In the Time of Obama, a court rebuke means nothing. Being held in contempt means nothing. Words…just words….In 2011 the NSA collected 75 million emails belonging to Americans having nothing to do with terrorism. A court “rebuked” the illegal grab. We’re told that in 2012, all 75 million were destroyed. Such good news. Your emails laid around a digital government facility in some fashion, for maybe less than a year. No one cared enough to take a peek. You’re not that interesting. Hope you’re not planning to run for public office anytime soon.
“For the first time the government has now advised the Court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe,” John D. Bates, a judge on the surveillance court, said in October 2011.
The NSA then worked with Congress and the court to correct the problem but ultimately decided it could not salvage the data it collected. It was purged in 2012…
The NSA claims the problem was technical in nature because the pulling of Internet traffic is automated. Source: Fox News
Obama ignores Court on “tweaking inconvenient laws” (ObamaCare):
President Obama asserted the unilateral power to “tweak” inconvenient laws in last Friday’s news conference, underscoring his Administration’s increasingly cavalier notions about law enforcement. So it’s good that the judiciary—a coequal branch of government, in case the Administration forgot—is starting to check the White House.
In a major rebuke on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unusual writ of mandamus, which is a direct judicial order compelling the government to fulfill a legal obligation. This “extraordinary remedy” is nominally about nuclear waste, writes Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the 2-1 majority, yet the case “raises significant questions about the scope of the Executive’s authority to disregard federal statutes.” Source: WSJ
Did he untweak? Heck no.
There is, however, more to the story. The plaintiffs also stress that the government did not simply reimpose a blanket moratorium; rather, each step the government took following the Courts imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance: the government failed to seek a remand; it continually reaffirmed its intention and resolve to restore the moratorium; it even notified operators that though a preliminary injunction had issued, they could quickly expect a new moratorium. Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction Order. To the extent the plaintiff’s motion asserts civil contempt based on the government’s determined disregard of this Court’s Order of preliminary injunction, it is GRANTED. Source: The Lonely Conservative
(Bloomberg) – – The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.
Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.
“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.