Obama held in Contempt of Court

[AngelAuthor]

Well, his Interior department is in contempt, at any rate, which is practically the same thing.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/03/...e-in-contempt/

So it is no small matter when yesterday Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama Interior Department in contempt of court for dismissively ignoring his ruling to cease the job-killing drilling moratorium imposed by President Obama last year.

Feldman wrote: “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction order.”

[moonglow]

I thought they had started drilling again...

[rejoice44]

I thought they had started drilling again...

Obama instituted so many new regulations making it infeasible to drill.

Salazar defends ban
Salazar had said the long-awaited rules were necessary before he would ease off the drilling ban. Still, he gave no indication of when the freeze would end during his remarks today.
"There will always be risks in offshore drilling," Salazar said. "We will only lift the moratorium when I as secretary of the Interior am confident that we have significantly lessened those risks."

[NHL Fever]

Well, his Interior department is in contempt, at any rate, which is practically the same thing.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/03/...e-in-contempt/

This is an article posted by the heritage foundation, so not exactly objective. Regarding the content itself, its an interesting point they make, but I wonder if it's really relevant. The general points that drilling hurts the local economy, hurts the American economy, and is killing jobs etc may well be valid. The contempt of court stance is a bit shaky. They may have gone with saying that the second moratorium was contemptuous, but the direction they took was that the failure to issue licenses was the problem. This is not contempt of court, since the admin is abiding by the ruling. They are however pursuing their goal by different means. Saying this is contempt, is like saying that a president is in contempt if he pardons a prisoner after the court clearly convicted them. Perhaps some might say that, but nevertheless it is within his authority.

[Reynolds357]

I can not stand Obama. I think his drilling ban is wrong. BUT, I admire him for doing what the founders did. He, just as our early chief executives, pretty much told the courts to shove it.

[RabbiKnife]

The result should be articles of impeachment issued by the House.

[Reynolds357]

The result should be articles of impeachment issued by the House.

The result is that Obama is actually doing what the founders intended. He is flexing the muscle of the executive branch; one of the two branches the founders intended to be much stronger than the judicial. The judicial was to be the weakest branch. It has made itsself the strongest branch. As much as I want to see Obama gone from office, I would raise heck if they tried to impeach him for this. I would go march with Sharpton and Jackson in protest.

[RabbiKnife]

So you wish a king.

[Fenris]

So you wish a king.

Yeah there's some kind of attitude going on here. The president must obey the courts, as indeed must every other citizen. It's the whole concept behind "rule of law".

[Reynolds357]

So you wish a king.

As it stands right now, the judiciary is the KING. Congress passes law. President signs it. A few penguins strike it down.
I want a president who will do what our first several presidents did. I do not think they were kings.

[Reynolds357]

Yeah there's some kind of attitude going on here. The president must obey the courts, as indeed must every other citizen. It's the whole concept behind "rule of law".

If the president and the congress must "obey the courts," how is that equal powers or checks and balances? Sounds like a dictatorship by the courts to me.

[Fenris]

If the president and the congress must "obey the courts," how is that equal powers or checks and balances? Sounds like a dictatorship by the courts to me.

Obama ordered a ban on drilling in the Gulf. The court ruled that the president/his cabinet do not have the power to do this. Who exactly is acting like a dictator here? Obama for telling the private sector what it can and can't do? Or the court for telling him he doesn't have the power to do so?

[Firefighter]

If the president and the congress must "obey the courts," how is that equal powers or checks and balances? Sounds like a dictatorship by the courts to me.

You forgot about the other branches having the power to change the constitution, thereby forcing the courts to obey.

[RabbiKnife]

Oh, and that entire "you can't keep the lights on unless Congress and the President agree to send you money" stuff.

[Reynolds357]

Oh, and that entire "you can't keep the lights on unless Congress and the President agree to send you money" stuff.

I kind of like Lincoln's approach better. Threaten to jail them for treason. Any group of morons that think murdering a baby is a protected right granted in The Constitution need their offices moved into porta potties.