The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

To be fair, at least Obama's DoJ is admitting such

I doubt Bush's would have done the same

EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Obama would help his reputation by getting rid of Holder.

occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Facts are just liberal lies.

Was the letter concerning the WMD weapons of mass designations which were stolen from Iraq by the Muslim Brotherhood? Because that is what happened and if you do not believe this then you obviously are the watcher in the woods which is MSNB CHANNEL.

occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Don't care much about TFA, but the case in question is a perfect example of what is wrong with our immigration policies.

Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

More than can be said for Senators Kyl and L. Graham who were called out in one of Justice Stevens's opinions for phonying up legislative history.

EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?

vpb: Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?

Because teabaggers like him can't understand not slavishly defending everything "your side" says or does. Anything other than mindless obedience to the collective just boggles his mind.

Aarontology: vpb: Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?

Because teabaggers like him can't understand not slavishly defending everything "your side" says or does. Anything other than mindless obedience to the collective just boggles his mind.

Thinking hard about things cuts into mah football thinkin'-bout time.

EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Because it was a stupid comment and had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Can anyone explain what the hell is going on?

Justice claimed before the Court that there was a policy on [something], but the policy was "in the works" (so not really applicable), but Justice said it was, and there's a guy the policy might have applied to, only it didn't (for some reason - or it DID apply to him, but it shouldn't have), and so now Eric Holder has to wear a bunny suit and return the Elder Wand to Eric Cantor at a ceremony hosted by Kim Kardashian's left butt cheek?

vpb:
Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?


ultimately, this is what conservatives don't get.
don't cheer the guys making outlandish comment or pushing ridiculous legislation.
they see that (R) and go into defense/cheer mode depending on the situation.

The original case was about the attempted deportation of three men: Jean, Marc, 'n' Ken.

LOL, you conservatrolls are precious.

ftfa:

The Nken case involved the rights of non-citizens living in the U.S. who were facing deportation. The individual at the center of that case, Jean Marc Nken, was a national of Cameroon, but claimed that his scheduled deportation would lead to persecution if he returned to that country. He was married to a U.S. citizen, and they had a son who is a citizen. His lawyers took the case to the Supreme Court to get clarification of when a federal appeals court could postpone a deportation order, while the non-citizen involved sought to challenge the legal basis for being sent home.

The Court ruled that Nken and non-citizens like him who were deported while their challenges remained in court could seek delays while their appeals were pending, but would not suffer "irreparable injury" if they were deported in the meantime because, the Court said, they could continue their challenges and, if they won, they could return to the U.S. and regain the same status they had had before being deported. That, the Court said, would be "effective relief."

Cases like this bug me. Deporting people back to their home country before their appeals have run out is some cold shiat.

The policy that the goverrment had told the Court existed apparently did not exist.

That too.

/SCOTUS Blog doesn't have a spell check feature?
//Yeah, I know, I know. I should be the last to talk.
///Just saying "goverrment"? WTF?

EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

I can't figure out if the RNC is paying you to shill for them (in which case they are getting horrible return on their investment) or if the DNC is paying you to be a caricature of a shrill ignorant moron right winger (in which case they're getting a helluva bargain on some top notch work.)

occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Go easy on EnviroDude, he's farking stupid.

I don't understand how people who claim to support the free market can possibly be opposed to any form of immigration for labor purposes.

Jake Havechek: Go easy on EnviroDude, he's farking stupid.

How can you insult his hand like that?

EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Possibly because (1) no one takes that comment seriously, but especially (2) no one takes YOU seriously.

Honestly, you don't have to take a shiat in EVERY thread.

cman: To be fair, at least Obama's DoJ is admitting such



they were caught red handed

Holder is a fault here

because:

No corrective review of predecessor submissions to scotus

submitting an incorrect brief is not in itself a lie...INTENT

the hair splitting going on in this particular case does reflect the problems plaguing our courts

Bush appointee was gone within two weeks of submission due to election of hobama

Responsibility thus transfers to Holder who continued an inadequate policy

with customary incompetence and hobama felching

cman: To be fair, at least Obama's DoJ is admitting such

I doubt Bush's would have done the same

To be fair maybe the Bush Admin would not have lied to the SCOTUS in the first place.

chiefsfaninkc: cman: To be fair, at least Obama's DoJ is admitting such

I doubt Bush's would have done the same

To be fair maybe the Bush Admin would not have lied to the SCOTUS in the first place.

They lied to everyone else, why not SCOTUS?

The Government's brief in this case was filed January 7, 2009. This is where the problem was.

I'm trying to remember who the President was then.

tnpir: EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.



Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

because it is indefensible

/lol

Possibly because (1) no one takes that comment seriously,

you don't take reality seriously? Good to know. .

Honestly, you don't have to take a shiat in EVERY thread.

why do you think telling the truth is taking a shiat?

LasersHurt: chiefsfaninkc: cman: To be fair, at least Obama's DoJ is admitting such

I doubt Bush's would have done the same

To be fair maybe the Bush Admin would not have lied to the SCOTUS in the first place.

They lied to everyone else, why not SCOTUS?

The brief was filed Jan 7, 2009

rnld: The Government's brief in this case was filed January 7, 2009. This is where the problem was.

I'm trying to remember who the President was then.

The case was argued on September 22, 2009.

I'm trying to remember who the President was then. Who was the AG?

dang sure: Holder is a fault here

because:

No corrective review of predecessor submissions to scotus

submitting an incorrect brief is not in itself a lie...INTENT

the hair splitting going on in this particular case does reflect the problems plaguing our courts

Bush appointee was gone within two weeks of submission due to election of hobama

Responsibility thus transfers to Holder who continued an inadequate policy

with customary incompetence and hobama felching

Forever??????

The Audacity!

timujin: EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Because it was a stupid comment and had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

born_yesterday: timujin: EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Because it was a stupid comment and had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

no, the subject is Holder and his views and competence.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this was the case referenced in the article

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/d ocument/Nken_v_Holder_585_F3d_81 8 _4th_Cir_2009_Court_Opinion


United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jean Marc NKEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1813.
Argued: September 22, 2009.
Decided: October 30, 2009.


So wouldn't it have been Eric Holder and not a Bush appointee?

I readily admit to being new to all this SCOTUS case crap, and could have misread, so please correct me if I am wrong

tenpoundsofcheese: Honestly, you don't have to take a shiat in EVERY thread.

why do you think telling the truth is taking a shiat?

Let me give you an example:

The Justice Department lied? Well, at least they didn't call the Constitution "just a piece of paper"!!!

Does that help you understand the difference between substantive commentary and thread shiatting?

tenpoundsofcheese: born_yesterday: timujin: EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Because it was a stupid comment and had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

no, the subject is Holder and his views and competence.

How is the subject Holder? What does this article have to do with him other than it's his department that is having to apologize for the actions of the previous administration?

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Aarontology: vpb: Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?

Because teabaggers like him can't understand not slavishly defending everything "your side" says or does. Anything other than mindless obedience to the collective just boggles his mind.

Thinking hard about things cuts into mah football thinkin'-bout time.

Ha! I want to give you internets now.

BarnabusJ: Correct me if I am wrong, but this was the case referenced in the article

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/d ocument/Nken_v_Holder_585_F3d_81 8 _4th_Cir_2009_Court_Opinion


United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jean Marc NKEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1813.
Argued: September 22, 2009.
Decided: October 30, 2009.


So wouldn't it have been Eric Holder and not a Bush appointee?

I readily admit to being new to all this SCOTUS case crap, and could have misread, so please correct me if I am wrong

Filed under one, argued under the other, it would seem.

tenpoundsofcheese: born_yesterday: timujin: EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Because it was a stupid comment and had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

no, the subject is Holder and his views and competence.

How did that all of a sudden become the subject when it was who lied to the Supreme Court? Great way to suddenly change the subject to fit your supposed narrative that Holder has a specific view, when the brief that was filed with the inaccurate statement was filed before Obama was even sworn in or argued well before Holder was even in the confirmation process! What a tool!

BarnabusJ

The case was against the Attorney General in his official capacity. Holder automatically became the defendant on taking office.

tenpoundsofcheese: tnpir: EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.



Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

because it is indefensible

/lol

Possibly because (1) no one takes that comment seriously,

you don't take reality seriously? Good to know. .

Honestly, you don't have to take a shiat in EVERY thread.

why do you think telling the truth is taking a shiat?

Oh please, like I'm going to get lectured by a dishonest idiot like you. I don't take reality seriously? The hell are you talking about?

And telling the truth is something neither you nor EnviroDerp know anything about.

BarnabusJ: Correct me if I am wrong, but this was the case referenced in the article

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/d ocument/Nken_v_Holder_585_F3d_81 8 _4th_Cir_2009_Court_Opinion


United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jean Marc NKEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1813.
Argued: September 22, 2009.
Decided: October 30, 2009.


So wouldn't it have been Eric Holder and not a Bush appointee?

I readily admit to being new to all this SCOTUS case crap, and could have misread, so please correct me if I am wrong

By law if the office holder being sued changes, even after the case is filed briefed or argued and then decided the name is changed to conform to the new office holder.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. Substitution of Parties

(d) Public Officers; Death or Separation from Office. An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party.

BarnabusJ: Correct me if I am wrong, but this was the case referenced in the article

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/d ocument/Nken_v_Holder_585_F3d_81 8 _4th_Cir_2009_Court_Opinion


United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jean Marc NKEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1813.
Argued: September 22, 2009.
Decided: October 30, 2009.


So wouldn't it have been Eric Holder and not a Bush appointee?

I readily admit to being new to all this SCOTUS case crap, and could have misread, so please correct me if I am wrong

I know it's considered sacrilege, but it's possible that both Michael Mukasey's and Eric Holder's justice departments screwed up here.

Who was President and who was AG when the case hit the Supreme Court is irrelevant. They were reviewing a case that was filed in 2001 and the issue was a policy that was allegedly in force THEN, since the BIA declined to reverse the trial court's decision to deport based on those policies. The so-called policy (which apparently never existed) was whether or not deported aliens could return to the US if their appeal was granted. The DOJ assured the Court that this was being done all the time; and that was partially what the Court ruled on. There has never been any mechanism by which deported individuals could be assisted in return to the US if their appeals were successful.

The reason it is not relevant as to who was President and who was AG is that this alleged policy has been in place since AT LEAST 2001, when Nken's case first went to court, and by implication since well before that; Nken's case is simply the first that reached the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law's blog reports at least 7,000 cases where individuals who won their appeals have attempted to return to the US and have not been able to do so due to problems in their home countries.

This issue predates not only Obama, but likely George W. Bush, and probably Clinton as well. That it became evident under the Obama administration only speaks to the transparency of this administration, not any unusual lying practiced by it.

timujin:
no, the subject is Holder and his views and competence.

How is the subject Holder? What does this article have to do with him other than it's his department that is having to apologize for the actions of the previous administration?

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jean Marc NKEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1813.
Argued: September 22, 2009.
Decided: October 30, 2009.

Are you saying that 9 months in, when they argued the case, the best they can do is "blame Bush". Seriously, that is what you are defending?

tenpoundsofcheese: timujin:
no, the subject is Holder and his views and competence.

How is the subject Holder? What does this article have to do with him other than it's his department that is having to apologize for the actions of the previous administration?

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jean Marc NKEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1813.
Argued: September 22, 2009.
Decided: October 30, 2009.

Are you saying that 9 months in, when they argued the case, the best they can do is "blame Bush". Seriously, that is what you are defending?

Hey, worked to get elected, didn't it?

tnpir: tenpoundsofcheese: tnpir: EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.



Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

because it is indefensible

/lol

Possibly because (1) no one takes that comment seriously,

you don't take reality seriously? Good to know. .

Honestly, you don't have to take a shiat in EVERY thread.

why do you think telling the truth is taking a shiat?

Oh please, like I'm going to get lectured by a dishonest idiot like you. I don't take reality seriously? The hell are you talking about?

.

Denial, denial, denial. About what I expect from you. That is the best you can do? Someone told the truth and in the words of Jack Parr "you can't handle the truth".