Who was President and who was AG when the case hit the Supreme Court is irrelevant. They were reviewing a case that was filed in 2001 and the issue was a policy that was allegedly in force THEN, since the BIA declined to reverse the trial court's decision to deport based on those policies. The so-called policy (which apparently never existed) was whether or not deported aliens could return to the US if their appeal was granted. The DOJ assured the Court that this was being done all the time; and that was partially what the Court ruled on. There has never been any mechanism by which deported individuals could be assisted in return to the US if their appeals were successful.

The reason it is not relevant as to who was President and who was AG is that this alleged policy has been in place since AT LEAST 2001, when Nken's case first went to court, and by implication since well before that; Nken's case is simply the first that reached the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law's blog reports at least 7,000 cases where individuals who won their appeals have attempted to return to the US and have not been able to do so due to problems in their home countries.

This issue predates not only Obama, but likely George W. Bush, and probably Clinton as well. That it became evident under the Obama administration only speaks to the transparency of this administration, not any unusual lying practiced by it.

EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Because it was a stupid comment and had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

occrider: The article is about the government providing false information to the Supereme Court. Now look at the associated dates in the court docket ... this isn't rocket science.

No. 08-681
Title: Jean Marc Nken, Petitioner
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General

Docketed: November 25, 2008
Linked with 08A413
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-1813)
Decision Date: November 5, 2008
Questions Presented

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 7 2008 Application (08A413) for stay pending appeal, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Nov 10 2008 Response to application (08A413) requested by The Chief Justice, due November 17, 2008, by 4 p.m.
Nov 17 2008 Response to application from respondent Michael B. Mukasey filed.
Nov 18 2008 Reply of applicant Jean Marc Nken filed.
Nov 24 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 25, 2008.
Nov 24 2008 Application (08A413) referred to the Court by The Chief Justice.
Nov 25 2008 The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the removal of petitioner is hereby stayed pending further order of the Court. In addition, the application for stay is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari (08-681), and the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: "Whether the decision of a court of appeals to stay an alien's removal pending consideration of the alien's petition for review is governed by the standard set forth in section 242(f)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(f)(2), or instead by the traditional test for stays and preliminary injunctive relief." The brief of the petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m. Friday, December 19, 2008. The brief of the respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m. Wednesday, January 7, 2009. A reply brief, ...

Like I already said, the date this went to the Supreme Court makes no difference at all. The Court was not hearing this case de novo. They were ruling on a decision made by the lower appellate courts based on a so-called policy that was in place when the case was first heard in 2001. The "lie" that was told to the Supreme Court was actually not told to or ruled on by the Court, but by the New York appellate court, who eventually got the emails.

The dates on the emails were December 2008-Jan 2009. But as I already noted, the so-called policy was not something new that this administration was cobbling up or covering up. It was the basis for the original decision in 2001; and the cause of the appeals to the Supreme Court. The obfuscation on Holder's part is merely a continuation of the concealment of this nonexistent policy that has been going on for the past couple of decades, and this administration is the one that was honest enough to acknowledge they lied.

Of course, nobody wants to accept that this is not something new, as I see. They would rather focus on OMG OBAMA'S LAWYER GOT CAUGHT LYING instead of focusing on the fact that this pretend policy has allowed us to deport 7000 people whose deportation has been overturned later, and then not help them get back to the US. But hey, screw them anyway, amirite?

BarnabusJ: Correct me if I am wrong, but this was the case referenced in the article

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nken_v_Holder_585_F3d_81 8 _4th_Cir_2009_Court_Opinion


United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jean Marc NKEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1813.
Argued: September 22, 2009.
Decided: October 30, 2009.


So wouldn't it have been Eric Holder and not a Bush appointee?

I readily admit to being new to all this SCOTUS case crap, and could have misread, so please correct me if I am wrong

I know it's considered sacrilege, but it's possible that both Michael Mukasey's and Eric Holder's justice departments screwed up here.

Can anyone explain what the hell is going on?

Justice claimed before the Court that there was a policy on [something], but the policy was "in the works" (so not really applicable), but Justice said it was, and there's a guy the policy might have applied to, only it didn't (for some reason - or it DID apply to him, but it shouldn't have), and so now Eric Holder has to wear a bunny suit and return the Elder Wand to Eric Cantor at a ceremony hosted by Kim Kardashian's left butt cheek?

Aarontology: vpb: Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?

Because teabaggers like him can't understand not slavishly defending everything "your side" says or does. Anything other than mindless obedience to the collective just boggles his mind.

Thinking hard about things cuts into mah football thinkin'-bout time.

vpb: Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?

Because teabaggers like him can't understand not slavishly defending everything "your side" says or does. Anything other than mindless obedience to the collective just boggles his mind.

EnviroDude: Tarkus: occrider: EnviroDude: The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.

Sigh ... you do know when this case was argued by the justice department before the Supreme Court right? Try the day after Obama's inauguration and 2 weeks before Holder was even appointed. Soooo who was the solicitor general arguing for the justice department at the time?

This guy ...

Ha ha, a Bush appointee.

Of course, Bush's fault. Yet no one here has stepped up to defend Holder and his "brainwashing" us comment.

/lol

Well, it was a stupid comment to make, so who would want to defend it?

The only time Holder has told the truth is when he told us he wants to brainwash us.