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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
101. I don't know how many times I have to post this.
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 01:44 PM
Feb 2012

Obama directs the DOJ and they listen. I am not talking about meddling within a case, but on setting the direction and policy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20035398-503544.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/us/23immig.html?_r=1

These are just two quick examples of Obama ordering the DOJ to not defend a law or to change enforcement.

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So is the Department of J...»Reply #101