Eric Holder describes his belief that district attorneys don’t have to enforce any laws they disagree with.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The law is such an inconvenient thing: Eric Holder describes his belief that district attorneys don’t have to enforce any laws they disagree with.

Holder’s real goal? Make the law less inconvenient so he and others in power can wield more power over everyone else. That goal is also shared by Obama as well as a large percentage of the politicians in DC from both parties. See for example this article about a man I disagree with strongly on many issues but who I know is totally on my side on this issue.

Share

2 comments

  • “Eric Holder describes his belief that district attorneys don’t have to enforce any laws they disagree with.”

    Perhaps Mr. Holder can explain why I should have to follow any laws I happen to disagree with.

    I would argue that obeying the law is an ipso facto enforcement of it. If the senior law enforcement officers in a given jurisdiction can’t be bothered to enforce the law, why should the citizenry be held to a higher standard?

  • Chris Kirkendall

    If I were being tried for some crime, I’d be tempted to argue that the law I was accused of violating is senseless & discriminatory & should not be applied in my case – in fact, it should not be enforced. When the Justice objects to this line of argument, I’d reply that the very man tasked with seeing that laws are faithfully executed, the Atty Gen’l of the U.S (Holder) & his boss, (small-p) pResident Obama, are refusing to enforce any number of laws already on the books & that With-Holder has decreed that State Attorneys General don’t have to enforce any law they don’t agree with. Since I don’t agree with the law I’m charged of violating, that should not be enforced either. I would ask the Justice how it is that ANY U.S. Law has any meaning whatsoever when it can be ignored or overturned without any input from the legislature, which makes & passes these laws?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *