Jeff Sessions is a racist!!

[Lewdog]

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws.

We all understand that. The problem was either Barry never did or never cared.

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

 

[Iceweasel]

You learned nothing there except how to get banned and re-register. But go ahead and show us where the function of the Attorney General is to use discretion on whether to enforce federal law or not. I'll wait. And more chuckleheads won't bail you out, it's a sign of weakness.

I've NEVER registered on that forum... I use the exact same screen name on EVERY forum I'm a member of. You want a list of them all so you can go check me out? You want to stalk me?

And yes, discretion is a function of law enforcement. I'm sorry you never learned that. Maybe if you ask nicely I'll tutor you on the side on subjects and give you a good list of books to read.

Being a smug asshole won't bail you out. The challenge was ....

"But go ahead and show us where the function of the Attorney General is to use discretion on whether to enforce federal law or not. I'll wait."

Being a mug asshole is the only thing to do with people like you. I learned that working in the prison. There are some people that have lived their life in a way that all they understand is rudeness and vulgarity. And there are also some people that are just such low lifes that is the only type of language they understand, and yet fit the bill.

Holder claims 'vast amount' of discretion in enforcing federal laws

Here is the exact code that gives the AG "Discretionary Powers:"

9-2.120 - Policy Limitations—Generally
Department of Justice and Criminal Division policies impose limitations on the authority of the United States Attorney to decline prosecution, to prosecute, and to take certain actions relating to the prosecution of criminal cases. These policy limitations are discussed throughout the United States Attorneys' Manual, with a centralized listing contained in 9-2.400.

With regard to policy limitations, if in the opinion of the United States Attorney the exigencies of the situation prevent compliance with a policy, he/she shall take the action deemed appropriate. He/she shall promptly report to the Criminal Division the deviation from policy, or if the policy is established by a higher authority, report to that authority and be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. A written report of the deviation should be promptly made. Approval of the action of the United States Attorney or his/her taking action as instructed shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be compliance with the policy. Among the purposes of this language is to ensure that criminals do not escape prosecution by inaction on the part of a United States Attorney immobilized by policy; to require a report of deviation from policy in order that the policy may be evaluated; and to express confidence in the judgment, and to reaffirm the authority, of the United States Attorney in such a situation.

If the United States Attorney discovers that a policy of the Division or of a higher authority has not been followed because of inadvertence, he/she shall promptly notify the Division or higher authority of the deviation from policy by the most expeditious means and subsequently in writing. He/she shall be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. Approval of the action of the United States Attorney, or his/her taking action as instructed shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be compliance with the policy.

In the instances when the United States Attorney is directed to consult with the Division prior to taking an action, such consultation will typically be by an Assistant United States Attorney with an attorney of the section assigned responsibility for the statute or matter involved. See USAM 9-4.000. If there is a disagreement at this level, the matter should be resolved by appropriate higher authority before the disputed action is taken.

[updated January 1999] [cited in USAM 9-2.030; USAM 9-2.100; USAM 9-4.010]

9-2.000 - Authority Of The U.S. Attorney In Criminal Division Matters/Prior Approvals | USAM | Department of Justice

"With regard to policy limitations, if in the opinion of the United States Attorney the exigencies of the situation prevent compliance with a policy, he/she shall take the action deemed appropriate. He/she shall promptly report to the Criminal Division the deviation from policy, or if the policy is established by a higher authority, report to that authority and be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. A written report of the deviation should be promptly made.

"Among the purposes of this language is to ensure that criminals do not escape prosecution by inaction on the part of a United States Attorney immobilized by policy; to require a report of deviation from policy in order that the policy may be evaluated; and to express confidence in the judgment, and to reaffirm the authority, of the United States Attorney in such a situation."

So that would be readily available, correct? How does Holder outline his decision making and how does it demonstrate Sessions is obligated just because the last guy did it?

You forgot that part.

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws. The Executive Branch's job to is to enforce the laws. The U.S. AG has discretionary powers as the head law enforcement official in the entire country. For a decisions on the magnitude of this, to use discretionary powers on not enforcing the federal law on marijuana over state decisions to legalize its use, he got the approval of the head of the Executive Branch... President Obama. I'm not sure what part of this you don't get. Discretionary powers is give to EVERY law enforcement official.

The irony here is, Sessions admitted in his hearing he is a "State's Rights" advocate. But when it comes to enforcing the Supremacy Clause in the federal government, it will be up to the new AG and Trump. Thus why I made my post after hearing what Sessions said in his hearing about the matter. What did you? You distorted what I said... as I said stoner better look out because Sessions said he is going to enforce the law unless Congress passes a national law to make marijuana legal... and from that you asked me since where marijuana was legal federally. I NEVER SAID IT WAS LEGAL FEDERALLY. You seem to either have a reading comprehension problem, or you just want to stalk me around and troll every post I make as if it will somehow vindicate your so-called "Law Enforcement forum education," and it isn't going to happen.

In other words you can't find where Holder fulfilled the requirements outlined in the law. I didn't think it would happen. That way we could see his reasoning instead of your opinion on what you think his reasoning was. Looks to be purely a political decision. Like other things.

Supporting states rights does not demand ignoring all federal law. He said congress should change it, not him.

 

[Iceweasel]

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws.

We all understand that. The problem was either Barry never did or never cared.

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Sounds like you need it. Explain how discretion (that wasn't even outlined, by law) is the purpose of the Judiciary branch. Never heard that bizarre reasoning before.

 

[Lewdog]

I've NEVER registered on that forum... I use the exact same screen name on EVERY forum I'm a member of. You want a list of them all so you can go check me out? You want to stalk me?

And yes, discretion is a function of law enforcement. I'm sorry you never learned that. Maybe if you ask nicely I'll tutor you on the side on subjects and give you a good list of books to read.

Being a smug asshole won't bail you out. The challenge was ....

"But go ahead and show us where the function of the Attorney General is to use discretion on whether to enforce federal law or not. I'll wait."

Being a mug asshole is the only thing to do with people like you. I learned that working in the prison. There are some people that have lived their life in a way that all they understand is rudeness and vulgarity. And there are also some people that are just such low lifes that is the only type of language they understand, and yet fit the bill.

Holder claims 'vast amount' of discretion in enforcing federal laws

Here is the exact code that gives the AG "Discretionary Powers:"

9-2.120 - Policy Limitations—Generally
Department of Justice and Criminal Division policies impose limitations on the authority of the United States Attorney to decline prosecution, to prosecute, and to take certain actions relating to the prosecution of criminal cases. These policy limitations are discussed throughout the United States Attorneys' Manual, with a centralized listing contained in 9-2.400.

With regard to policy limitations, if in the opinion of the United States Attorney the exigencies of the situation prevent compliance with a policy, he/she shall take the action deemed appropriate. He/she shall promptly report to the Criminal Division the deviation from policy, or if the policy is established by a higher authority, report to that authority and be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. A written report of the deviation should be promptly made. Approval of the action of the United States Attorney or his/her taking action as instructed shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be compliance with the policy. Among the purposes of this language is to ensure that criminals do not escape prosecution by inaction on the part of a United States Attorney immobilized by policy; to require a report of deviation from policy in order that the policy may be evaluated; and to express confidence in the judgment, and to reaffirm the authority, of the United States Attorney in such a situation.

If the United States Attorney discovers that a policy of the Division or of a higher authority has not been followed because of inadvertence, he/she shall promptly notify the Division or higher authority of the deviation from policy by the most expeditious means and subsequently in writing. He/she shall be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. Approval of the action of the United States Attorney, or his/her taking action as instructed shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be compliance with the policy.

In the instances when the United States Attorney is directed to consult with the Division prior to taking an action, such consultation will typically be by an Assistant United States Attorney with an attorney of the section assigned responsibility for the statute or matter involved. See USAM 9-4.000. If there is a disagreement at this level, the matter should be resolved by appropriate higher authority before the disputed action is taken.

[updated January 1999] [cited in USAM 9-2.030; USAM 9-2.100; USAM 9-4.010]

9-2.000 - Authority Of The U.S. Attorney In Criminal Division Matters/Prior Approvals | USAM | Department of Justice

"With regard to policy limitations, if in the opinion of the United States Attorney the exigencies of the situation prevent compliance with a policy, he/she shall take the action deemed appropriate. He/she shall promptly report to the Criminal Division the deviation from policy, or if the policy is established by a higher authority, report to that authority and be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. A written report of the deviation should be promptly made.

"Among the purposes of this language is to ensure that criminals do not escape prosecution by inaction on the part of a United States Attorney immobilized by policy; to require a report of deviation from policy in order that the policy may be evaluated; and to express confidence in the judgment, and to reaffirm the authority, of the United States Attorney in such a situation."

So that would be readily available, correct? How does Holder outline his decision making and how does it demonstrate Sessions is obligated just because the last guy did it?

You forgot that part.

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws. The Executive Branch's job to is to enforce the laws. The U.S. AG has discretionary powers as the head law enforcement official in the entire country. For a decisions on the magnitude of this, to use discretionary powers on not enforcing the federal law on marijuana over state decisions to legalize its use, he got the approval of the head of the Executive Branch... President Obama. I'm not sure what part of this you don't get. Discretionary powers is give to EVERY law enforcement official.

The irony here is, Sessions admitted in his hearing he is a "State's Rights" advocate. But when it comes to enforcing the Supremacy Clause in the federal government, it will be up to the new AG and Trump. Thus why I made my post after hearing what Sessions said in his hearing about the matter. What did you? You distorted what I said... as I said stoner better look out because Sessions said he is going to enforce the law unless Congress passes a national law to make marijuana legal... and from that you asked me since where marijuana was legal federally. I NEVER SAID IT WAS LEGAL FEDERALLY. You seem to either have a reading comprehension problem, or you just want to stalk me around and troll every post I make as if it will somehow vindicate your so-called "Law Enforcement forum education," and it isn't going to happen.

In other words you can't find where Holder fulfilled the requirements outlined in the law. I didn't think it would happen. That way we could see his reasoning instead of your opinion on what you think his reasoning was. Looks to be purely a political decision. Like other things.

Supporting states rights does not demand ignoring all federal law. He said congress should change it, not him.

Obama has SAID he supports the state's decisions on legalizing marijuana...

White House Says Marijuana Policy Is States' Rights Issue | The Huffington Post

 

[Lewdog]

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws.

We all understand that. The problem was either Barry never did or never cared.

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Sounds like you need it. Explain how discretion (that wasn't even outlined, by law) is the purpose of the Judiciary branch. Never heard that bizarre reasoning before.

Are you fucking serious? The Judiciary Branch oversees and decides the constitutionality of how laws are enforced... This is all way over your head for some odd fucking reason. Maybe you should que up some School House Rock.

Discretionary Powers – Administrative Laws

 

[Iceweasel]

Being a smug asshole won't bail you out. The challenge was ....

"But go ahead and show us where the function of the Attorney General is to use discretion on whether to enforce federal law or not. I'll wait."

Being a mug asshole is the only thing to do with people like you. I learned that working in the prison. There are some people that have lived their life in a way that all they understand is rudeness and vulgarity. And there are also some people that are just such low lifes that is the only type of language they understand, and yet fit the bill.

Holder claims 'vast amount' of discretion in enforcing federal laws

Here is the exact code that gives the AG "Discretionary Powers:"

9-2.120 - Policy Limitations—Generally
Department of Justice and Criminal Division policies impose limitations on the authority of the United States Attorney to decline prosecution, to prosecute, and to take certain actions relating to the prosecution of criminal cases. These policy limitations are discussed throughout the United States Attorneys' Manual, with a centralized listing contained in 9-2.400.

With regard to policy limitations, if in the opinion of the United States Attorney the exigencies of the situation prevent compliance with a policy, he/she shall take the action deemed appropriate. He/she shall promptly report to the Criminal Division the deviation from policy, or if the policy is established by a higher authority, report to that authority and be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. A written report of the deviation should be promptly made. Approval of the action of the United States Attorney or his/her taking action as instructed shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be compliance with the policy. Among the purposes of this language is to ensure that criminals do not escape prosecution by inaction on the part of a United States Attorney immobilized by policy; to require a report of deviation from policy in order that the policy may be evaluated; and to express confidence in the judgment, and to reaffirm the authority, of the United States Attorney in such a situation.

If the United States Attorney discovers that a policy of the Division or of a higher authority has not been followed because of inadvertence, he/she shall promptly notify the Division or higher authority of the deviation from policy by the most expeditious means and subsequently in writing. He/she shall be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. Approval of the action of the United States Attorney, or his/her taking action as instructed shall be deemed, for all purposes, to be compliance with the policy.

In the instances when the United States Attorney is directed to consult with the Division prior to taking an action, such consultation will typically be by an Assistant United States Attorney with an attorney of the section assigned responsibility for the statute or matter involved. See USAM 9-4.000. If there is a disagreement at this level, the matter should be resolved by appropriate higher authority before the disputed action is taken.

[updated January 1999] [cited in USAM 9-2.030; USAM 9-2.100; USAM 9-4.010]

9-2.000 - Authority Of The U.S. Attorney In Criminal Division Matters/Prior Approvals | USAM | Department of Justice

"With regard to policy limitations, if in the opinion of the United States Attorney the exigencies of the situation prevent compliance with a policy, he/she shall take the action deemed appropriate. He/she shall promptly report to the Criminal Division the deviation from policy, or if the policy is established by a higher authority, report to that authority and be guided by the instructions furnished him/her. A written report of the deviation should be promptly made.

"Among the purposes of this language is to ensure that criminals do not escape prosecution by inaction on the part of a United States Attorney immobilized by policy; to require a report of deviation from policy in order that the policy may be evaluated; and to express confidence in the judgment, and to reaffirm the authority, of the United States Attorney in such a situation."

So that would be readily available, correct? How does Holder outline his decision making and how does it demonstrate Sessions is obligated just because the last guy did it?

You forgot that part.

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws. The Executive Branch's job to is to enforce the laws. The U.S. AG has discretionary powers as the head law enforcement official in the entire country. For a decisions on the magnitude of this, to use discretionary powers on not enforcing the federal law on marijuana over state decisions to legalize its use, he got the approval of the head of the Executive Branch... President Obama. I'm not sure what part of this you don't get. Discretionary powers is give to EVERY law enforcement official.

The irony here is, Sessions admitted in his hearing he is a "State's Rights" advocate. But when it comes to enforcing the Supremacy Clause in the federal government, it will be up to the new AG and Trump. Thus why I made my post after hearing what Sessions said in his hearing about the matter. What did you? You distorted what I said... as I said stoner better look out because Sessions said he is going to enforce the law unless Congress passes a national law to make marijuana legal... and from that you asked me since where marijuana was legal federally. I NEVER SAID IT WAS LEGAL FEDERALLY. You seem to either have a reading comprehension problem, or you just want to stalk me around and troll every post I make as if it will somehow vindicate your so-called "Law Enforcement forum education," and it isn't going to happen.

In other words you can't find where Holder fulfilled the requirements outlined in the law. I didn't think it would happen. That way we could see his reasoning instead of your opinion on what you think his reasoning was. Looks to be purely a political decision. Like other things.

Supporting states rights does not demand ignoring all federal law. He said congress should change it, not him.

Obama has SAID he supports the state's decisions on legalizing marijuana...

White House Says Marijuana Policy Is States' Rights Issue | The Huffington Post

...and?

 

[easyt65]

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Except Obama owned/owns the US AG / Judicial Branch. You raced right over that one. Holder Perjured himself to help cover up F&F, and Obama helped protect Holder from Perjury Charges. He could not prevent a unanimous bi-partisan Congress Censuring Holder, though, making him the 1st US AG in US history to be Censured.

 

[Iceweasel]

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws.

We all understand that. The problem was either Barry never did or never cared.

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Sounds like you need it. Explain how discretion (that wasn't even outlined, by law) is the purpose of the Judiciary branch. Never heard that bizarre reasoning before.

Are you fucking serious? The Judiciary Branch oversees and decides the constitutionality of how laws are enforced... This is all way over your head for some odd fucking reason. Maybe you should que up some School House Rock.

Discretionary Powers – Administrative Laws

The SCOTUS decided on pot? No, you made that up. I'm waiting for you to support Holder's decision in writing, as required by law. Looks like you can't.

So, on one hand the AG's office decides discretion but that's really decided by the high court? You are all over the place.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You're regurgitating it. Enough proof.

Moon is a straight shooter (I shudder to think what he'll make of that); Sessions said it. It isn't going to strengthen your argument to start that nonsense.

Again, lay off the Fake News. Sessions isn't a racist and he will be confirmed as our next Attorney General. You heard it from me here at USMB. I gave you just the facts. But hey, you wanna buy into Fake News propaganda, go for it i guess. Enjoy.

I thought for a day or two that you were actually going to be a sensible conservative. Don't let me down now.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

By "sensible conservative," you mean the losers in the #NeverTrump GOP Establishment. Sessions had the political courage to defy his bosses and come up for Trump way back in August, 2015. The Democratic fraternity brothers of the RINOs will never forgive him for breaking out of the chain gang run by the bipartisan Establishment.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is Sessions jumping on Trump wagon and compromising his principles because Trump was the only one that had any interest in dealing with him. The rest of candidates didn't even bother filling out his little questioner.

A Quarterback With a Huge Front Line

He's a high-ranking Republican with twenty years in the Senate. That's hardly a nobody crying for some candidate to pay attention to him. As Trump promised from the beginning, his Administration would pull in some big names. The other candidates were the nobodies not worth Sessions's attention.

 

[Lewdog]

Do you understand how federal government works? The Legislative Branch's job is to make the laws.

We all understand that. The problem was either Barry never did or never cared.

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Sounds like you need it. Explain how discretion (that wasn't even outlined, by law) is the purpose of the Judiciary branch. Never heard that bizarre reasoning before.

Are you fucking serious? The Judiciary Branch oversees and decides the constitutionality of how laws are enforced... This is all way over your head for some odd fucking reason. Maybe you should que up some School House Rock.

Discretionary Powers – Administrative Laws

The SCOTUS decided on pot? No, you made that up. I'm waiting for you to support Holder's decision in writing, as required by law. Looks like you can't.

So, on one hand the AG's office decides discretion but that's really decided by the high court? You are all over the place.

No dipshit they made a much broader decision on discretionary powers... which is what you asked for and what COVERS pot being legalized in states and the ability of the AG to not enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. over those laws.. You really can't stand being proven wrong can you? You truly in your heart think you learned something from being a member of a law enforcement forum... You really are one dumb piece of work.

 

[Lewdog]

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Except Obama owned/owns the US AG / Judicial Branch. You raced right over that one. Holder Perjured himself to help cover up F&F, and Obama helped protect Holder from Perjury Charges. He could not prevent a unanimous bi-partisan Congress Censuring Holder, though, making him the 1st US AG in US history to be Censured.

Hey numbnuts, EVERY AG is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate... So by your own admission Trump will OWN Sessions. So are you saying that EVERY AG then is not going to be impartial and do their job?

 

[Iceweasel]

We all understand that. The problem was either Barry never did or never cared.

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Sounds like you need it. Explain how discretion (that wasn't even outlined, by law) is the purpose of the Judiciary branch. Never heard that bizarre reasoning before.

Are you fucking serious? The Judiciary Branch oversees and decides the constitutionality of how laws are enforced... This is all way over your head for some odd fucking reason. Maybe you should que up some School House Rock.

Discretionary Powers – Administrative Laws

The SCOTUS decided on pot? No, you made that up. I'm waiting for you to support Holder's decision in writing, as required by law. Looks like you can't.

So, on one hand the AG's office decides discretion but that's really decided by the high court? You are all over the place.

No dipshit they made a much broader decision on discretionary powers... which is what you asked for and what COVERS pot being legalized in states and the ability of the AG to not enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. over those laws.. You really can't stand being proven wrong can you? You truly in your heart think you learned something from being a member of a law enforcement forum... You really are one dumb piece of work.

No, professor. We have three coequal branches of government. Executive, legislative and judicial. One cannot tell the other what to do. You can't back up your statements. You can't even prove Holder followed the law and put his "discretion" in writing. Big fail.

You don't have a grade school understanding of our government.

 

[Lewdog]

His powers give him discretionary powers... if they are illegal, that's what the Judiciary Branch is for... WTF do I have to be some kind of civics teacher here?

Sounds like you need it. Explain how discretion (that wasn't even outlined, by law) is the purpose of the Judiciary branch. Never heard that bizarre reasoning before.

Are you fucking serious? The Judiciary Branch oversees and decides the constitutionality of how laws are enforced... This is all way over your head for some odd fucking reason. Maybe you should que up some School House Rock.

Discretionary Powers – Administrative Laws

The SCOTUS decided on pot? No, you made that up. I'm waiting for you to support Holder's decision in writing, as required by law. Looks like you can't.

So, on one hand the AG's office decides discretion but that's really decided by the high court? You are all over the place.

No dipshit they made a much broader decision on discretionary powers... which is what you asked for and what COVERS pot being legalized in states and the ability of the AG to not enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. over those laws.. You really can't stand being proven wrong can you? You truly in your heart think you learned something from being a member of a law enforcement forum... You really are one dumb piece of work.

No, professor. We have three coequal branches of government. Executive, legislative and judicial. One cannot tell the other what to do. You can't back up your statements. You can't even prove Holder followed the law and put his "discretion" in writing. Big fail.

You don't have a grade school understanding of our government.

One can not tell the other one what to do...



Just stop...I've proven you wrong and given you the resources for EVERY single one of your little gripes... and you are the one accusing me of not knowing how things work? GTFO,...

In fact, go back to your Law Enforcement forum and tell them you want your money back for your education you got there.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sounds like you need it. Explain how discretion (that wasn't even outlined, by law) is the purpose of the Judiciary branch. Never heard that bizarre reasoning before.

Are you fucking serious? The Judiciary Branch oversees and decides the constitutionality of how laws are enforced... This is all way over your head for some odd fucking reason. Maybe you should que up some School House Rock.

Discretionary Powers – Administrative Laws

The SCOTUS decided on pot? No, you made that up. I'm waiting for you to support Holder's decision in writing, as required by law. Looks like you can't.

So, on one hand the AG's office decides discretion but that's really decided by the high court? You are all over the place.

No dipshit they made a much broader decision on discretionary powers... which is what you asked for and what COVERS pot being legalized in states and the ability of the AG to not enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. over those laws.. You really can't stand being proven wrong can you? You truly in your heart think you learned something from being a member of a law enforcement forum... You really are one dumb piece of work.

No, professor. We have three coequal branches of government. Executive, legislative and judicial. One cannot tell the other what to do. You can't back up your statements. You can't even prove Holder followed the law and put his "discretion" in writing. Big fail.

You don't have a grade school understanding of our government.

One can not tell the other one what to do...



Just stop...I've proven you wrong and given you the resources for EVERY single one of your little gripes... and you are the one accusing me of not knowing how things work? GTFO,...

In fact, go back to your Law Enforcement forum and tell them you want your money back for your education you got there.

You're an insane retard. Where's your support? You post laws that refute your assertions. So now go ahead and show us where the SCOTUS has ruled on AG discretion and what all it entails.

Chuckleheads can't mask it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

He once joked that he only took issue with the KKK’s drug use and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American.”

Lay off the Fake News kid.

Prove it is fake...

Can't prove a negative, but you can prove the point, whatcha got?

 

[Moonglow]

He once joked that he only took issue with the KKK’s drug use and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American.”

Lay off the Fake News kid.

Prove it is fake...

Can't prove a negative, but you can prove the point, whatcha got?

Sorry you missed the train...

 

[buckeye45_73]

He once joked that he only took issue with the KKK’s drug use and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American.”

Lay off the Fake News kid.

Prove it is fake...

Can't prove a negative, but you can prove the point, whatcha got?

Sorry you missed the train...

Yeah I dont have time to read 25 pages.....

 

[Lewdog]

Are you fucking serious? The Judiciary Branch oversees and decides the constitutionality of how laws are enforced... This is all way over your head for some odd fucking reason. Maybe you should que up some School House Rock.

Discretionary Powers – Administrative Laws

The SCOTUS decided on pot? No, you made that up. I'm waiting for you to support Holder's decision in writing, as required by law. Looks like you can't.

So, on one hand the AG's office decides discretion but that's really decided by the high court? You are all over the place.

No dipshit they made a much broader decision on discretionary powers... which is what you asked for and what COVERS pot being legalized in states and the ability of the AG to not enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. over those laws.. You really can't stand being proven wrong can you? You truly in your heart think you learned something from being a member of a law enforcement forum... You really are one dumb piece of work.

No, professor. We have three coequal branches of government. Executive, legislative and judicial. One cannot tell the other what to do. You can't back up your statements. You can't even prove Holder followed the law and put his "discretion" in writing. Big fail.

You don't have a grade school understanding of our government.

One can not tell the other one what to do...



Just stop...I've proven you wrong and given you the resources for EVERY single one of your little gripes... and you are the one accusing me of not knowing how things work? GTFO,...

In fact, go back to your Law Enforcement forum and tell them you want your money back for your education you got there.

You're an insane retard. Where's your support? You post laws that refute your assertions. So now go ahead and show us where the SCOTUS has ruled on AG discretion and what all it entails.

Chuckleheads can't mask it.

You made a false claim about me saying that marijuana was federally legal and that I was wrong in expecting Sessions to do his job. Which was NOT what I said... but then...

#1. I explained to you since you don't understand it, how the AG has discretionary powers NOT to enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. to override state laws that make marijuana legal.

#2. You asked me where is the law that gives the AG discretionary powers... I did so.

#3. You pointed out that in the law sometimes the AG has to get approval to exercise his discretionary powers on certain laws. I showed you where President Obama gave him that approval by saying he believed the matter was a "State's Rights" matter.

#4. You said that it was illegal for that to happen and that they had no approval to do so... I showed the Supreme Court decision that matter-or-a-factly said they DO have that power.

#5. You stated that the Supreme Court didn't make a specific ruling on using discretionary powers on marijuana... Are you really that fucking dumb? Rule of law doesn't work that way. You have a landmark case and then all decisions after that are based on that case and there are not cases on EVERY fucking issue related to that case unless the Supreme Court feels it is relevant. There is NO reason for the Supreme Court to make a specific ruling on the use of discretionary powers on marijuana when there is a discretionary powers ruling on the books that can be applied to it.

#6. You said that no branch of government had the power to tell another branch what they can do... and thus proving how fucking dumb you are, because one of the very foundations of our government is a system of checks and balances where indeed, each branch of government can hold the other in check.


I laid this out as simple and concise as possible for your small brain to understand. If you can't at this point... then you are either a troll (which I am 99.99% you are) or you are too dumb to keep carrying on this conversation.

 

[Iceweasel]

You made a false claim about me saying that marijuana was federally legal and that I was wrong in expecting Sessions to do his job. Which was NOT what I said... but then...

#1. I explained to you since you don't understand it, how the AG has discretionary powers NOT to enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. to override state laws that make marijuana legal.

I'm not spending my day on your hurt pussy but show me where I claimed you said pot was federally legal.

Nor does this explanation make any sense. Federal law trumps state law. That's the whole point.

 

[Lewdog]

You made a false claim about me saying that marijuana was federally legal and that I was wrong in expecting Sessions to do his job. Which was NOT what I said... but then...

#1. I explained to you since you don't understand it, how the AG has discretionary powers NOT to enforce the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. to override state laws that make marijuana legal.

I'm not spending my day on your hurt pussy but show me where I claimed you said pot was federally legal.

Nor does this explanation make any sense. Federal law trumps state law. That's the whole point.

and there it is...despite evidence to show you how it all works you still don't get it, thus proving you sir are indeed an idiot. Thanks for playing.