Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 25, 2018

Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions was confirmed to head the Department of Justice (DOJ) nearly one year ago, he has been making an impact in which the rule of law has more of a place than it ever did in the Obama DOJ under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Sessions is not a good or useful man.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hermann Goering reformed the Luftwaffe.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 07:45 PM | Reply

These are impressive accomplishments, Zed.

He's showing genuine fealty to the rule of law and our constitutional order.

That is a stark contrast to Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder or Alberto Gonzalez

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 07:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at

He's a criminal.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 07:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He's a criminal.

#5 | POSTED BY ZED

What crime has he committed?

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 07:49 PM | Reply

I'm an excellent driver.

#5.1 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2018-01-25 07:46:30 PM

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 07:49 PM | Reply

What crime has he committed?

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-

Giving aid and comfort to an anti-democratic administration.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 07:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Sessions is a Copperhead.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 07:52 PM | Reply

Giving aid and comfort to an anti-democratic administration.

#8 | POSTED BY ZED

First off, how is the Trump administration 'anti-democratic' and secondly, (and much more importantly) agreeing to be a member of an administration that you despise is not a criminal act.

Do you have anything else?

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 07:54 PM | Reply

"First off, how is the Trump administration 'anti-democratic' "

Oh please.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 07:55 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"agreeing to be a member of an administration that you despise is not a criminal act."

Sessions is a henchman. Moral turpitude is only sometimes an actual crime. To not recognize a snake is always stupid.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 07:58 PM | Reply

Giving aid and comfort to an anti-democratic administration.

#8 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2018-01-25 07:51 PM

Kind of like John Kerry gave to the Palestinian Authority?

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 08:05 PM | Reply

"He's showing genuine fealty to the rule of law and our constitutional order."

This sort of preachy nonsense is a sure way to identify an internet garbage-poster saluting his fellow defender of privilege.

"That is a stark contrast to Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder or Alberto Gonzalez"

You've just named three people who understand that "the law exists for the people and not the people for the law." Can you claim the same understanding?

#15 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"First off, how is the Trump administration 'anti-democratic' "

By calling the press the enemy of the people. That's how.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Sessions Restores Integrity and the Rule of Law to the DOJ"

Let me guess: Integrity and the Rule of Law went missing during the Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, and Kennedy years, but came back in full force during the Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon years.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 08:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Let me guess: Integrity and the Rule of Law went missing during the Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, and Kennedy years, but came back in full force during the Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon years.

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If you scroll up, you can see just how wrong you are:

These are impressive accomplishments, Zed.
He's showing genuine fealty to the rule of law and our constitutional order.
That is a stark contrast to Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder or Alberto Gonzalez

#4 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 07:46 PM


Which administration did Gonzales work for again?

This sort of preachy nonsense is a sure way to identify an internet garbage-poster saluting his fellow defender of privilege.

"Does anyone speak jive?"

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 08:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

You've just named three people who understand that "the law exists for the people and not the people for the law." Can you claim the same understanding?

#15 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

In my first post I listed most of the highlights from the linked piece. Do you have any substantive refutations for said highlights?

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 08:51 PM | Reply

In my first post I listed most of the highlights from the linked piece. Do you have any substantive refutations for said highlights?

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 08:51 PM | FLAG:

Point by point? Why bother when your premises are wrong?

#20 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 08:58 PM | Reply

Your blockquote doesn't tell the whole story of DACA, which is that DACA not illegal, despite your repeated claims that it's illegal.

"In November, the attorney general issued a memorandum prohibiting DOJ from issuing guidance documents that had the effect of adopting new regulatory requirements or amending the law."

That's not "restoring anything." That's an example of "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

"DOJ has shown that its dedication to the rule of law extends to the direct protection of individual rights."

Except, what that really shows is using the subterfuge of "religious beliefs" held by unelected government bureaucrats to deny the rights and legal protections of individuals unlucky enough to require the services of said unelected government bureaucrats.

"Months earlier, it secured a 49-year sentence in the first case prosecuted under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act for the murder of a victim due to gender identity"

This is hardly a contrast from prior enforcement activities, and actually doesn't indicate any change whatsoever.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:00 PM | Reply

Point by point? Why bother when your premises are wrong?

#20 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Translation: I got nothing

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 At least Snoofy puts forth some effort.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:09 PM | Reply

More effort than your cut and paste job...

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:13 PM | Reply

Your blockquote doesn't tell the whole story of DACA, which is that DACA not illegal, despite your repeated claims that it's illegal.

DACA is a piece of legislation. POTUS can't legislate.

"In November, the attorney general issued a memorandum prohibiting DOJ from issuing guidance documents that had the effect of adopting new regulatory requirements or amending the law."

That's not "restoring anything." That's an example of "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

It's a directive to administrative agencies that they are to limit their activities and rule-making to the statutory limits that congress has put on them. It's a HUGE reeling in of an out of control administrative state and much needed in a representative democracy.

"DOJ has shown that its dedication to the rule of law extends to the direct protection of individual rights."

Except, what that really shows is using the subterfuge of "religious beliefs" held by unelected government bureaucrats to deny the rights and legal protections of individuals unlucky enough to require the services of said unelected government bureaucrats.

It's the enforcement of RFRA which was a law that was passed by congress and signed by POTUS. Again, following the law.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For the record I have my hinges and yes, I am an excellent driver.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-25 09:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Wow. Zed made a funny and it was actually, well, funny. Well done. FF

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:23 PM | Reply

Translation: I got nothing

#22 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 09:09 PM | FLAG:

Really? You seem awfully long on lists other people write and awful short on real thought, so here is a little provocation for you: shorn of an actual ethical discussion of laws and systems, cheering about upholding laws and systems is nothing but "just following orders" in a different wrapper... no wonder you like it so much!

#29 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 09:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

so I decided to facilitate against that tendency.

#26 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 09:15 PM | FLAG:

As a rightist, he is used to playing to the lowest common denominators.

And for future reference, Captain Quotation, a little exegesis is probably called for anyway. It took Zed to even get you to the level of brain dead cheerleading manifest in your non-quoted posts on this thread.

#30 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 09:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"DACA is a piece of legislation"

You say that a lot but have yet to demonstrate it.

#31 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 09:31 PM | Reply

"DACA is a piece of legislation."

What's the H.B. and corresponding S.B. number?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:33 PM | Reply

"I often find that people on this site don't read the linked articles tied to the thread"

Is it really any wonder, based on the deck you regurgitated?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:34 PM | Reply

"It's the enforcement of RFRA"

I'm aware of that.
You seem to think that enforcing a ------ law is a good thing.
It's not.

The RFRA deprives people of their rights. This is undeniable.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You say that a lot but have yet to demonstrate it.

#31 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

It confers positive benefits onto people who, by statute, or precluded from receiving them.

shorn of an actual ethical discussion of laws and systems, cheering about upholding laws and systems is nothing but "just following orders"

This country has a constitutional system of checks and balances. It is a violation of our constitutional order when a branch of government exceeds its enumerated powers. Bills are passed by congress and, when signed by POTUS, become laws. POTUS then has a constitutional duty to faithfully execute said laws. This DOJ has pulled this country back to this framework and that is a damn good thing.

It took Zed to even get you to the level of brain dead cheerleading manifest in your non-quoted posts on this thread.

#30 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I need my SJW gobbledy-gook translator.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:39 PM | Reply

"It's a directive to administrative agencies that they are to limit their activities and rule-making to the statutory limits that congress has put on them."

No, it's not that.
It's a directive to not promulgate any new rules.
"Statutory limits" is a fabrication of yours.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It confers positive benefits onto people who, by statute, or precluded from receiving them."

That's your definition of legislation, then?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:40 PM | Reply

The RFRA deprives people of their rights. This is undeniable.

#34 | POSTED BY SNOOF

It promotes religious freedom. I'm not a religious guy but I recognize what this law accomplishes and it's in line with the 1st Amendment.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:41 PM | Reply

"It promotes religious freedom."

It allows the government to be in non-compliance with statute, on a case-by-case basis, based upon religious beliefs of individual bureaucrats.
That has nothing at all to do with religious freedom.
It has everything to do with religious beliefs usurping the rule of law.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It confers positive benefits onto people who, by statute, or precluded from receiving them."

Nonsense. It merely suspends the exercise of the parts of the law preventing receipt of those benefits. Clear prosecutorial discretion and all perfectly legal.

"This country has a constitutional system of checks and balances. It is a violation of our constitutional order when a branch of government exceeds its enumerated powers. Bills are passed by congress and, when signed by POTUS, become laws. POTUS then has a constitutional duty to faithfully execute said laws. This DOJ has pulled this country back to this framework and that is a damn good thing."

That's an assertion, not an argument. Is faithfully applying law a good thing if it disenfranchises and oppressed gays, minorities, women?

"I need my SJW gobbledy-gook translator."

It is all plain English. Also, I note you are still the kind of Nazi-coddling lowlife who uses "SJW" as an insult.

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It promotes religious freedom. I'm not a religious guy but I recognize what this law accomplishes and it's in line with the 1st Amendment.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:41 PM | Reply

It does infringe when it is used in the business setting. Ig my religion says I can't serve black people think that would fly????

#41 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 09:45 PM | Reply

It promotes religious freedom. I'm not a religious guy but I recognize what this law accomplishes and it's in line with the 1st Amendment.

#38 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 09:41 PM | FLAG:

Was segregation an exercise of religious freedom?

#42 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 09:46 PM | Reply

No, it's not that.
It's a directive to not promulgate any new rules.
"Statutory limits" is a fabrication of yours.

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That is simply false.

From the article:

It restored the proper role of guidance documents as "plain-language restatements of existing legal requirements" or "non-binding advice on technical issues" that guide the interpretation of law, not instruments of coercion.

No more letters coercing Universities to turn into kangaroo courses over sexual assault allegations. No more letters forcing ALL K-12 public schools from being required to allow transgendered students and students claiming to be transgendered from using the locker room of their choosing irrespective of how this violates the rights of all of the other students using these facilities.

If congress were to pass a law forcing the transgender locker room thing and POTUS were to sign it, I would think it's a bad law, but I wouldn't question its legitimacy.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:46 PM | Reply

" Also, I note you are still the kind of Nazi-coddling lowlife who uses "SJW" as an insult. "

To make matters worse, from where he stands, the RFRA is an act of Social Justice, and Sessions is his Warrior.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:46 PM | Reply

No more letters coercing Universities to turn into kangaroo courses over sexual assault allegations. No more letters forcing ALL K-12 public schools from being required to allow transgendered students and students claiming to be transgendered from using the locker room of their choosing irrespective of how this violates the rights of all of the other students using these facilities.

If congress were to pass a law forcing the transgender locker room thing and POTUS were to sign it, I would think it's a bad law, but I wouldn't question its legitimacy.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:46 PM | Reply

Your ignorance of Title IX issues is astounding and yet not surprising. Obama didn't do anything out of line regarding that.

#45 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 09:48 PM | Reply

Black skin is the Mark of Cain.
That's a commonly held religious belief.
Keep pretending you can't see the problem, JeffJ.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No more letters coercing Universities to turn into kangaroo courses over sexual assault allegations."

Never happened.

"No more letters forcing ALL K-12 public schools from being required to allow transgendered students and students claiming to be transgendered from using the locker room of their choosing irrespective of how this violates the rights of all of the other students using these facilities."

And here we see your bigotry front and center. Rights of all other students? What rights, exactly?

"If congress were to pass a law forcing the transgender locker room thing and POTUS were to sign it, I would think it's a bad law, but I wouldn't question its legitimacy."

Must be nice to be able to say something like that about ALL sorts of situations that do not affect you one damned bit.

#47 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 09:50 PM | Reply

What Is the Bible's View? Are Blacks Cursed by God?

MANY religious leaders have answered "Yes." Clergymen Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, in their Bible commentary, assert: "Cursed be Canaan [Genesis 9:25] -- this doom has been fulfilled in... the slavery of the Africans, the descendants of Ham." -- Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Whole Bible.

www.ghanaweb.com

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:51 PM | Reply

"It promotes religious freedom"

Explain, in detail, what specific religious freedom(s) were being suppressed.
Thanks.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It merely suspends the exercise of the parts of the law preventing receipt of those benefits. Clear prosecutorial discretion and all perfectly legal.

That's absurd. What you are saying is that POTUS can cherry-pick which parts of laws it chooses to enforce. That would be akin to Trump instructing the IRS to forego the collection of capital gains taxes. POTUS can not do that. Your argument is that POTUS can do whatever the hell he wants. This country is not a dictatorship.

Was segregation an exercise of religious freedom?

#42 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN A

no.

Is faithfully applying law a good thing if it disenfranchises and oppressed gays, minorities, women?

Laws that do those things are unconstitutional. None of the examples I cited do that.

I note you are still the kind of Nazi-coddling lowlife who uses "SJW" as an insult.
#40 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

You're so cute when you play the victim. It's something you learned how to do at a very young age.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:52 PM | Reply

Your ignorance of Title IX issues is astounding and yet not surprising. Obama didn't do anything out of line regarding that.

#45 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You're wrong. That "letter" (coercion) was so far removed from Title IX it would have been risible were it not so damaging.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:54 PM | Reply

"You're so cute when you play the victim."

You're so cute when you play the Brownshirt.
You even make ad hominem attacks when you get emotional.
Something you learned an an early age.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:55 PM | Reply

"were it not so damaging."

Damaging?
What's the damage?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:55 PM | Reply

"No more letters coercing Universities to turn into kangaroo courses over sexual assault allegations."
Never happened.

It absolutely happened.

And here we see your bigotry front and center. Rights of all other students? What rights, exactly?

To share facilities with only members of the same sex.

"If congress were to pass a law forcing the transgender locker room thing and POTUS were to sign it, I would think it's a bad law, but I wouldn't question its legitimacy."
Must be nice to be able to say something like that about ALL sorts of situations that do not affect you one damned bit.

#47 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN
'
So, we should just chuck our constitutional structure if it doesn't produce results that you favor?

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:56 PM | Reply

"No more letters forcing ALL K-12 public schools from being required to allow transgendered students and students claiming to be transgendered from using the locker room of their choosing irrespective of how this violates the rights of all of the other students using these facilities."

But, somehow, enforcing a RFRA that prevents ALL K-12 public schools from separating Church and State doesn't violate the rights of all students using these facilities...

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're wrong. That "letter" (coercion) was so far removed from Title IX it would have been risible were it not so damaging.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:54 PM | Reply

No actually it is relevant to title IX. But do carry on like it doesn't involve title IX protections.

#56 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 09:57 PM | Reply

"To share facilities with only members of the same sex."

That's not in the Constitution.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 09:57 PM | Reply

Damaging?
What's the damage?

#53 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Students accused of sexual assault being stripped of all of their constitutional protections. Students falsely accused of sexual assault being kicked out of school as a result of these kangaroo courts. THAT's the damage.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:58 PM | Reply

"To share facilities with only members of the same sex."
That's not in the Constitution.

#57 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I didn't say it was.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 09:59 PM | Reply

Then what's your complaint with it?

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:00 PM | Reply

"Students falsely accused of sexual assault being kicked out of school as a result of these kangaroo courts. THAT's the damage."

And that can't happen any more?
Why can't it happen any more?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:01 PM | Reply

"Students accused of sexual assault being stripped of all of their constitutional protections."

Children don't have much in the way of Constitutional protections.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus should have taught you that.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:02 PM | Reply

I'm talking about college students. Adults.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:03 PM | Reply

www.brookings.edu

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on non-conformance with gender norms, stereotypes, and other sex-based considerations constitutes illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins). Since at least
2000, courts and federal agencies have applied that precedent to protections for transgender people, who often defy others' stereotypes or expectations of how a person of a particular sex or gender should look, dress, or act. Numerous courts (including the
4th,
6th,
9th, and
11th Circuits, and the
District Court of D.C.) and federal agencies (including the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services) have agreed that discriminating against transgender (and LGB) people is discriminating on the basis of gender stereotypes or expectations, and is therefore illegal sex discrimination.

The key takeaway here is that the protections for transgender students did not spring into existence because of the Obama guidance; rather, the Obama guidance codified existing protections provided by Title IX. As a result, schools around the country continue to have a legal obligation to protect these students' rights, including equal access to facilities consistent with their gender identity, even following the guidance's withdrawal.

#64 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 10:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Adult college students are typically bound by whatever judicial apparatus exists, as part of their enrollment in the college. This is not a Constitutional issue.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:04 PM | Reply

"That's absurd. What you are saying is that POTUS can cherry-pick which parts of laws it chooses to enforce. That would be akin to Trump instructing the IRS to forego the collection of capital gains taxes. POTUS can not do that. Your argument is that POTUS can do whatever the hell he wants. This country is not a dictatorship."

Absurd strawman. It is prosecutorial discretion used in a very specific and limited way, of the kind used all the time at every level.

"Was segregation an exercise of religious freedom?

#42 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN A
no"

Why not? What's the difference?

"Laws that do those things are unconstitutional. None of the examples I cited do that."

All of those things were upheld by the courts at different times in history. Your opinion on the subject hardly matters.

People had to struggle and bend and break (or outright ignore) existing laws to get reform in these areas. This activity was a necessary precursor to the reforms that came from the courts and legislators.

"You're so cute when you play the victim. It's something you learned how to do at a very young age."

I am not playing the victim: you are playing the bigot. What age did you learn that and are your parents proud?

#66 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 10:04 PM | Reply

And that can't happen any more?
Why can't it happen any more?

#61 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Oh, it can still happen but it doesn't have to. Colleges no longer have to set up kangaroo courts to handle sexual assault allegations or lose their federal funding.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:04 PM | Reply

www.independent.co.uk

Women's rights group sue Trump's Education Department for 'discriminating against victims of campus sexual assault'

'We want to make that statement very clear to this administration: That they don't get to roll back the clock.'

#68 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 10:07 PM | Reply

"It absolutely happened."

Prove it.

"To share facilities with only members of the same sex."

That is not a right.

"So, we should just chuck our constitutional structure if it doesn't produce results that you favor?"

We shouldn't treat the law as a suicide pact. But again, what do you care? The status quo is made for people like you. Of course you want it to be hard to change.

#69 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 10:08 PM | Reply

Oh, it can still happen but it doesn't have to. Colleges no longer have to set up kangaroo courts to handle sexual assault allegations or lose their federal funding.

#67 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 10:04 PM | FLAG:

They never had to anyway. It was all a lie spread by misogynistic nonsense-peddlers allergic to the idea that something might actually be done about the sexual assault pandemic.

#70 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 10:10 PM | Reply

Absurd strawman. It is prosecutorial discretion used in a very specific and limited way, of the kind used all the time at every level.

What you are describing is NOT prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion is limited enforcement due to limited resources. A temporary stay on deportation is prosecutorial discretion. Conferring positive benefits onto people who are precluded from receiving them is not an action that is taken due to limited resources. In fact, doing so (processing work permits, etc) requires MORE resources than simply enforcing the law as written.

People had to struggle and bend and break (or outright ignore) existing laws to get reform in these areas. This activity was a necessary precursor to the reforms that came from the courts and legislators.

On this we agree.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They never had to anyway.

Yes, they did. If they didn't, they'd lose federal funding.

It was all a lie

What was a lie?

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:13 PM | Reply

Show me where in the Dear Colleague letter the "kangaroo courts" are mandated.
www2.ed.gov

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Conferring positive benefits onto people who are precluded from receiving them is not an action that is taken due to limited resources. "

Is health care a positive benefit?
Asking for an illegal who shows up at a public hospital emergency room.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:15 PM | Reply

'We want to make that statement very clear to this administration: That they don't get to roll back the clock.'

#68 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Which is garbage. Pure, unadulterated garbage.

All it did was undo a rule, not a law, a rule, issued by the Obama administration. Obama's executive orders, memoranda and letters do not have primacy over future executives. This lawsuit will go very badly.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:15 PM | Reply

Mark of Cain.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:16 PM | Reply

"What you are describing is NOT prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion is limited enforcement due to limited resources."

Defining your way to victory, huh? Sorry, but I am not buying. The discretion is used all the time for reasons other than resource scarcity, as even you well know.

"Conferring positive benefits onto people who are precluded from receiving them is not an action that is taken due to limited resources."

Good thing that isn't happening then. They are just not preventing the people in question from getting benefits, which absolutely falls within prosecutorial discretion.

"On this we agree."

Glad to see you've seen the light...

#77 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 10:16 PM | Reply

Is health care a positive benefit?
Asking for an illegal who shows up at a public hospital emergency room.

#74 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Immigration statute doesn't prohibit people who are here illegally from receiving medical treatment.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:16 PM | Reply

Is health care a positive benefit?
Asking for an illegal who shows up at a public hospital emergency room.

#74 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Immigration statute doesn't prohibit people who are here illegally from receiving medical treatment.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:16 PM | Reply

They are just not preventing the people in question from getting benefits, which absolutely falls within prosecutorial discretion.

Then why was DAPA smacked down hard by the courts?

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:17 PM | Reply

"Which is garbage. Pure, unadulterated garbage."

Of course YOU would say so.

#81 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 10:18 PM | Reply

Then why was DAPA smacked down hard by the courts?

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:17 PM | Reply

SAPA Wasn't smacked down hard by the courts.

en.wikipedia.org

The program was announced in November 2014 by President Barack Obama, along with a number of immigration reform steps including increased resources for border enforcement, new procedures for high-skilled immigrants, and an expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.[2][3]

Several states have filed lawsuits against the Federal government, arguing that DAPA violates the Constitution and federal statutes. A temporary injunction was issued in February 2015, blocking the program from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeds. A U.S. Supreme Court 4–4 split decision in June 2016 effectively left the block in place.[4]

On June 15, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that it was rescinding the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans order.[5]

#82 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 10:22 PM | Reply

Show me where in the Dear Colleague letter the "kangaroo courts" are mandated.
www2.ed.gov

#73 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Here is the letter:

www2.ed.gov

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:22 PM | Reply

DAPA Too

#84 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 10:22 PM | Reply

Oops. Sorry. You want me to highlight the relevant text in the letter. Give me a sec....

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:23 PM | Reply

"Immigration statute doesn't prohibit people who are here illegally from receiving medical treatment."

I didn't ask if it was prohibited.
I asked if it's a positive benefit.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 10:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Give me a sec....

#85 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 10:23 PM | FLAG:

Don't forget to also find an appropriately broad definition of "Kangeroo Court."

#87 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 10:34 PM | Reply

This is a letter written by 27 law professors. If you take the time to read it, you'll have a good understanding of how horribly wrong the Obama "Dear colleague" letter was and why Devos rescinded it.

www.saveservices.org

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't ask if it was prohibited.
I asked if it's a positive benefit.

#86 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yes, it's a positive benefit. But since immigration status doesn't preclude illegal immigrants from receiving it, unlike a work permit, I don't know why you are bringing it into the discussion.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Laura,

The 5th circuit court of appeals slapped down DAPA.

Here is the opinion:

www.ca5.uscourts.gov

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Which is garbage. Pure, unadulterated garbage."
Of course YOU would say so.

#81 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Check out the link I provided in #88.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:49 PM | Reply

"To share facilities with only members of the same sex."

That is not a right.

If that is the case, then transgenders being able to use facilities that match their gender is not a right either.

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've got to bug out for a while. I'm about 5000 steps short of 10,000 for the day. Time to walk laps in the basement and get my steps in.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:53 PM | Reply

" But since immigration status doesn't preclude illegal immigrants from receiving it, unlike a work permit, I don't know why you are bringing it into the discussion."

Sure, ignore the millions of people who ought to be working and ain't gonna be deported.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 11:00 PM | Reply

Time to walk laps in the basement and get my steps in.

That's pretty sad. Ever thing about going outside for a walk?

#95 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-25 11:00 PM | Reply

Check out the link I provided in #88.

#91 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 10:49 PM | FLAG:

So you and a few professors, mostly male, mostly from nice bastions of social privilege. What's your point?

#96 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 11:03 PM | Reply

So, Trump is talking about a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers.
But I guess JeffJ will be 100% in support of that law, no matter what law eventually gets passed.
I'm guessing, blind obeisance to the law, it's easier than thinking.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 11:03 PM | Reply

Redial

Posting from my phone in the basement. It's January and I live in Michigan. During summer I get my steps in outside

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 11:04 PM | Reply

If that is the case, then transgenders being able to use facilities that match their gender is not a right either.

#92 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 10:52 PM | FLAG:

How does that follow? Yours is the claim that excludes people. It is like saying whites have a right not to have to share restrooms with people of color.

#99 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 11:05 PM | Reply

Redial
Posting from my phone in the basement. It's January and I live in Michigan. During summer I get my steps in outside

#98 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 11:04 PM | FLAG:

Maybe an indoor mall or similar? And the step counter doesn't even count the calories burned dodging clueless tourists and distracted teens!

#100 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-25 11:06 PM | Reply

The 5th circuit court of appeals slapped down DAPA.

Here is the opinion:

www.ca5.uscourts.gov

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 10:47 PM | Reply

No it merely ordered an injunction while the lawsuit went through the courts. Not even close to a slap down.

#101 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-25 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My dad mall walks. But by the time I get home make dinner and clean the kitchen I don't feel like hopping in the car and drive twenty minutes so I can mall walk.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 11:09 PM | Reply

#102

You could make it as a street walker... jajaja!

#103 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-25 11:18 PM | Reply

If that is the case, then transgenders being able to use facilities that match their gender is not a right either.
#92 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 10:52 PM | FLAG:

How does that follow? Yours is the claim that excludes people. It is like saying whites have a right not to have to share restrooms with people of color.

#99 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

You ask a fair question followed by a fair point. But I'm not going to answer.

When the Obama administration administered that particular "Dear colleague" letter, it unleashed a torrent of threads on the DR, spanning weeks, about this subject. My recollection is that you weren't a participant in said threads and were likely not a silent participant either. Needless to say, the discussions became incredibly circular. I made the decision that I would never participate in one of those discussions again because every angle of this topic was beaten to death and I have no interest in re-litigating it. And you don't have to take my word for it. Laura and Snoofy can both attest to how thoroughly this issue was debated as they were both active participants. Goatman dubbed these threads as "potty purity debates".

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 12:18 AM | Reply

JeffJ I understand the point you're making about DACA "breaking the rules."
Presidents are afforded a wide latitude when it comes to that kind of thing, is the thing.
That's what makes it not so egregious as you'd like it to be.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-26 12:19 AM | Reply

I was mistaken about the number of steps I needed. I thought I was at 5000 but I was only at 4000. I came up 251 steps short of my goal. Damn!

#106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 12:19 AM | Reply

JeffJ I understand the point you're making about DACA "breaking the rules."
Presidents are afforded a wide latitude when it comes to that kind of thing, is the thing.
That's what makes it not so egregious as you'd like it to be.

#105 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's not that egregious. This country has seen FAR worse examples of executive overreach and abuse of power. This just happens to be a core issue with me, so I have become a stickler. I remember about a year ago Speaksoftly pointing out that most of us have a couple of core issues that we are absolutely passionate about and tend to be very zealous about when the subject arises. For him, it's campaign finance which he feels should be 100% publicly funded.

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 12:24 AM | Reply

And you really need to give up your PC superiority-complex and play Breath of the Wild. If you liked Skyrim (and who doesn't like Skyrim?) you'll like this game for many of the same reasons.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 12:26 AM | Reply

Snoof,

Are you going to be around a bit longer?

If so, I'd like to hijack the thread and pick your brain a bit regarding cooking healthy meals.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 12:29 AM | Reply

Sessions wants to continue the war on drugs and fill privatized prisons where profits come before the constitution. He also wants to build the conservative power base by using States rights to maintain segregation, support programs to suppress Democrat voting and rescind a woman's right to choose.

#110 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-26 07:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

He's showing genuine fealty to the rule of law and our constitutional order.

He's pretty good at ignoring perjury laws.

#111 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-26 07:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's my take on Obama's decision to grant Dreamers DACA. If I were President and I saw those young people facing deportation from the only country they have ever know I would use every power at my disposal to prevent those deportation even if it was later decided that I had exceeded my authority because, at the very least, it would provide a window for Congress to act which they have, obviously, failed to do. I would continue DACA as long as I could, I would fight their deportations in all of the courts. I would do everything humanly possible for a President to do to prevent those deportation and, to me, those folk like Jeff, who are so concerned with the legalities of it are so inconsistent as to be irrelevant. Did you, Jeff, support the impeachment of Ronald Reagan over Iran Contra? Or George Bush for lying us into a war and occupation of Iraq? Those HUGE offenses can be ignored by an act of mercy for the Dreamers should be judged as illegal? Your sense of justice is very distorted.

#112 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-26 11:37 AM | Reply

Trump sees those same kids (many actually adults) as a bargaining chip to get his wall.

#113 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-26 12:28 PM | Reply

Trump sees those same kids (many actually adults) as a bargaining chip to get his wall.

#113 | Posted by visitor_

It is never a good idea to bargain with terrorists.

Using innocent kids as hostages. A Problem Trump created and could solve with the stroke of a pen.

No wall for hostages.

RESIST.

#114 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-26 02:28 PM | Reply

If Jeff Sessions had integrity and a belief in the rule of law, he'd speak out against Trump's attacks on the Department of Justice and FBI. No one who ever headed the DOJ has been more passive as his department's integrity and independence were attacked.

Instead, Sessions turtles whenever Trump attacks his prosecutors and investigators.

What a hero of the law you've chosen, JeffJ!

#115 | Posted by rcade at 2018-01-26 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

My assessment is based on what he's done with the DOJ.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 04:07 PM | Reply

The most important thing he's done with the DOJ is nothing. Trump is attacking the rule of law every time he attacks the DOJ or FBI for investigating him and his campaign. Sessions does nothing.

#117 | Posted by rcade at 2018-01-26 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Trump runs his mouth about everything.

What do you expect Sessions to do? Fire him?

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 04:30 PM | Reply

What do you expect Sessions to do?

I expect a champion of integrity and the rule of law TO OPEN HIS ------- MOUTH.

#119 | Posted by rcade at 2018-01-26 04:51 PM | Reply

"My assessment is based on what he's done with the DOJ."

My assessment is that Larry Nasser produces gold medal Olympic athletes.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-26 04:54 PM | Reply

Sessions Restores Integrity and the Rule of Law to the DOJ

What an interesting title.

#121 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-26 05:03 PM | Reply

Sessions Restores Integrity and the Rule of Law to the DOJ

Meanwhile, in a related story...

Dancing, Pantsless Rex Tillerson Slides Across Floor Of Empty State Department

#122 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-26 05:11 PM | Reply

#121

Well played.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 06:20 PM | Reply

#123

I don't see why.

#124 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-26 06:29 PM | Reply

These are impressive accomplishments, Zed.
He's showing genuine fealty to the rule of law and our constitutional order.
That is a stark contrast to Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder or Alberto Gonzalez

#4 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You really do parrot absolutely anything you read from Conservative sites, don't you?

Let me help you with your ridiculously shallow reading sources:

Sessions destroying Criminal Justice: www.nbcnews.com

Sessions DOJ helps Trump lie: www.vox.com

DOJ argues Trump doesn't have to preserve Presidential records: www.msnbc.com

Trump goes after States that legalize pot: www.cnn.com

Sessions trying to force journalists to give up sources: lawandcrime.com

DOJ no longer independent of White House: thinkprogress.org

DOJ tries to gather data on all visitors of anti-Trump sites: www.snopes.com

Jeff, you're pathetic.

#125 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-26 06:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

JeffJ,

Let me do you one better and just shred your article for you.

1. Remedying abuses of power: aka Lois Lerner

There was no conspiracy for people who could read. Groups, including liberal groups, had decisions on their pre-clearance for filing under a certain classification delayed because the number of groups applying went from about 10 a year to hundreds and the IRS didn't know why or what to do. Not only that, most of the groups backed down as soon as they were asked to provide an affidavit saying they qualified. That includes most of the groups in the litigation. Better yet, NONE of them needed clearance to file as tax exempt. Please read the previous sentence again. It was literally for a declaratory decision by the IRS. NO ONE was injured. Unlike what your article says, NO ONE was treated AT ALL. They could file WITH or WITHOUT preclearance as the entities in question. It would only be effected if there was ever an audit.

2. Addressing Illegal Immigration and Respecting Congress

DACA falls under prosecutorial discretion. Anyone who has an iota of understanding of the law knows that there will always be such discretion because there aren't the resources to go after everyone. Now, Sessions is using it to target people in blue states rather than red states for immigration purposes. There are conducting sweeps in California presently. So there goes that law and respect garbage.

Second, as for issuing guidance on regulations...that's their damn job. Now entities and local government simply have to GUESS what the DOJ is going to do and the DOJ can treat Democrat locales and entities differently because it refuses to give written guidance.

3. Restoring religious liberty and free speech

I'm surprised even you are dumb enough to go with this. Now religious groups can do what they want on insurance because screw the liberty and needs of employees. The DOJ has decided that Christian groups can persecute and otherwise discriminate. Gotta love how that reflects on the 1st Amendment and the 14th.

4. Reaching Civil Rights Milestones

You are giving him credit for denouncing white supremacists killing people? Pretty low even for you. The other paragraph is the school voucher program which is great for rich kids, but only covers part of the tuition for poor kids. So it doesn't do them much good. Civil Rights my ass.

5. Restoring law and order

Great that he wants to go after MS-13. Unfortunately he destroyed his chance to work with the local community to help go after them and now it will be insanely ineffective. What local officers know is that the local hispanic community won't talk to you if they think you will deport them and the black community won't talk if they think you will shoot them on sight. And the DOJ has made both very clear. So good luck there!

And the opiod crisis? The DOJ has always gone after drug dealers for prescribing medication illegally. Unfortunately, the new unit isn't new at all. It's literally just taking cases away from state prosecutors. Sounds great on paper to people who have no clue whats going on though, right?

The overturning of Holder's order not to charge certain drug offenses because of maximum penalties is a sure winner with people who read no further. Yes, we're going to punish weed users as harshly as possible. Good job, dude. This was just a hit job on the state's legalizing marijuana. And in the next paragraph they admit it.

Stop touching yourself to Conservative propaganda. It's pathetic.

#126 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-26 07:24 PM | Reply

"DOJ tries to gather data on all visitors of anti-Trump sites"

This must be what JeffJ meant when he said "My assessment is based on what he's done with the DOJ."

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-26 09:00 PM | Reply

There was no conspiracy for people who could read. Groups, including liberal groups, had decisions on their pre-clearance for filing under a certain classification delayed because the number of groups applying went from about 10 a year to hundreds and the IRS didn't know why or what to do. Not only that, most of the groups backed down as soon as they were asked to provide an affidavit saying they qualified. That includes most of the groups in the litigation. Better yet, NONE of them needed clearance to file as tax exempt. Please read the previous sentence again. It was literally for a declaratory decision by the IRS. NO ONE was injured. Unlike what your article says, NO ONE was treated AT ALL. They could file WITH or WITHOUT preclearance as the entities in question. It would only be effected if there was ever an audit.

Of course IRS lawyers were excoriated by judges for their behavior. Federal records keeping laws were blatantly violated - hard drives destroyed, tapes destroyed...Also, the federal government recently settled with the plaintiffs. Further, with CU rules that had been on the books for all of 10 years were rescinded and rules that had been on the books for decades were brought back.

DACA falls under prosecutorial discretion.

Right. Because that's why DAPA was slapped down. DACA is a de facto piece of legislation and is clearly outside the scope of the Executive. I have several copies of the Constitution and would happily mail a copy to the PO box of your choice.

I'm surprised even you are dumb enough to go with this. Now religious groups can do what they want on insurance because screw the liberty and needs of employees. The DOJ has decided that Christian groups can persecute and otherwise discriminate. Gotta love how that reflects on the 1st Amendment and the 14th.

It's discriminatory that religious institutions, like other institutions, are now, once again, permitted to choose which insurance policies they will provide to their employees - insurance policies that they are mostly paying for, BTW.

You are giving him credit for denouncing white supremacists killing people? Pretty low even for you. The other paragraph is the school voucher program which is great for rich kids, but only covers part of the tuition for poor kids. So it doesn't do them much good. Civil Rights my ass.

School choice is extremely popular with poor, inner-city people. You wish to deny them that. Why?

The overturning of Holder's order not to charge certain drug offenses because of maximum penalties is a sure winner with people who read no further. Yes, we're going to punish weed users as harshly as possible. Good job, dude. This was just a hit job on the state's legalizing marijuana

I think the 'war on drugs' has produced terrible results. The best way to actually change it is to vigorously enforce it. These laws were duly passed. If they suck, follow the process and change/eliminate them. This isn't a difficult concept.

#128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 09:42 PM | Reply

You really do parrot absolutely anything you read from Conservative sites, don't you?
Let me help you with your ridiculously shallow reading sources:

So, you respond with a bunch of links from a bunch of left-wing sites? Here, look in the mirror.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 09:43 PM | Reply

Peas in a pod, then.
Here's an idea: sprout.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-26 09:54 PM | Reply

"I have several copies of the Constitution and would happily mail a copy to the PO box of your choice."

I'm actually surprised you have any left.
I figured you sent them all to
1600 Pennsyvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
During the Obama years.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-26 09:58 PM | Reply

I hung onto a few copies, Snoof.

#132 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 10:57 PM | Reply

This is a dead end JeffJ, most here could careless sessions is making the government follow the law, they don't like him cause trump put him in place.

#133 | Posted by Crassus at 2018-01-26 11:54 PM | Reply

And Trump doesn't like him because he recused himself in the Russia investigation, so he can't protect El Trumpo.

Fuuuuuuuuuull circle.

#134 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-27 12:05 AM | Reply

"This is a dead end JeffJ, most here could careless sessions is making the government follow the law, they don't like him cause trump put him in place."

That's stupid, we didn't like Jeff Sessions long before Trump was on the scene. Trump only increased our disgust with himself when he chose Jeff Sessions to be AG. Session's desire to continue the "war on drugs" just emphasizes why we do not like him, he is quite happy locking people up in for profit prisons for victimless crimes. That tells you everything you need to know about Jeff Sessions.

#135 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-27 06:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Session's desire to continue the "war on drugs" just emphasizes why we do not like him, he is quite happy locking people up in for profit prisons for victimless crimes. That tells you everything you need to know about Jeff Sessions.

#135 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-01-27 06:30 AM | REPLY |

It was one of my biggest misgivings regarding the job he'd do as AG. Having said that, your consternation over this is misplaced. Sessions didn't write the federal drug laws and said laws are on the books. IMO your energy should be directed at congress to pass a new bill decriminalizing drugs. If that happens, Sessions' war on drugs zeal becomes completely de-fanged.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-27 09:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Right. Because that's why DAPA was slapped down. DACA is a de facto piece of legislation and is clearly outside the scope of the Executive. I have several copies of the Constitution and would happily mail a copy to the PO box of your choice.

#128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do you continually lie. DAPA wasn't slapped down merely the injunction has been left in place for now.

#137 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-27 09:38 AM | Reply

Sessions didn't write the federal drug laws and said laws are on the books. IMO your energy should be directed at congress to pass a new bill decriminalizing drugs. If that happens, Sessions' war on drugs zeal becomes completely de-fanged.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-27 09:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

So much for your States rights mantra and your 10th Amendment declarations all of the time.

#138 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-27 09:45 AM | Reply

"Sessions didn't write the federal drug laws and said laws are on the books."

Sessions gets to decide how to wage the War on Drugs.
Saying he's just following the law is asinine.
He's giving the orders, to thugs who are "just following orders."

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-27 01:46 PM | Reply

"It was one of my biggest misgivings regarding the job he'd do as AG"

Any misgivings about this:
"DOJ tries to gather data on all visitors of anti-Trump sites"

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-27 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thread gets a pathetic flag.

I can't believe so many have wasted so much time discussing this manure.

#141 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-27 05:04 PM | Reply

I first thought that the doj was bringin criminal charges to trump and his crime buddies. I was disappointed to find out this was an opinion article.

#142 | Posted by dragfreedrift at 2018-01-27 11:39 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort