I trust that no one who reads this blog needs to be told that Eric Holder would be the most rabidly hostile AG gun owners have ever seen.
However, as David Codrea points out, the Second Amendment isn't the only part of the Bill of Rights that offends Holder--the First Amendment also seems to annoy him.
The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate... We tried with regard to pornography. It is going to be a difficult thing but it seems to me that if we come up with reasonable restrictions; reasonable regulations on how people interact on the internet, that is something the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.Now, we learn of his willingness to go after the Sixth Amendment.
...Holder strongly suggested that, when deciding whether to indict a corporation — and indictment can be a death sentence for companies in certain businesses — they consider whether the company has "cooperated" in the investigation. "Cooperation" was partially defined by whether the corporation agreed to waive the legally protected attorney-client and work-product privileges...including corporate counsel's discussions with employees. Another factor, suggested Holder, would be "whether the corporation appears to be protecting its culpable employees and agents" by advancing or paying those individuals' attorney fees. A further sign of possible noncooperation would be whether the corporation kept the employees on the payroll or entered into a joint defense agreement with any of them. Put simply, the Holder Memo suggested that, by facilitating the ability of employees to continue working and to vigorously defend themselves, the company was demonstrating a noncooperative attitude that could get it indicted.But I've found some good news. Even after extensive searching, I haven't found any indication that he has tried to suppress the Third Amendment.
So rest easy, NAQA (just as the NRA is apparently resting easy)--there's little reason to believe a Holder Attorney Generalship would lead to mandatory peacetime quartering of soldiers.
Whew--that's a relief.
Seriously, though--if you aren't pulling out all the stops to block this confirmation, what's your excuse--think you're Angus McClellan, or something?
Stumble it!
3 comments:
I'm tired to death of hearing government speaking heads talk about "reasonable restrictions".
Killing several million Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" was completely reasonable, at the time.
Requiring Black Americans to ride in the back of the bus and eat in the kitchen of cafes and use separate restrooms and water fountains (if and when available) was completely reasonable, at the time.
Suspending habeas corpus, jailing thousands of citizens who questioned presidential decisions and killing Southern noncombatants was perfectly reasonable, at the time.
Denying Constitutional rights, confiscating legally owned firearms, jailing and killing otherwise law-abiding gun owning citizens will also be considered reasonable, at the time.
Addendum:
Why should Holder be concerned with the Bill of Rights, or for that matter any other portion of the Constitution? Most of the individuals in the Legislative, Executive, and possibly Judicial branches don't seem to be concerned with any part of the Constitution.
Why should we expect Holder to be any different from the rest of the hypocritical elected and appointed leaches in Washington DC?
Why should we expect Holder to be any different from the rest of the hypocritical elected and appointed leaches in Washington DC?
Why, indeed?
Wish I had an answer.
Post a Comment