Holder: I Have 'Vast Amount' Of Discretion In Enforcing Laws

by JASmius

Aaaaaaand in making them, too, right Eric?

Well, at least he's honest:

House Republicans Tuesday blasted Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department for virtually ignoring the law in cases including criminal sentencing and the legalization of marijuana.

Holder, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, declared both the president and attorney general have "a vast amount" of discretion in prosecuting laws on the books, the Hill reports.

"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," he said.

Ah, yes, where have we heard that "acting in a way that is consistent with our values" dodge before?  By which O and Eric "The Red" mean, "acting in a way that is consistent with Marxist ideology, which supercedes the rule of law and the United States Constitution."  But again, Holder is being remarkably candid in these comments by openly staking claim to "a vast amount" of power that the Constitution does not actually afford the Regime.  It's either a stunning level of obliviousness, or it's a reflection of how imperiously arrogant they've become, secure in the unprecedented amount of power they've stolen from the other branches of the federal government, that they feel no compunction to be discrete about it.

Republicans, to their credit, were having none of it:

But committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-VA6, reamed Holder's reasoning, saying such "selective non-enforcement" 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.

Putting this example another way, the Regime does not have the legal authority - or "vast amount of discretion," in Holder-speak - to simply refuse to "take care that [this] law be faithfully executed".  Presidents of both parties have, over the course of the past two centuries-plus, had duly enacted statutes that they didn't like, but they've still enforced them because it was their constitutional duty to do so.  If they wanted those laws changed or repealed, they lobbied Congress to do so, because the Constitution grants Congress alone with the legislative power.

See Holder's retort for the level of open contempt Obamunists have for the Constitution:

Under Holder’s"Smart on Crime" initiative, the Justice Department has changed charging policies involving mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent, low-level drug crimes.

"This commonsense change will ensure that the toughest penalties are reserved for the most dangerous or violent drug traffickers," Holder explained....

The Hill noted committee Democrats are in favor of the changes, with Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers, the panel's top Democrat, pointing out almost half of all federal inmates are serving time for drug offenses.

You may concur with Holder and Conyers on that question, you may not - I certainly don't.  But if the Regime believes that going "soft on drugs" is the way to go, they are legally obligated to propose legislation in Congress to change the law in that direction.  What they are not legally empowered to do is simply change the law by unilateral Executive fiat.  Or, once again, they are illicitly elevating Marxist policy doctrine above the rule of law and the Constitution, and reveling in the power they've illegally usurped.

A dynamic which took an eye-openingly bellicose turn during the same hearing:

Attorney General Eric Holder, who was held in contempt of Congress for lying about the Obama regime’s Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, blew up at Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert on Tuesday. ...

At a hearing in which Gohmert was attempting to get information about the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial, the evasive Holder was asked why he wouldn’t provide documents Gohmert requested that Holder’s office had already provided to “terrorists,” according to the congressman.

When Holder avoided the question, Gohmert brought up Holder’s contempt conviction, saying, “I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our Attorney General, but it is important that we have proper oversight.”

Holder shot back curtly, pointing his finger at the congressman, “You don’t want to go there, buddy! You don’t want to go there, okay.”

Congressman Gohmert, obviously surprised at Holder’s reaction, responded, “I don’t want to go there?”

Holder’s one word answer, in an almost threatening, but definitely angry tone, was, “No,” as he leaned forward towards Gohmert.

“About the contempt?” Gohmert then asked.

Holder answered while wagging his extended finger at Gohmert, “You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me,” explained the livid Holder. “I think that it was inappropriate, I think it was unjust. But never think that that was not a big deal to me,” Holder warned, “Don’t ever think that.”

First off, I don't know why Gohmert was surprised by Eric "The Red's" reaction, since I would assume that provocation of same was the purpose of his bringing up that legally valid but functionally impotent contempt of Congress conviction.  Still, the reaction itself is so very revealing: Obamunists' trademark arrogance and imperiousness turned ugly when confronted by the specter of their perceived "inferiors" challenging their power to do whatever the hell they want, law and Constitution be damned.  You can hear it in Holder's voice, and see it in the thinly-veiled threat behind his rhetoric.

If I had been Gohmert, or been on the Judiciary Committee, I would have asked Holder the logical next question: "Or else what?  The gentleman from Texas 'went there' to bring up your contempt citation, Mr. Attorney-General; are you threatening retaliatory action for what you obviously consider to be his insolent temerity but is, in fact, a perfectly legitimate point raised in defense of Constitutional prerogatives by a member of the branch of the federal government that the Founders intended to be superior in status and power to the Executive?"

What was it Steve Rogers said?  "I don't like bullies."  Plus, it would have been interesting to see whether Eric "The Red" would have taken the confrontation to the next level or retreated into "humina-humina-humina"-ing.



UPDATE: So what if he looks like Otter from Animal House?  Representative Blake Farenthold (TX-27) can ride shotgun with me any day after "speaking the truth to power" for us all: