Republicans Obstruct Holder's Path to Justice Dept

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ChannelCat

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Pardon me if this was already brought up on another thread, but I just saw where the approval of anti rights AG nominee Eric Holder is being held up. Finally, a few Republicans are starting to grow some testicles. Granted, they are not holding the nomination up for the reasons most important to me, but hey, what ever works!!
    :party29:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102364.html?hpid=topnews

    Republicans put new obstacles in the path of Eric H. Holder Jr.'s quest to become attorney general, raising concerns that he would prosecute intelligence agents who engaged in potentially illegal interrogation techniques and postponing consideration of his nomination.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/22/1756384.aspx
     

    ChannelCat

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    take what we can get!

    I realize it will be delaying the inevitable, but my thoughts exactly!! We may as well go down swinging and make a statement while we're doing it.

    LastGreatActOfDefiance-1.gif
     

    BeltBuckle

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 14, 2008
    2,587
    MoCo, MD
    I doubt that this will really derail or significantly impact his confirmation, but it is a nice indicator that the opposition is not completely rolling over. I continue to doubt (hopefully) that there will be any genuine heavy duty effort from O to re-institute an AWB or any other stupid anti RKBA legislation. He has so many so much higher priority and very tough issues on his plate with which he needs wide support that I just don't see him squandering political chits on what would be certain to be a pitched battle the outcome of which he could not take for granted.

    Nevertheless, paranoia is an entirely appropriate response to the situation, because they ARE out to get us!

    (ChannelCat -- great image!!:lol::lol: I always loved that mousse!)
     

    R2.0

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2008
    1,054
    I realize it will be delaying the inevitable, but my thoughts exactly!! We may as well go down swinging and make a statement while we're doing it.

    LastGreatActOfDefiance-1.gif

    My dad has what I believe to be an "original photocopy" of that from the early 70's. I always smile because when I found it that was the first time I "got" an adult joke and Dad didn't try to hide it or anything - just smiled and said he liked it too.
     

    R2.0

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2008
    1,054
    I doubt that this will really derail or significantly impact his confirmation, but it is a nice indicator that the opposition is not completely rolling over. I continue to doubt (hopefully) that there will be any genuine heavy duty effort from O to re-institute an AWB or any other stupid anti RKBA legislation. He has so many so much higher priority and very tough issues on his plate with which he needs wide support that I just don't see him squandering political chits on what would be certain to be a pitched battle the outcome of which he could not take for granted.

    Nevertheless, paranoia is an entirely appropriate response to the situation, because they ARE out to get us!

    (ChannelCat -- great image!!:lol::lol: I always loved that mousse!)

    My understanding is that it was Specter letting Leahy know that the Dems were NOT going to be able to steamroll the Republicans. It will go to the floor, and he will be approved, but the Dems are going to have to observe the forms.
     

    2SAM22

    Moderator Emeritus
    Apr 4, 2007
    7,178
    Rather than obstruct, which is a term the MSM uses when referring to the actions of Republicans, I prefer "vetting," which is a term they'd use if Dems were doing it.
     

    BeltBuckle

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 14, 2008
    2,587
    MoCo, MD
    My understanding is that it was Specter letting Leahy know that the Dems were NOT going to be able to steamroll the Republicans. It will go to the floor, and he will be approved, but the Dems are going to have to observe the forms.

    well, that sure sounds like Specter. he is one ornery cuss. maybe we should send him a thank you note and some chocolates.:D
     

    R2.0

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 15, 2008
    1,054
    well, that sure sounds like Specter. he is one ornery cuss. maybe we should send him a thank you note and some chocolates.:D

    He's one of the few exceptions to my opinions on legislators and term limits. He has been the senior senator from PA for a coon's age, is a cancer survivor (should have kept the shaved head, though), and has made a point of visiting every single county in PA at least once in each term.
     

    ezliving

    Besieger
    Oct 9, 2008
    4,590
    Undisclosed Secure Location
    Halbrook Testimony on C-SPAN on Nominee Eric Holder for Attorney General

    By David Theroux on Jan 22, 2009 in Books, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Criminal Justice, Gun Control, Law, Personal Liberty, Politics, Presidential Power, Video

    Here is Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook on C-SPAN on January 16th before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testifying against the confirmation of Eric Holder, Jr., for Attorney General of the U.S.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/Dkw3X8RIsno

    Dr. Halbrook’s full written testimony is available here. He is the author of the recent Independent Institute book, The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, that has formed the basis for our Second Amendment Book Bomb as well as his earlier Amici Curiae Brief in the historic Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of 55 members of the Senate, the Senate President, and 250 members of the House of Representatives.

    Incredibly enough, in reporting on the hearings in his January 21st article, “Clinton Is Approved, but Vote on Holder Is Delayed,” David Stout of the New York Times not only fails to mention Dr. Halbrook’s testimony but actually makes the flatly erroneous claim that “No one has questioned Mr. Holder’s qualifications.”
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,452
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom