• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Despite threatening to mount legal challenges to the AZ bill Holder has not read it

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
When the Attorney General of the U.S. cannot read 10 pages of a law before commenting on it, he is not doing his job.

In my world, if I do not do my job, I get fired.

This reminds me of when Obama commented on the cop arresting the Harvard professor. Apple, tree?
 
Red Dawn said:
Isn't that what his staff's for?
Click to expand...



Even if it is his "staff" responsible for reading it and forming an opinion can you explain why the AG would hold a press conference and go on other talk shows with an opinion when all he knows about the bill is:


I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."
Click to expand...


Doesn't say anything about a staff there.
 
Red Dawn said:
Isn't that what his staff's for?
Click to expand...

If his staff had read it for him then his answer would likely have been somewhat along the lines of "I have read the executive summary of it my staff prepared..." as opposed to basing his opinion on what he heard in news reports and commentary. The again do you really need staff to read a bill so concise you could read it in the limo riding between DoJ and Capitol Hill?
 
Linflas said:
The again do you really need staff to read a bill so concise you could read it in the limo riding between DoJ and Capitol Hill?
Click to expand...

Methinks the limo ride goes more like this... "Hey driver, what's this button do? And this? And this one? What about that one?"
 
Linflas said:
If his staff had read it for him then his answer would likely have been somewhat along the lines of "I have read the executive summary of it my staff prepared..." as opposed to basing his opinion on what he heard in news reports and commentary. The again do you really need staff to read a bill so concise you could read it in the limo riding between DoJ and Capitol Hill?
Click to expand...

Yeah you'd think he'd have read it or at least said he did before commenting.
 
Fingolfin269 said:
Methinks the limo ride goes more like this... "Hey driver, what's this button do? And this? And this one? What about that one?"
Click to expand...
LMAO!

Instead of his professional staff he probably ran it past his domestic staff. "This is an unconstitutional bill, right?"

"Si, senor."
 
Yeah, wow that was a pretty embarassing moment when Holder had to admit he hadn't read it etc.

But for all those mentioning his staff etc, I'm pretty sure Holder also admitted he hadn't even been briefed by staff on the AZ law either.

Washington is now showing a serious trend of voting and commenting on bills never read.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Yeah, wow that was a pretty embarassing moment when Holder had to admit he hadn't read it etc.

But for all those mentioning his staff etc, I'm pretty sure Holder also admitted he hadn't even been briefed by staff on the AZ law either.

Washington is now showing a serious trend of voting and commenting on bills never read.

Fern
Click to expand...
More like pandering to the Hispanic American vote which both sides have been guilty of.
 
nick1985 said:
Red...

Dont you think he should read a bill BEFORE he spouts off against it on national TV?
Click to expand...

This. If the douche is going to make a spectacle of himself on national TV, you'd think the moron could have spared 10 minutes to read it. We're not talking about a 2,000 page bill here. And even if he didn't, the guy has tons of staff and he could've had one prepare a summary.
 
Last edited:
Thump553 said:
Ah, you boys ever heard of staffs? The Attorney General's office has plenty of attorneys. I'm sure he has already assigned one or more to do an in depth analysis of it.

BTW, even a semi-competent attorney can spend three minutes looking at that law and come to the conclusion that it is an unconstitutional POS. Absent an activist ruling from a "conservative" court ala Roberts and Scalia that law is doomed to failure. But past Supreme Courts have given their blessings to Jim Crow laws and Japanese internment camps, heck even a 5-4 selection of a US President by judicial fiat, so anything is possible.
Click to expand...

What specifically is unconstitutional about it?
 
blanghorst said:
What specifically is unconstitutional about it?
Click to expand...
Since it supposedly mirrors federal law, it must be the intention to enforce it.

The Democrat Party is in favor of laws banning the manufacture and consumption of alcohol. However we are against their enforcement.
 
Excuse me excuse me, for all of you that are logically challenged, all Holder may have to do is read the first half a page of the Arizona law, make the assessment its almost certainly unconstitutional just in that first half a page, and then file suit and be done with it.

Normally the job of reading the entire bill, then evaluating all the areas where the bill is also likely unconstitutional, and then arguing the official US Justice department position in Federal court would fall to the US solicitor general. But wait, the current US solicitor general is a female named Kagan, so Holder will likely have to delegate the job to one of his other many minions, and they will have a staff to aid them in the process. Bottom line, Holder is an administrator, his time is valuable, and effective administrators delegate the actual nuts and bolts details of office to subordinates who have the time to delve into all the larger issues of a given case in total detail. Because when the AZ law case is argued in court, Holder will not be the one making any of the arguments.

What many of you rascals think of a sin is actually a virtue, even though Holder seems to have a tin ear for public relations on answering questions. He made himself open to embarrassment, and will likely have to learn to craft his answers in a different manner in future.


In another somewhat similar example, and really the first effective use of anti trust laws, a President Teddy Roosevelt went to his AG and asked was a US steel deal crafted by JP Morgan a violation of that antitrust law or not. And after some study among his staff, the AG went back to Roosevelt and said likely yes. And that is all Roosevelt needed to ask the Justice department to file that lawsuit which caused immediate outrage on Wall St. But when the case was finally argued and the Courts ruled, Roosevelt and the US government prevailed. And US Steel had to divest itself of the purchase.
 
Last edited:
Thump553 said:
Yes I've read it. Send me a PM so we can work out a fee arrangement and I'll send you a private professional opinion of it. If you want my thumbnail conclusion, see the POS reference you left out of my original posting.
Click to expand...

I quoted your post in it's entirety, nothing was left out. Can you point out the specific lines that are unconstitutional, or not?

blanghorst said:
What specifically is unconstitutional about it?
Click to expand...

He doesn't know, none of them do, it's just some progressive bullshit to spew.
 
Lemon law said:
Excuse me excuse me, for all of you that are logically challenged, all Holder may have to do is read the first half a page of the Arizona law, make the assessment its almost certainly unconstitutional just in that first half a page, and then file suit and be done with it.
Click to expand...

The fact of that matter is, you do not make your rounds on the Sunday morning shows making all sorts of pronouncements when you haven't even read the bill. It makes you look like a complete jackass and especially moreso in his case since -- wait for it -- that is HIS JOB.
 
Holder does not need/want to read the bill.

Obama has stated that he does not like it.
Holder follows his boss's instructions.

IF he reads the bill and/or is briefed by a competent staff; then he is in a quandary -
  • obey his boss (contest the bill in court)
  • do the job he is sworn to and see the bill follows the US laws
    • then will he enforce the US laws
    • ignore the US laws (fairly easy to do)
    • attempt to change the US laws
 
Common Courtesy said:
Holder does not need/want to read the bill.

Obama has stated that he does not like it.
Holder follows his boss's instructions.

IF he reads the bill and/or is briefed by a competent staff; then he is in a quandary -
  • obey his boss (contest the bill in court)
  • do the job he is sworn to and see the bill follows the US laws
    • then will he enforce the US laws
    • ignore the US laws (fairly easy to do)
    • attempt to change the US laws
Click to expand...
This. Again they are pandering to the Hispanic American Voter.
 
Red Dawn said:
This. Again they are pandering to the Hispanic American Voter.
Click to expand...

Bingo and what's so sickening about the whole thing.

Republican Governor Rick Perry has basically said the same thing and he's only doing it for one reason, well maybe two - the hispanic vote and his pending jump into the 2012 Presidential race.
 
Lemon law said:
Excuse me excuse me, for all of you that are logically challenged, all Holder may have to do is read the first half a page of the Arizona law, make the assessment its almost certainly unconstitutional just in that first half a page, and then file suit and be done with it.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious? So, he doesn't have to read the law to make an assessment, and file a suit? And you are calling others logically challenged?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top