ERIC HOLDER...I DON'T KNOW
- Thread starter GreatDane
- Start date
Srvy
Well-Known Member
Eric Holder should have been fired long ago when the gun runner BS started.
Bet you guys didn't know all of this, but Senator Ted Cruz released a report to the American people recently that outlines Supreme Court cases that were argued by Eric Holder, on behalf of Barack Obama, in an attempt to expand Federal power, and some of them are pretty terrifying, keep in mind that despite the arguments presented, not ONE Supreme Court Justice ruled in favor of the Obama Administration, even the liberal justices sided against his power grab attempts, here are the 6 that Cruz outlines:
Quote
1) United States vs Jones: Holder argued that it was legal to attach a GPS tracking system to a civilian's vehicle to monitor their movements and transgressions, without the need for a warrant.
2) Sackett vs EPA: Deprive landowners of their right to challenge the EPA when levying fines of up to $75,000 PER DAY, Obama's argument would have removed their right to have a hearing concerning the fines.
3) Lutheran Church vs EEOC: Holder argued that Federal Government should have the authority to oversee the selection process for ministers claiming it was not a 1st Amendment violation to do so.
4) Arizona vs United States: THANK GOD Arizona won this case... Obama argued that the president should have the authority to override state law whenever deemed necessary.
5) Gabelli vs SEC: This one would have "dramatically" extended statutes and limitations for crimes committed decades ago - keep in mind Holder didn't prosecute one single executive during the banking fiasco of 2008.
6: Arksansas Fish & Commission vs United States: Destroy private property without paying just compensation.
Bet you guys didn't know all of this, but Senator Ted Cruz released a report to the American people recently that outlines Supreme Court cases that were argued by Eric Holder, on behalf of Barack Obama, in an attempt to expand Federal power, and some of them are pretty terrifying, keep in mind that despite the arguments presented, not ONE Supreme Court Justice ruled in favor of the Obama Administration, even the liberal justices sided against his power grab attempts, here are the 6 that Cruz outlines:
Quote
1) United States vs Jones: Holder argued that it was legal to attach a GPS tracking system to a civilian's vehicle to monitor their movements and transgressions, without the need for a warrant.
2) Sackett vs EPA: Deprive landowners of their right to challenge the EPA when levying fines of up to $75,000 PER DAY, Obama's argument would have removed their right to have a hearing concerning the fines.
3) Lutheran Church vs EEOC: Holder argued that Federal Government should have the authority to oversee the selection process for ministers claiming it was not a 1st Amendment violation to do so.
4) Arizona vs United States: THANK GOD Arizona won this case... Obama argued that the president should have the authority to override state law whenever deemed necessary.
5) Gabelli vs SEC: This one would have "dramatically" extended statutes and limitations for crimes committed decades ago - keep in mind Holder didn't prosecute one single executive during the banking fiasco of 2008.
6: Arksansas Fish & Commission vs United States: Destroy private property without paying just compensation.
Eric Holder definitely looks and acts like an idiot.
But help me out a bit with the "Power Grab" thing by the Obama administration. That would mean that cases that were started in lower courts for the sole purpose of eventually being decided by the SCOTUS in hopes that they would side with Obama?
Or that the decisions in those cases at the lower levels were Power Grabs and thankfully they pushed it up the ranks until it was heard by the SCOTUS who, with finality, stepped in and stopped the "Power Grab"?
But help me out a bit with the "Power Grab" thing by the Obama administration. That would mean that cases that were started in lower courts for the sole purpose of eventually being decided by the SCOTUS in hopes that they would side with Obama?
Or that the decisions in those cases at the lower levels were Power Grabs and thankfully they pushed it up the ranks until it was heard by the SCOTUS who, with finality, stepped in and stopped the "Power Grab"?