• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eric Holder Hired by California for Legal Battles Against Trump

truthatallcost said:
Holder's background:


Holder was part of an armed takeover while in college, and still made Attorney General.

If his appointment isn't a clear case of affirmative action, then I don't know what is.
-----------------------------
What about Sessions now?
Click to expand...

You failed to prove your point. Thanks for admitting it.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Need is not the thing, it is choice:


California Gets Ready To Defy Trump's Washington : NPR
Click to expand...

Whether its a "need" or not is subjective in this case I guess so won't really argue that particular point.

I will say that I doubt California really needs to worry about any climate change legislation/regulations or whatever that comes from Trump & Co. for the simple fact that California can make its own EPA type regulations/laws so long as they meet the minimum of what the Federal government has. And they can go stricter if they wish, which they have a habit of doing anyways. So even with Trumps denying of CC I see no reason for CA to worry about it, at least for their state. So imo that "complaint" is nothing more than a smokescreen, at least in how it relates to California law/regulations. They might want to argue all they want in how other states conduct their businesses but they can't do a thing about it in either direction, except of course in how their Senators/Congress critters vote in the Federal arena. Which Holder and the like can't do crap about.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are only two things that I can think of that California would need to battle against Trump on. 1: Their gun laws. 2: Their sanctuary status for illegals. With number 2 being the highest priority. Everything else would be small fry type stuff. And since illegal immigration is solely within the domain of the Federal Government pretty sure California will lose any battle they attempt to fight on that front.
Click to expand...

I really hope Trump goes after sanctuary cities. His talk about immigration won him serious support. I also hope your right that California will be held liable for this mess.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are only two things that I can think of that California would need to battle against Trump on. 1: Their gun laws. 2: Their sanctuary status for illegals. With number 2 being the highest priority. Everything else would be small fry type stuff. And since illegal immigration is solely within the domain of the Federal Government pretty sure California will lose any battle they attempt to fight on that front.
Click to expand...

This. I've lived here most of my adult life, am very liberal on most social issues, but absolutely hate the concept of "open borders" and "sanctuary cities" because I've observed over decades how it has destroyed California communities, and decimated the entry level job market.

I cheerfully confess that I vote for democrats when it comes to federal positions in congress and senate, but vote strictly republican when it comes to state legislative positions, because the uber-left wing majority here has turned this state into a walking, talking piece of crap when it comes to the national security of the ENTIRE country, border security for the ENTIRE country, and a power-push to remove border security and immigration enforcement from federal jurisdiction, where is constitutionally belongs, to a bogus "state's right" issue with completely illegal and dangerous "sanctuary cities" and an "open door policy" that endangers the entire country.

That doesn't mean I don't support the valid environmental issues that anyone with a modicum of brain function can see could literally wipe human life off the planet within decades, but they have to choose their damned battles. Do they want to work toward keeping humans from destroying the damned planet, or do they just want to weenie-wag an open border policy that destroys the economic balance while the GOP agenda is too busy giving money to their corporate allies to concern themselves with planetary destruction?

I'm glad I'm old. The self-important belly-bumping of both sides of issues that scream "humans will be doomed if you don't stop" has made me thankful I won't live long enough to see the entire human race go, "Oops! My bad." as they become extinct.
 
DiAnna said:
This. I've lived here most of my adult life, am very liberal on most social issues, but absolutely hate the concept of "open borders" and "sanctuary cities" because I've observed over decades how it has destroyed California communities, and decimated the entry level job market.

I cheerfully confess that I vote for democrats when it comes to federal positions in congress and senate, but vote strictly republican when it comes to state legislative positions, because the uber-left wing majority here has turned this state into a walking, talking piece of crap when it comes to the national security of the ENTIRE country, border security for the ENTIRE country, and a power-push to remove border security and immigration enforcement from federal jurisdiction, where is constitutionally belongs, to a bogus "state's right" issue with completely illegal and dangerous "sanctuary cities" and an "open door policy" that endangers the entire country.

That doesn't mean I don't support the valid environmental issues that anyone with a modicum of brain function can see could literally wipe human life off the planet within decades, but they have to choose their damned battles. Do they want to work toward keeping humans from destroying the damned planet, or do they just want to weenie-wag an open border policy that destroys the economic balance while the GOP agenda is too busy giving money to their corporate allies to concern themselves with planetary destruction?

I'm glad I'm old. The self-important belly-bumping of both sides of issues that scream "humans will be doomed if you don't stop" has made me thankful I won't live long enough to see the entire human race go, "Oops! My bad." as they become extinct.
Click to expand...

Well said DiAnna.

I'd add that open borders are bad for our local environment, which is why more people who cite the environment as a priority should support population planning.
 
truthatallcost said:
Holder is apparently taking a break from his position with Covington & Burling, which happens to represent such companies as Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Microsoft, to work for the State of California.

Before you think that Holder is leaving Big Banks behind to work for the little people, consider this: "The precise role of the high-profile lawyer remained unclear, but his politically connected firm will be paid $25,000 a month plus expenses.."
California Hires Ex-Attorney General Holder to Fight Trump - ABC News

Considering Californias problems, should we be paying Obama's stooges to further put the state in the hole?
Thoughts?
Comments?
Click to expand...


At least Trump will have a better lawyer. ;)
 
truthatallcost said:
Holder is apparently taking a break from his position with Covington & Burling, which happens to represent such companies as Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Microsoft, to work for the State of California.

Before you think that Holder is leaving Big Banks behind to work for the little people, consider this: "The precise role of the high-profile lawyer remained unclear, but his politically connected firm will be paid $25,000 a month plus expenses.."
California Hires Ex-Attorney General Holder to Fight Trump - ABC News

Considering Californias problems, should we be paying Obama's stooges to further put the state in the hole?
Thoughts?
Comments?
Click to expand...


Holder vs Sessions? Now there's a fight i'd pay to see.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are only two things that I can think of that California would need to battle against Trump on. 1: Their gun laws. 2: Their sanctuary status for illegals. With number 2 being the highest priority. Everything else would be small fry type stuff. And since illegal immigration is solely within the domain of the Federal Government pretty sure California will lose any battle they attempt to fight on that front.
Click to expand...


It will be interesting to see if this is indeed the case. One thing that just infuriates me are people who appose states rights and support federal overreach when a state decides something which is contrary to how they think it should be done but suddenly change stances when things are reversed. This tells me all I need to know about such people. They are not interested in laws, the constitution, or the choice of others but are only concerned about how to force compliance to their views.
 
upsideguy said:
His firm is going to make $25K/month... that isn't a big deal. Even if he were earning that directly, that isn't all that much for an ivy-league attorney at a major law firm.
Click to expand...

Yup. It's only $300,000 a year if he got that direct, and for a man who graduated from Columbia Law School 40 years ago, that's pocket change.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
It's a state issue in a state that I do not live in and have no plans to move to.

If they want Holder they can have him.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he'll just sow his seeds of racial tension, much as he did as US AG.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'm sure he'll just sow his seeds of racial tension, much as he did as US AG.
Click to expand...
From what I have read, he has no actual power and is in more of an advisory roll. Gee... I wonder what kind of advice he'll be giving?:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom