My Discretion…It is Vast

image

The superciliously self-conscious black attorney general, Eric Holder, held forth Tuesday in rambling turgid testimony before congress that veered at one point into self-assessment of his own penis…an appendage he has apparently named “Discretion.”

“I have a vast discretion,” says attorney general. And apparently the perceived latitude in which laws he will deign to enforce is equally prodigious.

Attorney General Eric Holder maintained Tuesday that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in how the Justice Department prosecutes federal law.

Holder’s remarks, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, came in response to GOP accusations that he is flouting the law with his department’s positions on marijuana legalization, criminal sentencing and a contentious provision of the president’s signature healthcare law.

Leading the questioning was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who asked Holder whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.

“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and, more specifically, that an attorney general has,” Holder responded. “But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people.” [Parody is only finite after all. “Discretion must be consistent with the aims of the statute.” Are there statutes whose aim is to not be enforced?]

Holder said the Justice Department must defend federal laws on the books unless it concludes that “there is no basis to defend the statute.” [basis of prohibitions on murdering whites now under review. Djustice Unchained.]

Republicans on the panel argued that the Obama administration has gone to unprecedented lengths in its liberal use of discretion on several fronts.

“All of this demonstrates a pattern on the part of the Obama administration to ignore or rewrite the very legislation that places limits on the executive branch authority, for purely political purposes,” Goodlatte said.

Historically, the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion are murky, making it difficult for the administration’s critics to say Holder or President Obama has crossed them, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said.

But, more than its predecessors, the Obama administration has used prosecutorial discretion on some of the day’s most divisive issues, inviting criticism from his opponents on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Winkler said.

He cited the DOMA stance and the administration’s decision to halt deportations of many illegal immigrants, among other cases.

“This administration has gotten into hot water because it has used prosecutorial discretion in high profile, controversial areas,” Winkler said.

On Tuesday, Republicans also grilled Holder on the Obama administration’s decision not to interfere with marijuana legalization efforts in Colorado and elsewhere, as long as states establish adequate regulations.

Goodlatte criticized the decision, saying it is tantamount to ignoring the law.

“The Justice Department’s decision not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but a formal department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress,” Goodlatte said.

Holder countered that the DOJ was merely focusing on the most dangerous aspects of marijuana crime, such as trafficking or sales to minors.

“We don’t prosecute every violation of federal law,” he said. “We don’t have the capacity to do that and so what we try to do is make determinations about how we use our limited resources.”

Democrats on the panel lauded the move.

Holder also faced questions from Republicans on the legality of the administration’s decision to delay the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

In a terse back and forth with Holder, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) argued that because an implementation date had been written specifically into the legislation, the executive branch had no authority to delay it.

“When Congress puts effective dates in laws, do we need to further state that the effective date cannot be waived or modified by the executive branch, or is the president required to follow the law, and also follow the dates set by Congress?” Chabot asked.

Holder responded that “the president has the duty, obviously, to follow the law,” but that “it would depend on the statute” and statutory interpretation of the law.

[When we enforce a law, we enforce it however we choose–neither more nor less]

It’s been mentioned previously, though no rose has a scent so sweet as the stench of liberal pant-shitting if a future white AG were to tell congress that all civil rights, welfare, hate crime, and anti-discrimination violations would no longer be prosecuted.

We don’t prosecute every violation of federal law. We don’t have the capacity to do that and so what we try to do is make determinations about how we use our limited resources. And we have decided to apply those resources in areas other than civil rights enforcement.

Democrats in the panel lauded the move.

Of course, this is all simply African-style politics come to roost in our long neglected nest. And color-blind conservatives are so congenitally insensate they think some scrap of paper in the National Archives will protect them from the predations of non-white power. Well Liberia has the same scrap. Though unfortunately that one won’t protect you either, as Whites aren’t even allowed to be citizens there. Racism-sniffing media: unperturbed. Hollywood movie: not in production.

There are no laws…no constitution…no principles that will restrict the caprice of hostile tribes with power over you. And none will protect your posterity. Tell the men of La Raza about James Madison’s separation of powers or Jefferson’s flighty pretense about all men being equal. And they’ll tell you to die.

Kingdoms are now and always ruled by living men, with interests and loyalties that you will rue to see unaligned with your own. Those who rely on florid rhetoric of the dead for their defense…will soon have them to commiserate in person.

So whites in Congress, try rising off those calloused knees. Impeach Holder.

3 thoughts on “My Discretion…It is Vast

  1. I’ve been guilty of this rule-of-law delusion for a long time as well, because it really does come down to power. Whites thought their societies succeeded because of their sophisticated rationalist ethics but that’s only half the equation. What really mattered was a large enough group asserted certain rights and seized them from a king, and bequeathed them to their posterity. If you believe in Lockean ethics, and I actually do, then you’ve got to carve out a territory for yourself where you can write those ethics into a land-based covenant, and patrol the borders with machine guns to keep all the non-Lockeans out. That’s what the “rule of law” really boils down to.

  2. And color-blind conservatives are so congenitally insensate they think some scrap of paper in the National Archives will protect them from the predations of non-white power.

    The Constitution is the white man’s ghost shirt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s