| Posted by | Message |
Champagne 
New Orleans Saints Fan
French and Spanish Empire Border
Member since Oct 2007
7939 posts
 Online
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 9:53 am to Vegas Bengal)
quote:
Oh wait, y'all have done that yet?
You don't see the difference between a FedGov employee/official and a state government employee/official?
Are you not aware of FedGov statutes that regulate FedGov employees from engaging in partisan political activity ?
|
| Back to top | |
LSUMJ 
LSU Fan
BR
Member since Sep 2004
13518 posts
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 9:56 am to Vegas Bengal)
would it kill you for once to not toe the party line and say "youre right, that lawyer is a dick"
|
| Back to top | |
Rickety Cricket 
Navy Fan
Premium Member
Member since Aug 2007
25894 posts
Online
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 10:10 am to CajunAngele)
quote:
He previously interned at the ACLU, where he assisted the organization with its efforts to attack the Bush administration’s national security policies. He also helped to challenge the ‘state secrets privilege’ and to support the rights of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay during an internship at Human Rights First.
Yet now he's working for an administration that has continues such policies. Interesting.
|
| Back to top | |
cjd31
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2012
43 posts
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 10:23 am to LSUMJ)
Well said LSUMJ. This does apply to both sides. Take the gun debate. All I hear about is banning "assault weapons". What is truly ridiculous is that these type of weapons are used in about 1 - 2 percent of all gun deaths, yet this is the substance of the gun reform debate. One side pushes for a ban that has empirically done nothing and lumps all gun rights advocates in as evil NRA henchmen. The other side is mostly inflexible in even the most mild discussion of enhnced background checks. If both sides would look at their own proposals and focus on the areas of common ground instead of the extremes in each argument, real work could be done. This applies to every damn problem we have today. Politicians start at the extremes, dig in, and alienate the other side. Personally I believe the non stop bias in the media pushes politicians to appeal to their extreme bases.
|
| Back to top | |
UncleFestersLegs
Columbia MO
Member since Nov 2010
524 posts
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 10:27 am to USMCTiger03)
quote:
And the DOJ is doing such a great job doing what exactly?
Covering for banksters?
quote:
LANNY BREUER: Well, I think I am pursuing justice. And I think the entire responsibility of the department is to pursue justice. But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case, there’s some huge economic effect — if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly — it’s a factor we need to know and understand.
Too big to jail
|
| Back to top | |
los angeles tiger
LSU Fan
1,601 miles from Tiger Stadium
Member since Oct 2003
54265 posts
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 10:33 am to cjd31)
quote:
The other side is mostly inflexible in even the most mild discussion of enhnced background checks.
Hmmm, a background check for me to practice my right that requires me to show an ID, yet the dems say producing an ID at the voting booth is an infringement on "the right to vote" which is not a right listed in the Bill of Rights.
The gangbangers aren't buying their guns and going through "background" checks. Hell, where I live, most of them are coming from south of the border. You know, that border that Arizona was sued for wanting such protection enforced yet Obama sued them under nonsense. Of course, it's also where Obama got the most bang for his buck with his buddies running the drug cartels.
|
| Back to top | |
nobodytooimportant
Member since Oct 2012
657 posts
Online
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 10:36 am to Champagne)
quote:
Are you not aware of FedGov statutes that regulate FedGov employees from engaging in partisan political activity ?
You are referring to the Hatch act, an act you apparently don't understand that well.
The only real restriction the Hatch act places on federal employees actions is that they can not host a political fundraiser for a candidate for a partisan office. It also restricts you from using government resources (computers, office equipment, time, etc) for partisan electoral purposes.
Finally, and the only thing that could be remotely relevant here is it restricts employees from using their government position for partisan purposes. IE he couldn't say I am a DOJ lawyer and you should vote for candidate X.
In this cases none of it applies. My understanding, not a lawyer, the hatch act deals with electoral activities. Booing someone you don't like is not an electoral activity. Federal employees also don't lose their free speech rights as long as they aren't explicitly identifying themselves as a government employee, which from the account provided he is not in the facebook post describing his booing.
Now was what he did smart, no. Should he have publicized, even on facebook, what he did, no. Should he be punished for it, no.
|
| Back to top | |
cjd31
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2012
43 posts
| re: DOJ Lawyer Brags on Facebook He “Started the crowd booing" At Paul Ryan (Posted on 1/23/13 at 10:44 am to los angeles tiger)
Look I agree ID should be required to vote. It is also true that many people will bypass the most comprehensive of background checks. However, the system we have now is flawed and many, especially the mentally ill, do not trigger a stop in a firearms purchase. I read a post on the Outdoor Board where a guy, unbeknownst to him had a revoked license and bech warrant for an unpaid ticket. He passed a background check to purchase a firearm. I do believe the check system can be enhanced. This also illustrates what I mean be the extremes digging in. If you hold so strong to this argument, which is not very restrictive of our rights, you can not expect the left to come off their ban argument. Which would you prefer, enhanced backgroud checks or ban on weapons and magazines.
|
| Back to top | |
