an R President decided that welfare was unconstitutional and refused to challenge a case that said that it was.

The Challenger to a law is not always right. That's what you're assuming.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

110 replies	Author	Time	Post
So is the Department of Justice Independent from the White House or Not? [View all]	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	OP
The President is the head of the Executive Branch	Angry Dragon	Feb 2012	#1
So the President directs the DoJ?	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#5
Yes	Angry Dragon	Feb 2012	#9
Yes. Obama is the Chief Executive. The DoJ is an Executive body.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#10
The DoJ "Serves at the Pleasure of The President.	bvar22	Feb 2012	#63
It is part of the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#2
Usually only boards or decision making bodies are completely independent federal entities	banned from Kos	Feb 2012	#4
The Supreme Court is not a board. It is a separate branch.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#12
So in your opinion, it was okay for Bush to direct the DoJ as well?	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#19
As I pointed out above,	morningfog	Feb 2012	#26
Uh..who appointed Eric Holder? Who does Holder answer to? Who can fire Eric Holder?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#3
So Obama directs Holder?	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#6
You tell me why. My guess is that Obama wanted them to defend it.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#7
That's a terrible guess,	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#8
You are confusing words and actions	Angry Dragon	Feb 2012	#11
So the fact that Obama opposed DADT in both words AND actions is confusing?	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#16
Is he opposing "in words AND actions" warrentless wiretapping?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#24
These are your words:	Angry Dragon	Feb 2012	#25
You really don't understand that?	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#30
Where are his actions that he opposed DADT??	Angry Dragon	Feb 2012	#34
So, he was just a delicate flower unable to stop his own department from defending it?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#13
So you're arguing that the POTUS should direct the DoJ?	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#18
Yes. And, take responsibility for what he agrees to.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#21
This is more of an exercise.	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#23
Fine. Does that prevent Obama from firing Holder for not following his policies?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#28
Except that isn't quite right.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#29
Truly a case of apples and orangutans.	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#31
All Departments have the power to push a political agenda.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#32
With nowhere near the effectiveness of the DoJ.	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#89
You have gone round and round. My point is simple.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#92
Are you saying that the other departments in the executive aren't political?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#33
Yes	dems_rightnow	Feb 2012	#22
I think you are right....I'm not sure Obama was really	movonne	Feb 2012	#14
Are you saying that the DoJ's defense is part of a plan to do away with wireless wiretapping?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#17
LOL. Sounds like a lot of people responding to you need to brush up on their	FSogol	Feb 2012	#15
The DOJ is not an independent agency. It is a department in the Executive Branch which the Office	morningfog	Feb 2012	#20
But the president SHOULD NOT interfere and get involved,	NYC Liberal	Feb 2012	#37
He has a duty to manage the departments. It isn't interference. It is	morningfog	Feb 2012	#39
"How he does it is up to him." Correct.	NYC Liberal	Feb 2012	#52
We are in agreement. He is in charge and the direction it takes is on	morningfog	Feb 2012	#56
Yep. And my opinion, to add to that, is that the president should	NYC Liberal	Feb 2012	#74
All lawyers are required to exercise independent professional judgment	jberryhill	Feb 2012	#99
I don't know how many times I have to post this.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#101
Please explain what you know what everyone else is missing.........	Angry Dragon	Feb 2012	#27
Doesn't anyone remember when the Bush admin fired all those Justice Dept attorneys?	FSogol	Feb 2012	#35
Thank You	Angry Dragon	Feb 2012	#36
Of course he doesn't run the day-to-day. But, he certainly is in charge and Holder	morningfog	Feb 2012	#38
Some here think that DoJ is a rogue outfit answerable to no one.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#40
Like who?	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#51
Did the SCOTUS appoint Holder? Does the SCOTUS decide who gets what office at DoJ?	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#69
Does no one remember Archibald Cox?	FSogol	Feb 2012	#43
Yes. And, I remember Nixon taking flack for firing him.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#44
Cox and Nixon was more akin to Bush and the US Attorney firings.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#48
Fuck. I remember Bork that night.	msanthrope	Feb 2012	#86
The argument here is to politicize it!	treestar	Feb 2012	#58
DOMA	morningfog	Feb 2012	#61
So why aren't you bashing Obama for not letting it go to court and be declared	treestar	Feb 2012	#77
In regards to his position on DOMA, I applaud his ordering the DOJ to stand down.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#80
Then it's OK for Republicans too	treestar	Feb 2012	#84
Are you saying Obama went too far?	morningfog	Feb 2012	#85
Or, the POTUS could simply ban warrantless wiretapping...which it has not done.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#65
You seem to want the POTUS to do whatever he wants	treestar	Feb 2012	#78
I want the POTUS to do his job and take responsibility for it.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#81
"the President has instructed the DOJ not to defend the statute in such cases"	Enrique	Feb 2012	#72
From many of these responses, it seems that a lot of people	NashvilleLefty	Feb 2012	#41
How do you reconcile that with Obama's order to Holder to not defend DOMA?	morningfog	Feb 2012	#42
Then they are doing what the left wants, and holding up a court decision that it is	treestar	Feb 2012	#55
they are doing what the President ordered them to do	Enrique	Feb 2012	#73
OK so Republican Presidents can do the same.	treestar	Feb 2012	#79
Not correct, I spoke to an attorney that worked on this for the White House.	stevenleser	Feb 2012	#103
well I spoke to Eric Holder	Enrique	Feb 2012	#105
Without realizing it you just reinforced my point. You just bolded the wrong part and dont have all	stevenleser	Feb 2012	#107
my only point was the involvement of the President	Enrique	Feb 2012	#110
Last time I checked, torture was still illegal..	Fumesucker	Feb 2012	#45
That is a very good point.	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#47
"Why do so many people continue to insist that the actions of the DoJ are the will of Obama?"	Fumesucker	Feb 2012	#87
Yes, I did.	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#88
Well, the DoJ sometimes acts in the interests of the POTUS..	Fumesucker	Feb 2012	#90
It depends on the issue...	hughee99	Feb 2012	#46
Or the more likely scenario around here....	Son of Gob	Feb 2012	#49
Yes, either way, and this works when repukes get into office too. n/t	hughee99	Feb 2012	#53
I know!	woo me with science	Feb 2012	#50
Cute, but lame.	The Doctor.	Feb 2012	#59
Whether you think he should or should not direct the DOJ, he can and he does.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#71
Oh please. The behavior and priorities of his DOJ are entirely consistent	woo me with science	Feb 2012	#93
The President is the head of it	treestar	Feb 2012	#54
So, it appears that the government is in favor of warrantless wiretapping.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#57
If there is a law that includes warrantless wiretapping	treestar	Feb 2012	#60
Or, the government could decide not to defend it.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#64
Then the next administration, which may be Republican	treestar	Feb 2012	#76
The executive, no matter what party, may run its own DoJ and maintain the separation of powers.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Feb 2012	#82
Obama stopped defending DOMA. Please address that.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#83
"The DOJ will always defend a challenged law"	bvar22	Feb 2012	#66
I've been offering up this example, yet it has been ignored.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#68
That means that law will stay in limbo then	treestar	Feb 2012	#75
No.	bvar22	Feb 2012	#91
Obama showed he could order the DOJ to not defend a law: DOMA.	morningfog	Feb 2012	#67
You're simply wrong, re: "the government...will always defend a challenged law" nt	Romulox	Feb 2012	#95
Well, it will tend to, then	treestar	Feb 2012	#96
It will do so in line with its ideology, since the decision is a political one.	Romulox	Feb 2012	#97
Nope, its not. You need to speak to any of the lawyers who worked on the DOMA decision	stevenleser	Feb 2012	#104
Post 102 succinctly refutes this very point. No point rehashing it. nt	Romulox	Feb 2012	#106
Point 102 has no details at all. Figures you would point to it. nt	stevenleser	Feb 2012	#108
Might be a 'detail': "President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending..."	Romulox	Feb 2012	#109
No. It falls under the executive branch.	mmonk	Feb 2012	#62
President O is the boss	madokie	Feb 2012	#70
Attorney General Holder "serves at the pleasure" of the President, so no.	Romulox	Feb 2012	#94
Yes, now go ask your own lawyer to violate federal rule 11	jberryhill	Feb 2012	#100
Is your attorney independent from you?	jberryhill	Feb 2012	#98
this is not a matter of debate	Enrique	Feb 2012	#102

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.