Fast & Furious: Not so fast
Whether the issue is ObamaCare or an executive diktat, President Obama's idea of “negotiation” is, quite simply, his way or the highway. How refreshing it is to see a federal judge remind Mr. Obama that he was elected president, not king.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Monday that the Justice Department cannot simply drop-kick a lawsuit over documents pertaining to the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal. Since news broke of the administration's bungled operation that reportedly sent to Mexican drug cartels 2,000 weapons — one of which is linked to a Border Patrol agent's death — Justice has stonewalled the House's subpoenas for related documents.
So, the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee went to court. Justice, in turn, tried to have the case dismissed, arguing that the courts have no basis for interfering when such matters should be resolved through “negotiation.”
Fat chance, the judge ruled.
“Dismissing the case without hearing it would in effect place the court's finger on the scale, designating the executive as the victor based solely on his untested assertion that the privilege applies,” wrote Ms. Jackson, calling Justice's argument “flawed and selective.”
Last year, the House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over his temerity in the document dispute. Now Mr. Holder has egg all over his face.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- A carbon tax? Cap it
- The Thursday wrap