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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Every Leftwing Activist needs 2 watch: NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)25. They were not
"It should chill every Liberal to see that two of the lawyers defending the Obama administration in court are the criminals John McCain and Lindsey Graham. "
...arguing the Obama administration's case. In fact, the administration objected to their appearance.
<...>
The three amici filed their motion December 26, requesting for 10 minutes of argument time. They argue that their participation is warranted for two reasons: because they have a unique understanding of the meaning and purpose of the indefinite detention section of the NDAA and will be able to address the broader policy dispute that led to the provision and because they have a direct and distinct interest in preserving Congresss power to authorize exercise of the Presidents war powers in such detail and in such ways as Congress sees fit as opposed to the executive branchs interest, which is preservation of the Presidents flexibility in the interpretation and execution of war powers authorizations, a quite different matter and one that is in some conflict with Congresss institutional interests.
The administrations attorneys filed a brief opposing the inclusion of the Senate amici in the oral argument hearing on January 3. They argue that the senators have no standing as individual members of the Senate to intervene and argue orally in the case and that they arent authorized to speak for the legislative body, which has shown itself to be sharply divided on several issues. The administration also argues that the three amici are offering policy views that should properly be aired in the political branches, not the judiciary, and that their brief reiterates the administrations. But the administrations most cogent argument against allowing the senators to intervene is that their comments on the Senate floor actually substantiate Hedges claims and undermine the administrations position. Senator Graham acknowledged on the floor of the Senate that under the text of the NDAA a citizen may well fear being picked up by a rogue executive branch not just by a rouge official but by a rogue executive branch for protected political activities, under Section 1021, the administrations attorneys write in a huff. In this regard, Senator Grahams remarks actually endorse the points raised by the plaintiffs and recognized by the district court.
- more -
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/01/12/sens-mccain-graham-ayotte-seek-oral-argument-time-ndaa-lawsuit-146927
The three amici filed their motion December 26, requesting for 10 minutes of argument time. They argue that their participation is warranted for two reasons: because they have a unique understanding of the meaning and purpose of the indefinite detention section of the NDAA and will be able to address the broader policy dispute that led to the provision and because they have a direct and distinct interest in preserving Congresss power to authorize exercise of the Presidents war powers in such detail and in such ways as Congress sees fit as opposed to the executive branchs interest, which is preservation of the Presidents flexibility in the interpretation and execution of war powers authorizations, a quite different matter and one that is in some conflict with Congresss institutional interests.
The administrations attorneys filed a brief opposing the inclusion of the Senate amici in the oral argument hearing on January 3. They argue that the senators have no standing as individual members of the Senate to intervene and argue orally in the case and that they arent authorized to speak for the legislative body, which has shown itself to be sharply divided on several issues. The administration also argues that the three amici are offering policy views that should properly be aired in the political branches, not the judiciary, and that their brief reiterates the administrations. But the administrations most cogent argument against allowing the senators to intervene is that their comments on the Senate floor actually substantiate Hedges claims and undermine the administrations position. Senator Graham acknowledged on the floor of the Senate that under the text of the NDAA a citizen may well fear being picked up by a rogue executive branch not just by a rouge official but by a rogue executive branch for protected political activities, under Section 1021, the administrations attorneys write in a huff. In this regard, Senator Grahams remarks actually endorse the points raised by the plaintiffs and recognized by the district court.
- more -
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/01/12/sens-mccain-graham-ayotte-seek-oral-argument-time-ndaa-lawsuit-146927
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Every Leftwing Activist needs 2 watch: NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense [View all]
Catherina
Feb 2013
OP
It should chill every Liberal that the 2 Senators desperate to argue in the hearing = McCain, Graham
Catherina
Feb 2013
#7
its changed..never to return..what remains the same is the format and ability to discuss and share
xiamiam
Feb 2013
#10
there is also a panel discussion on the same day..i googled and found it on you tube
xiamiam
Feb 2013
#9
Thank you xiamiam. I have to run an errand and will listen to it as soon as I get home
Catherina
Feb 2013
#37
The only thing more craven then Obama signing the NDAA into law is the total lack of media coverage
Catherina
Feb 2013
#11
Actually, the only thing more craven is that it passed the Senate with 83 votes
ProSense
Feb 2013
#14
Anonymous found that one senator who voted for NDAA had received a quarter-million dollar donation
Fire Walk With Me
Feb 2013
#16
Anonymous: Night Raid Equipment-Maker Lobbied for NDAA, Singles Out Sen. Rob Portman.
Fire Walk With Me
Feb 2013
#21
all voted for him in 2008..and at least one, Michael Moore, in 2012..but not the majority
xiamiam
Feb 2013
#42
Well, "Land of the free.." is soooo 19th century and the new Bogeyman is soooo scary.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#40
Unrelated but many thanks for all the hearts. It's a surprise and I'm humbled
Catherina
Feb 2013
#41