Author Topic: Obama seals Brian Terry murder case (Read 7582 times)

AZRedhawk44 · « **on:** November 30, 2011, 12:24:49 PM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-seals-records-murdered-border-patrol-agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html

Not very "transparent."

Well, I guess the guilt of this administration is rather transparent. But that's about it.

longeyes · « **Reply #1 on:** November 30, 2011, 12:30:08 PM »

Wouldn't it be nice if we really had an Opposition Party to stand up to the tyranny? A man can dream.

Obama knows what's buried in this case. He and Holder know full well what they were planning to do, and they know that if it's fully exposed it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is one more in the thousand points of darkness winking out the light of America.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2011, 12:32:10 PM »

Cannot Congress do something to override this?

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2011, 12:39:58 PM »

Impeachment.

Subpoena.

Inquiry.

They are, if they choose to be, the 2nd highest court in the land, only inferior to the Supreme Court... and capable of impeaching the SCOTUS if necessary.

And require no executive/prosecutorial favor to initiate proceedings... unlike criminal matters where feds/cops/bureaucrats fail to prosecute themselves.

longeyes · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2011, 12:40:08 PM »

We didn't come all this way without Congress's "help."

Gowen · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2011, 02:32:55 PM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on November 30, 2011, 12:39:58 PM

Impeachment.

Subpoena.

Inquiry.

They are, if they choose to be, the 2nd highest court in the land, only inferior to the Supreme Court... and capable of impeaching the SCOTUS if necessary.

And require no executive/prosecutorial favor to initiate proceedings... unlike criminal matters where feds/cops/bureaucrats fail to prosecute themselves.

The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2011, 02:40:48 PM »

Quote from: Gowen on November 30, 2011, 02:32:55 PM

The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.

I sit corrected. Couldn't remember which was superior. Though it makes sense for Congress to be superior since they are easier for the public to replace, and it's harder to get 500 people to agree on anything.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 30, 2011, 04:03:46 PM »

So what the article really means is that the Obama administration got a judge to seal the case right? I didn't think the Obama admin had the power themselves to seal the case.

Waitone · « **Reply #8 on:** November 30, 2011, 04:28:01 PM »

Time for house spinelessrepublicans to vote for and copiously fund a special prosecutor.

De Selby · « **Reply #9 on:** November 30, 2011, 05:41:40 PM »

Quote from: Gowen on November 30, 2011, 02:32:55 PM

The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.

This is the same sort of lawyering that leads people into believing that wages aren't income :(

The congress is subordinate to the constitution, which gives the supreme court it's existence and powers to decide certain matters of law. The congress can't ignore the constitution; consequently, it can't just ignore the court.

roo_ster · « **Reply #10 on:** November 30, 2011, 05:47:12 PM »

Quote from: De Selby on November 30, 2011, 05:41:40 PM

This is the same sort of lawyering that leads people into believing that wages aren't income :(

The congress is subordinate to the constitution, which gives the supreme court it's existence and powers to decide certain matters of law. The congress can't ignore the constitution; consequently, it can't just ignore the court.

True, COTUS > Congress. But, reading the COTUS, Congress > SCOTUS. It should be even greater, but SCOTUS has usurped much power starting with Marbary(sp?) v Madison.

De Selby · « **Reply #11 on:** November 30, 2011, 06:42:52 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on November 30, 2011, 05:47:12 PM

True, COTUS > Congress. But, reading the COTUS, Congress > SCOTUS. It should be even greater, but SCOTUS has usurped much power starting with Marbary(sp?) v Madison.

Haha, yes, that argument is one of my favorites - a decision by one of the first supreme courts, accepted by the same government (same individuals even!) who wrote the constitution got it wrong as to how the constitution was intended to situate the court and the congress....rrright.

Marbury was the most logical outcome of there being a constitution at the time, which was to ensure that parliament didn't simply replace the king.

Regolith · « **Reply #12 on:** November 30, 2011, 08:35:05 PM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on November 30, 2011, 12:39:58 PM

Impeachment.

Subpoena.

Inquiry.

They are, if they choose to be, the 2nd highest court in the land, only inferior to the Supreme Court... and capable of impeaching the SCOTUS if necessary.

And require no executive/prosecutorial favor to initiate proceedings... unlike criminal matters where feds/cops/bureaucrats fail to prosecute themselves.

Quote from: Gowen on November 30, 2011, 02:32:55 PM

The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.

Last time I checked, as a result of the checks and balances worked into the constitution, the judicial branch (which the SCOTUS is the head of) and congress (along with the executive branch) were co-equal branches of the government.

birdman · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2011, 08:48:30 PM »

Quote from: Regolith on November 30, 2011, 08:35:05 PM

Last time I checked, as a result of the checks and balances worked into the constitution, the judicial branch (which the SCOTUS is the head of) and congress (along with the executive branch) were co-equal branches of the government.

Three branches are equal only in the sense that they are the three branches.
Congress has power over the executive and judiciary through legislation (including increasing/decreasing number) and impeachment powers.
SCOTUS can decide on the constitutionality of legislation, but can also be impeached by congress
Neither SCOTUS nor the president can remove members of congress, only congress can.
Thus congress is the supreme power, subordinate ONLY to COTUS.

Hence "a republic ma'am, if you can keep it". The founding fathers recognized the danger of an overly powerful executive and an overly power judiciary

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #14 on:** December 01, 2011, 12:41:42 AM »

Quote from: Regolith on November 30, 2011, 08:35:05 PM

Last time I checked, as a result of the checks and balances worked into the constitution, the judicial branch (which the SCOTUS is the head of) and congress (along with the executive branch) were co-equal branches of the government.

This.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #15 on:** December 01, 2011, 12:50:01 AM »

Quote from: De Selby on November 30, 2011, 06:42:52 PM

Haha, yes, that argument is one of my favorites - a decision by one of the first supreme courts, accepted by the same government (same individuals even!) who wrote the constitution got it wrong as to how the constitution was intended to situate the court and the congress....rrright.

Marbury was the most logical outcome of there being a constitution at the time, which was to ensure that parliament didn't simply replace the king.

What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?

Four more judges?

Sixteen more judges?

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 01, 2011, 12:54:37 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on December 01, 2011, 12:50:01 AM

What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?

Four more judges?

Sixteen more judges?

Law.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #17 on:** December 01, 2011, 01:00:33 AM »

Quote from: wmenorr67 on December 01, 2011, 12:54:37 AM

Law.

Which one?

The Constitution does not set a number of justices. Currently it's nine. In the founding era it was six. During the Civil War it was ten. Congress has altered their numbers many a time, it can do so again if there's the will.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 01, 2011, 01:08:33 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on December 01, 2011, 01:00:33 AM

Which one?

The Constitution does not set a number of justices. Currently it's nine. In the founding era it was six. During the Civil War it was ten. Congress has altered their numbers many a time, it can do so again if there's the will.

You asked a question. And you are right that it has changed and Congress has to change the law.

Your question asked,

Quote

What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?

Four more judges?

Sixteen more judges?

I answered. Simple question, simple answer.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #19 on:** December 01, 2011, 01:16:41 AM »

Okay, I misunderstood your reply.

The point is, if the other two branches wish it, they can put a serious bind on the Supreme Court.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 01, 2011, 01:19:03 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on December 01, 2011, 01:16:41 AM

Okay, I misunderstood your reply.

The point is, if the other two branches wish it, they can put a serious bind on the Supreme Court.

Like that is bloody going to happen in our lifetimes.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #21 on:** December 01, 2011, 01:58:13 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on December 01, 2011, 12:50:01 AM

What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?

Four more judges?

Sixteen more judges?

You both over-thought this one. "Advice and consent of the Senate."

But, yeah, the Constitution leaves Congress to set most of the rules for federal judiciary.

birdman · « **Reply #22 on:** December 01, 2011, 08:18:35 AM »

In other words, congress is subordinate really only to the constitution, as it can remove the personnel in the other branches, change the number of justices, and the executive (by constitutional definition) can only work within law created by congress. The founders knew this would dilute power as much as reasonably possible, which was their goal--side note, the reason impeachment powers are split (which house impeached and which house "tries") was the check and balance on congressional impeachment powers.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #23 on:** December 01, 2011, 11:34:44 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on December 01, 2011, 01:00:33 AM

Which one?

The Constitution does not set a number of justices. Currently it's nine. In the founding era it was six. During the Civil War it was ten. Congress has altered their numbers many a time, it can do so again if there's the will.

During the "Great Depression" the Supreme Court declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional (as well as one other FDR program the name of which escapes me at the moment) and an angered FDR responded by threatening to "stuff" SCOTUS with liberal judges. He didn't get around to it; the popular revulsion of the masses was enough to discourage him, however, it is said that the high court got the idea and was more receptive to FDR's "programs" afterwards.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 01, 2011, 12:52:09 PM »

Do remember that Congress has little power that does not require the President to sign off or VETO.

In addition, the House at least is up for election more often.

News:

Author Topic: Obama seals Brian Terry murder case (Read 7582 times)