If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Eric Holder unaware that he can change fonts and margins to turn 2 1/2 pages into 3 page document   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 85
    More: Asinine, obamacare, homework, documents  
•       •       •

5087 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Apr 2012 at 1:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-06 01:38:32 PM
Single-spaced? Really?

What a bizarre request.
 
2012-04-06 02:00:19 PM
I would have responded with just one sentence.

"There is no law in the federal registry that we can find entitled 'Obamacare.' What are you talking about?"

And if the judge points out that was two sentences, send his ass to Gitmo.
 
2012-04-06 02:01:39 PM
I'm not sure which makes the story funnier....that a judge actually asked for this ridiculous homework assignment of an attorney for comments that had absolutely dickall to do with the case or that he used "Obamacare".
 
2012-04-06 02:01:47 PM
Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?
 
2012-04-06 02:03:20 PM
Holder is a complete piece of shiat. He is probably the worst person in the American government right now. Republican or Democrat.
 
2012-04-06 02:03:22 PM

IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?


Yes the consensus of farking idiots on Fark
 
2012-04-06 02:03:41 PM

IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?


150 pct for the LULZ, obviously.
 
2012-04-06 02:04:12 PM
He should have submitted it in wingdings.
 
2012-04-06 02:05:31 PM

halfof33: IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?

Yes the consensus of farking idiots on Fark


Notsureifseriousjpeg
 
2012-04-06 02:06:38 PM
dondueck.files.wordpress.com

Worst. Article. Ever.

Does Holder really talk like that? I feel like punching someone.
 
2012-04-06 02:07:16 PM

MFAWG: Notsureifseriousjpeg


Very serious.

Suggesting that the judge didn't have the "authority" to require the DOJ to file a supplemental brief is idiotic.

Whether he was correct in doing so is another question.
 
2012-04-06 02:08:06 PM
"I was cutting out quotes and stuff."

I want video of this quote...
 
2012-04-06 02:08:43 PM

IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?



Sometimes you have to pick your battles. Even if the judge didn't have the authority, Holder isn't prohibited from humoring him.
 
2012-04-06 02:10:58 PM

kbronsito: IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?


Sometimes you have to pick your battles. Even if the judge didn't have the authority, Holder isn't prohibited from humoring him.


If the judge is using the term Obamacare and telling the lawyers to write Marbury v. Madison on the chalkboard 300 times because of what the President said, then it's pretty clear that he's already made his decision.
 
2012-04-06 02:10:58 PM
It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.
 
2012-04-06 02:12:38 PM
I must have stopped reading and looked for the Onion logo at least three times. Every sentence was more surreal than the last.
 
2012-04-06 02:14:11 PM

IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?


Parties in the Courts of Appeal rarely challenge an order for supplemental briefing, even if they think it is unwarranted or inappropriate. Responding to the judge's order should not be read as any indication by the DOJ that it agrees that the judge was correct in demanding briefing of an extraneous issue. DOJ lawyers just did what almost every party would do in that situation--shrug their shoulders, roll their eyes, and spit out a couple pages of nonsense that even first year law students know.
 
2012-04-06 02:15:04 PM
If Obama can't follow the Constitution, we should be surprised when he fails to comply with a simple judicial request. Nothing to see here, move on, Citizen.
 
2012-04-06 02:15:50 PM

Karac: kbronsito: IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?


Sometimes you have to pick your battles. Even if the judge didn't have the authority, Holder isn't prohibited from humoring him.

If the judge is using the term Obamacare and telling the lawyers to write Marbury v. Madison on the chalkboard 300 times because of what the President said, then it's pretty clear that he's already made his decision.


I don't think its about the eventual decision of the judge on this case. I think its about putting the dumb controversy to rest by writing the stupid letter and leaving this fight behind. The DOJ and the president have other things they are probably working on.
 
2012-04-06 02:16:11 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I would have responded with just one sentence.

"There is no law in the federal registry that we can find entitled 'Obamacare.' What are you talking about?"

And if the judge points out that was two sentences, send his ass to Gitmo.


You're an idiot.
 
2012-04-06 02:16:48 PM

IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?


Concensus among farkers isn't legal precedent. You're another idiot.
 
2012-04-06 02:17:06 PM
All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy. All work and no play makes Eric a dull boy.

Repeat as necessary.
 
2012-04-06 02:17:10 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?

Parties in the Courts of Appeal rarely challenge an order for supplemental briefing, even if they think it is unwarranted or inappropriate. Responding to the judge's order should not be read as any indication by the DOJ that it agrees that the judge was correct in demanding briefing of an extraneous issue. DOJ lawyers just did what almost every party would do in that situation--shrug their shoulders, roll their eyes, and spit out a couple pages of nonsense that even first year law students know.


My response would have been three pages of instructions on how to play "fark you suck" (or chandeliers for those in other parts of the country), in wingdings, in 24pt font.
 
2012-04-06 02:18:01 PM

halfof33: IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?

Yes the consensus of farking idiots on Fark


And actual conservative attorneys, but feel free to continue being stupid.
 
2012-04-06 02:18:45 PM

Mearen: IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?

Concensus among farkers isn't legal precedent. You're another idiot.


And actual conservative attorneys, but as with 16.5, continue being stupid.
 
2012-04-06 02:20:33 PM

RolandGunner: It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.


IMPEACH!
 
2012-04-06 02:23:43 PM
How do you lengthen "the DOJ and the White House have never made any statement disputing the power of the courts to overturn laws. We in no way, shape, or form are making a legal argument that the either the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court lack jurisdiction for this case."

Obama was wrong to say overturning a law like this would be unprecidented and that's why he assumes the Supreme Court will find in his favor, but he never even came close to stating that the courts have no say in this matter.
 
2012-04-06 02:24:02 PM
I would have expected three pages of "Fark you" printed ala The Shining.
 
2012-04-06 02:24:07 PM

halfof33: IMDWalrus: Why did Holder bother to reply in the first place?

I thought the consensus was that the judge who demanded the explanation didn't have any authority to do so?

Yes the consensus of farking idiots on Fark


Come on, man, don't be like that. I know you read this article headline (new window) because you commented on it.
 
2012-04-06 02:26:22 PM
The whole point of the judge doing this is to be a troll. It's all political. It reignites the healthcare debate. It gives Rush more drivel to spout. It gives Hannity more drivel to spout. It's insanely stupid to ask anyone to do a homework assignment about something like this. That the judge comes down to the level of an 8th grade English teacher is pretty sorry.

It's insulting to the DOJ. It's insulting to me, a tax payer. It's insulting to this whole farking country.

The fact that there are people out there in positions of power like this judge is really, really scary.
 
2012-04-06 02:26:24 PM
"It was a dark and stormy night...."
 
2012-04-06 02:26:52 PM

RolandGunner: It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.


This isn't a high school assignment, and I am unaware of anything in the FRCP that dictate minimum page length for a brief. Maximum page length, yes, but not minimum.

In fact, I am pretty sure the judge's instructions for single spacing violate local rules on form, which probably specify double spacing.
 
2012-04-06 02:30:12 PM

halfof33: MFAWG: Notsureifseriousjpeg

Very serious.

Suggesting that the judge didn't have the "authority" to require the DOJ to file a supplemental brief is idiotic.

Whether he was correct in doing so is another question.


That is some TOP NOTCH hair splitting.
 
2012-04-06 02:31:49 PM

gilgigamesh: RolandGunner: It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.

This isn't a high school assignment, and I am unaware of anything in the FRCP that dictate minimum page length for a brief. Maximum page length, yes, but not minimum.

In fact, I am pretty sure the judge's instructions for single spacing violate local rules on form, which probably specify double spacing.


The judge went out of his way to specify single-spacing and at least 3 pages. Whether it violates the 5th Cir rules is irrelevant. DOJ was not about to get into a pissing match with the judge about length and formatting of a bullshiat supplemental brief. DOJ did what almost everyone would do in the same situation: fire off a quick response to the judge's ridiculous inquiry, and move on.
 
2012-04-06 02:34:02 PM

RolandGunner: It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.


There are only so many ways to say "you're an idiot" in legalese.
 
2012-04-06 02:35:03 PM
Hahahha holy shiat, I feel like Count von Count in this thread. THREE! THREE literally mentally retarded threadshiatting trolls! AH AH AH AH *lightning crashes ominously*
 
2012-04-06 02:35:10 PM
November can't get here soon enough.
 
2012-04-06 02:38:15 PM

gilgigamesh: RolandGunner: It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.

This isn't a high school assignment, and I am unaware of anything in the FRCP that dictate minimum page length for a brief. Maximum page length, yes, but not minimum.

In fact, I am pretty sure the judge's instructions for single spacing violate local rules on form, which probably specify double spacing.




It's what the judge said. Three pages minimum.

/ha ha "benchslap" is my new favorite word.
 
2012-04-06 02:38:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: There are only so many ways to say "you're an idiot" in legalese.



I'm sure you've heard them all.
 
2012-04-06 02:40:24 PM
1

themeaningoflifeisnot: gilgigamesh: RolandGunner: It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.

This isn't a high school assignment, and I am unaware of anything in the FRCP that dictate minimum page length for a brief. Maximum page length, yes, but not minimum.

\47In fact, I am pretty sure the judge's instructions for single spacing violate local rules on form, which probably specify double spacing.

The judge went out of his way to specify single-spacing and at least 3 pages. Whether it violates the 5th Cir rules is irrelevant. DOJ was not about to get into a pissing match with the judge about length and formatting of a bullshiat supplemental brief. DOJ did what almost everyone would do in the same situation: fire off a quick response to the judge's ridiculous inquiry, and move on.


I know that the DOJ wasn't about to get in a pissing match with the judge over form. I was taking issue with RolandGunner's implication that the judge's form requirement had any legal basis.
 
2012-04-06 02:40:59 PM

gilgigamesh: 1themeaningoflifeisnot: gilgigamesh: RolandGunner: It was three pages minimum, so he came up short and is proud of the fact that he can't follow instructions. What a dope.

This isn't a high school assignment, and I am unaware of anything in the FRCP that dictate minimum page length for a brief. Maximum page length, yes, but not minimum.

\47In fact, I am pretty sure the judge's instructions for single spacing violate local rules on form, which probably specify double spacing.

The judge went out of his way to specify single-spacing and at least 3 pages. Whether it violates the 5th Cir rules is irrelevant. DOJ was not about to get into a pissing match with the judge about length and formatting of a bullshiat supplemental brief. DOJ did what almost everyone would do in the same situation: fire off a quick response to the judge's ridiculous inquiry, and move on.

I know that the DOJ wasn't about to get in a pissing match with the judge over form. I was taking issue with RolandGunner's implication that the judge's form requirement had any legal basis.


Oh. Ok. Sorry about that.
 
2012-04-06 02:41:08 PM
By the way, none of these articles ever mention what the case this judge is on the panel for is actually about, just "a seperate case challenging the law by physician-owned hospitals." Anybody know the case itself?

Only thing I know of in the law that would be the elimination of the Stark exemption for physician-owned hospitals (except for hospitals currently covered under it). Basically it's illegal for a doctor to refer you to another hospital which they or their family members have a financial stake in, and the Stark exemption allows physician-owned hospitals to do so. PPACA gets rid of that. Is that what they're fighting in court? What is it then?
 
2012-04-06 02:42:11 PM
The DOJ is probably in the background writing a very expanded brief to file with the 5 Circuit. One demanding that these 3 judges be removed from the case.

The court (judges) have no business addressing and demanding a response to what is, was and will continue to be a political statement from the President expressing his desire that the court not overturn the law, which is 100% protected by the 1st Amendment. (way outside the legitimate scope of judicial review as it in no way formed any part of the record of the case.)
 
2012-04-06 02:42:59 PM
That's some juicy mistrial/appeal bait right there, Ms Justice. Plus ca professional misconduct.

WhatEverInLovingGreenEarthWereYouThinking?!?!?!?!?!
 
2012-04-06 02:43:07 PM
Changing the margins? That's for high-schoolers.

Changing the character spacing? Now that's college-level fudging.
 
2012-04-06 02:43:21 PM

RolandGunner:

It's what the judge said. Three pages minimum.


So?

Judges can get things wrong. I've got better things to do than look up fifth circuit local rules on brief format, but I would bet you his directive is contrary to what the rules say.
 
2012-04-06 02:44:14 PM
The amount of begging the question from the left is hilarious.
 
2012-04-06 02:47:40 PM

RolandGunner: The amount of begging the question from the left is hilarious.


The consensus is that this judge went way over the line, and essentially proved Obama's point about politicization of the judiciary.

Score 1 for Obamacare; 0 for wingnut activist judge
 
2012-04-06 02:49:16 PM

Grungehamster: Obama was wrong to say overturning a law like this would be unprecidented and that's why he assumes the Supreme Court will find in his favor, but he never even came close to stating that the courts have no say in this matter.


It's unprecedented if you only watch Fox News and can't remember recent history.
 
2012-04-06 02:54:38 PM
And people laugh at me when I mention the Obama Birth Certificate is a forgery....and look what these people vote for!

Eric Holder's only redeeming value is being a racist.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report