Monday, June 30, 2014

Newspaper Apologizes for 2008 Obama Endorsement

The Billings Gazette apologized on Friday for its 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama for president in aneditorial titled “Gazette opinion: Obama earned the low ratings.”
The Gazette said it missed George W. Bush and the “good ol’ days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq.”
It recapped several mistakes Obama has made during his presidency:
  • Obama has also failed on energy policy by not approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which could be helpful to the economy.
  • He has failed in Iraq; the country is now on the brink of civil war.
  • The Gazette wrote that the Bowe Bergdahl exchange made the Obama administration seem incompetent.
  • The VA system has been mismanaged by the Obama administration, leading to veterans dying before they could receive medical care.
  • Obama has also broken his promise to become the “most transparent administration in history.” The Gazette said the president’s administration is so opaque that is has earned a reputation worse than that of Richard Nixon.
The Gazette closed its editorial by noting that these mistakes “demonstrate a disturbing trend of incompetence and failure”:
These are all signs — none of them definitive on their own, necessarily. However, when taken in completely, these demonstrate a disturbing trend of incompetence and failure. It’s not just that Americans are in a sour mood about national politics. That’s probably part of it. Instead, Obama has become another in a line of presidents long on rhetoric and hopelessly short on action.
Obama’s hope and change have left liberals and conservatives alike hoping for real change, not just more lofty rhetoric.


Analysis: Court’s narrow ruling affirms religious freedom, incenses liberals
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday the Obama administration’s implementation of Obamacare violated the religious liberty of several closely held businesses, most notably Hobby Lobby, and was consequently illegal.
The decision is quite limited in its scope and is not likely to cause many changes. However, it is a victory for more than just religious freedom, as it affirms the value of free association in American civic life.
The decision is notable not only for its high-profile content, but also for the partisan split on the Court. Republican presidents appointed all of the justices who voted in the majority of the 5-4 decision, while either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama appointed every justice in the minority.
A narrow ruling
Obamacare requires that all health insurance plans provide preventative care at no charge; the Obama administration interpreted this part of the law to mean that all insurance plans must give women 20 different kinds of contraception for free or face steep fines—the so-called “contraception mandate.”
Hobby Lobby is owned and controlled by a Christian family that believes abortion is morally wrong. They view four of the 20 contraceptives as abortion-inducing and requested an exemption from being forced to give them to their employees.
The case revolved around the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which passed congress nearly unanimously in 1993. That law requires the government prove a compelling interest in curtailing religious freedom while also proving it is acting in the least restrictive way necessary to achieve its end.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, did not even examine whether the government has a compelling interest in giving women free access to contraceptives—it merely assumed that the government does and moved on to the second point.
While Hobby Lobby was facing millions of dollars in fines for not complying with the law, the Obama administration had granted exemptions from the requirement to religious nonprofit organizations. The administration created a way for female employees to receive the contraceptives for free without the organizations paying for them. The exemptions for nonprofit organizations proved that the Obama administration was not implementing the law in the least restrictive way possible.
“The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero,” Alito wrote for the majority, striking down the mandate.
Not just a win for religious freedom
The Court’s decision also asserted the liberty of people to form organizations—even businesses—that align with their personal religious principles.
“Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of ‘persons,’” Alito wrote. “But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.”
By protecting Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom, the Court was protecting Hobby Lobby’s owners’ religious freedom, too. Just as people have the right to form and join nonprofit organizations that promote their own beliefs, they have the right to form for-profit businesses that align with their beliefs.
In other words, the court upheld the right to express beliefs not just as individuals but together in organizations.
An enraged left
The reaction to the Court’s decision by the liberal minority, Democratic politicians, and much of the media has been vociferous.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the minority, described the decision as having a “startling breadth” and would open up the floodgates to businesses “opt[ing] out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing in a concurrence, disagreed.
“At the outset it should be said that the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent,” Kennedy wrote at the beginning of his opinion.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), the minority leader in the House of Representatives, joined Ginsburg’s lamentations.
“Today, the Supreme Court took an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women, setting a dangerous precedent that could permit for-profit corporations to pick and choose which laws to obey,” Pelosi said in astatement. “This deeply misguided and destructive decision is a serious blow to Americans’ ability to make their own health decisions.”
Sen. Harry Reid ( D., Nev.), the Majority Leader of the Senate, made a similarly demonstrative pronouncement.
“Today’s decision jeopardizes women’s access to essential health care,” Reid said in a statement. “Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors.”
The New York Times editorial board was similarly distraught.
“This was a political decision and it is absolutely proper for Democrats to use it as a weapon in the midterm election campaign,” David Firestone wrote on theTimes blog.
The impact of elections
The five justices in the majority—John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito—were each appointed by President Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush. The four in the minority—Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Democrats, as the Times’ editorial board blog post pointed out, seem intent on using the decision to galvanize women ahead of the mid-term election this fall. However, since only the president can nominate justices to the Supreme Court, the 2016 presidential election will likely have a greater impact on the court’s composition.


Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman explains the history of the Global Warming hoax.
Weather Channel Founder John Coleman explains the history of the Global Warming hoax.
John Coleman, an award-winning meteorologist and weatherman with sixty years of experience and founder of the Weather Channel, produced a video explaining the history of the man-made global warming hoax (see video below)
Coleman, a former broadcast meteorologist of the year of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), explains that after being a member for several years, he quit the AMS after it became very clear to him that “the politics had gotten in the way of the science.” Coleman explains that there is no man-made global warming, and he’s sure of it. 

Coleman says that if there were evidence of man-made global warming, he would have been dedicated his life to stopping it: 

“I love our wonderful planet Earth. If I thought it was threatened by global warming, I would devote my life to stopping the warming!”
Now they call it “climate change” instead of global warming, because the warming has stopped, says Coleman, and that $4.7 billion in taxpayer money is funding “bogus reports” and “bogus research.” 

Coleman explains that any warming or “climate change” is extremely negligible from a long-term perspective and certainly nothing unusual or alarming, and points out that Antarctic sea ice is close to an all-time high, and the polar bear population is as high as it’s been in recorded history. 

In regards to rising sea levels, Coleman says that:

“It’s rising at about the rate of about six inches per hundred years, as part of this inter-glacial period. When North America was covered in a 400 foot thick ice core at the end of the last ice age, the oceans were low, and then as that ice melted, of course the oceans have risen. That rise has been gentle and is not important.”
At about the 11:30 mark, Coleman begins a detailed explanation about just how the global warming hoax was started and heated up, including how Al Gore got involved in the movement.  WATCH BELOW



Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom in Hobby Lobby Case

The government can’t compel a “closely held”  business such as the Hobby Lobby chain to cover abortion-inducing drugs or devices in employee health plans if doing so would violate the employer’s moral and religious beliefs, the Supreme Court ruled today.
In a much-anticipated decision, the justices decided 5-4 that the Obamacare provision mandating such coverage in all employee health plans is an unconstitutional restriction on the religious liberty of family-owned, for-profit companies.
Those companies include Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, the two family businesses — one owned by evangelical Christians, the other by Mennonites — that challenged the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services.
The court has “little trouble” concluding the HHS  mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion:
The Hahns [owners of Conestoga Wood]  and the Greens [owners of Hobby Lobby] believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.
Americans “don’t give up their rights to religious freedom just because they open a family-run business,” Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby, said in an interview on CNN.
Alliance Defending Freedom represented Conestoga Wood in the consolidated case that was argued March 25 before the Supreme Court.
The HHS mandate, arising out of  a section of the Affordable Care Act, requires employers’ insurance plans for workers to cover 20 potentially life-ending drugs and devices such as Plan B and Ella. If  employers don’t comply, they face hefty fines of  up to $100 per day, per employee.
Supporters of the Obamacare provision, such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, echoed the Obama administration’s argument in saying that exempting some employers on grounds of religion would unfairly limit the access of some women to birth control and other health services.
“Their narrow judgment said that it’s absolutely OK for bosses to make personal decisions for women about our health care,” NARAL President Ilyse Hogue said of the majority’s decision. 
Alito was joined in his majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Alito wrote that the court’s decision is limited to coverage of contraceptive products required by the health care law:
 Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
In her 35-page dissent, Ginsburg called the decision “potentially sweeping” because it minimizes the government’s interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace:
In the court’s view, RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. 
The decision was expected to address whether the owners of private, for-profit corporations have the right to live out their beliefs in the marketplace, or whether they must by law, check their values and religious convictions at the door.
“This is a victory for all Americans, regardless of belief or tradition,” Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint said in a prepared statement, adding:
The Obama administration must recognize that every American has a right to live and work abiding by the convictions of his or her faith. In the words of John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister and signer of the Declaration of Independence, ‘There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.’

The Supreme Court Defended Religious Liberty in the Hobby Lobby Case; It Didn't Ban Birth Control


In the link below someone needs to tell this Dumbas to see the link Above!

WH on Hobby Lobby Decision: You are Jeopardizing Women's Health


Is Obama Trying To Get Us Killed?

As thousands of disease-riddled criminals storm across our borders, is it really time to mince words? President Obama appears to have an Agenda for America that stinks worse than a Border Patrol bus depot crammed with urine-drenched illegals.  Is the man trying to protect and defend us, or does he want us to kick the bucket, run down the curtain, and join the choir invisible?
On January 29, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security advertised for a vendor to escort 65,000 “unaccompanied alien children,” indicating that they not only knew the alien invasion was coming, they planned it.
Now the feds are spreading these disease vectors from sea to shining sea, stuffed full of HIV, scabies, TB, swine flu, MRSA staph infections, syphilis, and other communicable infestations.  “One person can infect a thousand people, and then that thousand can infect thousands more. There is an exponential increase," warnspublic health expert Dr. Elizabeth Van Vliet.
Already, Border Patrol agents are getting sick from these contacts; soon these kids will start showing up in your public school. If you found it annoying when little Jake caught that cold that was going around, wait till he comes home with swine flu.
Mixed among the multitudes are notorious gang members, drug dealers, sex criminals, and terrorists. The gangs will massacre us in our cities, the drug dealers will rape our children’s minds, and the terrorists will disassemble our loved ones’ body parts. As for those poor pathetic youngsters brought here by human smugglers, they eventually will get the jobs that Americans won’t do – working as sex slaves.
Meanwhile, last week, Obama quietly finished eliminating multi-warheads on all ground-based nuclear missiles. It was no big thing, you understand. One day, he looked up from his golf game, saw the world was serenely at peace, and decided to junk our missile defense.  As his 2010 Nuclear Posture Review helpfully explained, scrapping our warheads will "enhance the stability of the nuclear balance by reducing the incentives for either side to strike first."
I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to know that the recent unpleasantness in Ukraine did not stop the Russians’ access to our nuclear bases. In an article titled, “Russia Checks U.S. Nuclear Missile Silos Amid Tensions,” Global Security Newswirereports:
Russian experts visited Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana on April 9 to ensure that each intercontinental ballistic missile firing site had been loaded with soil and crushed rock, and that their entryways could no longer seal shut. Their trip was one of eight annual checks Moscow can conduct at U.S. installations under the New START arms control treaty.
"Overall, we felt the process went smoothly," said Col. Marne Deranger, vice commander of Malmstrom's 341st Missile Wing.
How marvelous that things went smoothly! I’m so glad the Russians were pleased.
The same week that Obama finished dismantling our multi-warheads, we learned that the Pentagon is preparing to actively recruit transsexuals. We may no longer have an adequate missile defense, but don’t worry: the trannies will defend us with their purses.
And let’s hope those trannies can really swing it, because Obama’s Middle East ministrations are birthing an Al Qaeda caliphate, engorged on oil and tons of our leftover weapons. 9/11 was brought to you by 19 hijackers, armed only with knives and box-cutters. I’m not sure I want to be around when ISIS comes calling through our open borders, or on an airplane they can now board, since a federal judge ruled that no-fly-lists are unconstitutional.

When terror inflames our streets, we hope our veterans will race to protect us. But how many veterans will be left, once the Veterans Administration gets through with them? Obama’s minions awarded bonuses to 65 percent of VA senior executives last year for hastening the demise of over 1,000 veterans. Obama knewfor years about the secret wait lists, which the VA hid by covering up patients who died, still yearning for that never-to-be-gotten medical appointment.
And then, alas, there is the man’s signature “achievement”: ObamaCare. A studiously incurious media has failed to inform us, but already Americans are dying from its tender mercies, including Doug Graham’s little sister Julie and Stephen Blackwood’s cancer-riddled mother. As for the dangers awaiting the rest of the citizenry, let little Norah stand for us all. This tiny blue-eyed beauty doesn’t deserve her cardiologist, say our masters, and who are we to argue?
It’s difficult to keep count, but Obama’s various maneuvers seem to heighten the probability that we’ll be shot, stabbed, run over, bombed, gassed, overdosed, beheaded, starved, strangled, sickened, and generally hounded to death.
Of course, Obama may not want all Americans shuffling off this mortal coil. He may need some starving wretches still around to hector about our global warming sins, while Michelle lectures us on the proper way to eat worms.
I sure hope our friends and neighbors enjoyed voting for this history-making president. There may not be too much enjoyment left.

Katie Pavlich ➡ It Is NOT The President's Job To Change Law


Sunday, June 29, 2014

Harry Reid and Senate Dems Refuse To Actually Legislate

This Guy is still a Dirtbag. People from Nevada should have retired this Clown! If their Policies were good for this Country they would not be in this position!

With Democrats scared that they're going to lose the Senate in the November 2014 elections, they've been very hesitant to actually legislate. Doing so would require some of their members to actually take a position on some important issues, and in response to that, they're just grinding everything to a halt.
Well, more than usual.
The Associated Press actually delves into the issue. There's nothing wrong with refusing to legislate - a government that isn't doing anything is a government that isn't doing any bad things - but Democrats often blame Republicans for "blocking legislation."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., now is requiring an elusive 60-vote supermajority to deal with amendments to spending bills, instead of the usual simple majority, a step that makes it much more difficult to put politically sensitive matters into contention. This was a flip from his approach to Obama administration nominees, when he decided most could be moved ahead with a straight majority instead of the 60 votes needed before.
It's not just Harry Reid stopping action on the floor of the Senate. Even in the committee process, Democrats are halting action:
In the Appropriations Committee, long accustomed to a freewheeling process, chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., has held up action on three spending bills, apparently to head off politically difficult votes on changes to the divisive health care law as well as potential losses to Republicans on amendments such as McConnell's on the coal industry.
While the AP describes this as a new trend, this is pretty par for the course in the Obama era. Harry Reid hasn't allowed Republicans so much as a hint of a say in the legislative process in the Senate. That's just how President Obama likes it, as well.
As the AP writes, the top Democrats that they're trying to protect are Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), and Mary Landrieu (Louisiana). All three of them are considered some of the most vulnerable Dems this November.

Trey Gowdy: NOT Obama’s Job to ‘Outmaneuver’ the Constitution

Congressman Trey Gowdy commented on the Supreme Court’s unanimous 9-0 decision to strike down Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the Senate was actually in session. Congressman Gowdy says that it’s Obama’s job to follow the Constitution, not outmaneuver it for political expediency:
“The Constitution is not a tool to be wielded for political expediency.  It is the supreme law of the land and the President’s responsibility is to take care that it is followed, not outmaneuvered.”
 Gowdy said that Obama doesn’t get to change the definition of the word “recess,” just to fit his political whims, and that Obama should know better, since he claims to be a constitutional expert:
“Even a cursory understanding of the Constitution dictates the conclusion that the definition of ‘recess’ does not change depending upon which political party is in power, which is why the Supreme Court ruled 9-0.”

“For the President, who once taught constitutional law, to force the Supreme Court to do what the plain language of the Constitution makes clear is not leadership. In the process, he has left the NLRB in a state of legal flux and compromised litigants, employees, and employers.”


Shifting Sands

I hope People are waking up to Reality!

If you paid close attention this week, you could see the sand shifting under Obama’s feet. From public opinion to the federal courts to the president’s former putative allies, it was not a good week to be Obama, and it’s likely to get worse for him. Walkabouts in D.C., travels to distant fundraisers, preposterous flailing on the international scene, and more shots with his cute kids are not going to change the situation as far as I can tell. Yet he lacks other options.
1. Hard Drives are Crashing all over the Place
This week, the efforts to push the IRS scandal under the carpet seem to be unavailing. Increased numbers of IT experts say the crashed drive story is implausible.
"The notion that these emails just magically vanished makes no sense whatsoever. That is not how IT asset management at major businesses and government institutions works in this country.
When the hard drive in question was destroyed, the IRS should have called in an accredited IT Asset Destruction (ITAD) professional or firm to complete that process, which requires extensive documentation, official signoffs, approvals, and signatures of completion. If this was done, there would be records. If this was not done, this is the smoking gun that proves the drive or drives were destroyed improperly – or not at all."
Barbara Rembiesa, President, International Association of Information Technology Asset Managers (IAITAM)
In fact, once the story spread to include 6 other email accounts of IRS officers, all that remained was for the IRS to ask us to clap our hands if we believed in Tinkerbelle, too.
The wave of computer crashes apparently struck both Washington, D.C. -- where Lois Lerner oversaw the agency’s Exempt Organizations division -- and also Cincinnati, Ohio -- where agents processed tax-exempt applications.
A noted rocket scientist of my acquaintance on hearing that version responded: “It would be interesting to estimate the probability that that IRS is telling the truth about the PARTICULAR 6 computers crashing at random…. if they have 90000 employees… the probability is something like one out of a numbers with around 24 ‘0’s.”
In fact, no one seems to be buying the IRS tale. A Fox news Poll indicates 76% of Americans believe the IRS deliberately destroyed the emails evincing it had deliberately targeted Obama’s opponents in violation of the law.
Capping off the week, we learned that the EPA is now also claiming crashed drives destroyed a critical email trail.
The EPA is being accused of slow-walking several requests by the House committee to provide lawmakers with documents involving alleged employee misconduct on a number of thorny issues, including conflicts among the EPA, the Office of Inspector General and agency management as well as the EPA’s action related to the veto of the controversial Pebble Mine project in Alaska.
Lawmakers at the hearing wanted McCarthy to address lost emails from a hard-drive crash at the agency that wiped out some emails from former employee Philip North to his bosses at the EPA over the controversial Alaska mine project.
Complicating matters, North has gone off the proverbial grid, making it difficult for lawmakers to issue a subpoena for him to testify.
Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., asked McCarthy if she knew where North was.
“No sir, I don’t know that,” she responded.
Bentivolio pressed McCarthy about claims North’s hard drive crashed, making some of his emails unavailable.
McCarthy said the EPA has submitted all the documents it has been able to find and will “continue the search.”
“There are some gaps, but we have submitted significant amounts,” McCarthy said.
Emails from North, now retired, recently surfaced that seemed to show the Alaska-based biologist tried to get the Pebble Mine project killed as far back as 2008.
Those emails -- and memos indicating government officials worked early on with tribal leaders and environmental groups to oppose the venture -- raised questions about the agency's claims that when it ultimately vetoed the gold-and-copper mine project, it did so based on scientific evidence.
Emails from North’s account show that he “appeared to have played a key role in the EPA’s decision to pursue a veto,” Caitlin Carroll, a spokeswoman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told FoxNews.com.
When he was still reachable, North was asked multiple times to come in and talk to lawmakers about the project. He offered up a list of complications that prevented him from meeting with the government, including a pre-planned, one-year boat ride around the world with his school-aged children.
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows asked McCarthy whether North had backed up his emails and suggested there might be a violation of federal record-keeping rules.
Internet wit Iowahawk nailed it as usual: “Apparently, the leading cause of hard drive failures is subpoenas.”
By the end of the week, Clinton spinmeister Lanny Davis was arguing for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate the IRS.
As a matter of fact, there no longer is a statute allowing the appointment of an independent counsel, and with the Senate in Democrat hands I wouldn’t count on a new statute authorizing one to be passed. A special prosecutor could be appointed by the Attorney General but given his record of unparalleled lawlessness, that hardly seems a solution to be wished for.
On the other hand, there may be some legal redress on the horizon.
2. The Spoilation of Evidence and Failure to Comply with Discovery Rules
It may well be, however, that the case will explode as a result of private litigation, not Congressional hearings. As American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson noted, the case brought by Z Street, a pro-Israel interest group, denied tax exempt status by Lois Lerner, may be the trigger.
The involves a case filed in August 2010. The Wall Street Journal noted of it:
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and legal precedent, once the suit was filed the IRS was required to preserve all evidence relevant to the viewpoint-discrimination charge. That means that no matter what dog ate Lois Lerner's hard drive or what the IRS habit was of recycling the tapes used to back up its email records of taxpayer information, it had a legal duty not to destroy the evidence in ongoing litigation.
In private white-collar cases, companies facing a lawsuit routinely operate under what is known as a "litigation hold," instructing employees to affirmatively retain all documents related to the potential litigation. A failure to do that and any resulting document loss amounts to what is called "willful spoliation," or deliberate destruction of evidence if any of the destroyed documents were potentially relevant to the litigation.
At the IRS, that requirement applied to all correspondence regarding Z Street, as well as to information related to the vetting of conservative groups whose applications for tax-exempt status were delayed during an election season. Instead, and incredibly, the IRS cancelled its contract with email-archiving firm Sonasoft shortly after Ms. Lerner's computer "crash" in June 2011.
In the federal District of Columbia circuit where Z Street's case is now pending, the operating legal obligation is that "negligent or reckless spoliation of evidence is an independent and actionable tort." In a 2011 case a D.C. district court also noted that "Once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must suspend its routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a 'litigation hold' to ensure the preservation of relevant documents."
The government's duty is equally pressing. "When the United States comes into court as a party in a civil suit, it is subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as any other litigant," the Court of Federal Claims ruled in 2007. The responsibility to preserve evidence should have been a topic of conversation between the IRS chief counsel's office and the Justice Department lawyers assigned to handle the Z Street case.
The case opens the door into the IRS destruction of evidence, setting up separate tort claims against those responsible.
And the Z Street case is not the only one where the government is on the hotseat respecting the IRS documents.
Internal Revenue Service officials will have to explain to a federal judge July 10 why the tax agency didn't inform the court that Lois Lerner's emails had been lost.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmett G. Sullivan quickly granted a motion filed earlier today by attorneys for Judicial Watch seeking a courtroom status conference “as soon as possible to discuss the IRS's failure to fulfill its duties to this court under the law, as well as other ramifications of this lawsuit.”
In its motion, the non-profit watchdog noted that the IRS publicly acknowledged loss of Lerner emails to and from individuals outside of the agency early in February 2014.
Then on Feb. 26, the tax agency provided its first production of documents in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed in October 2013.
No mention was made in that production of the lost Lerner emails, even though the original Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed in May 2013 specifically sought them.
Judicial Watch further noted that "although IRS had knowledge of the missing Lois Lerner emails and of the other IRS officials, it materially omitted any mention of the missing records" in an April 30 status update on its document production. [snip]  The tax agency could also face court sanctions or even criminal proceedings if Sullivan is not satisfied with the government's explanation.
Judge Sullivan presided over the Department of Justice’s horrible prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens (since reversed ) and should  by that experience hold no presumptions about the integrity of the government lawyers before him. He has seen the low ethical and professional caliber of those who handled that case, the worst example of prosecutorial misconduct outside of the Duke Lacrosse case in my memory.
3. Obama Twice Puts the NLRB’s work in Legal Limbo, Creating Yet More Chaos
While the public and Congress seem to have found the plethora of email eating computers incredible, the Supreme Court has now handed Obama what appears to be his 12th unanimous defeat, as even his handpicked members refuse to go along with his outrageous, overreaching executive conduct.
In 2010, after he could not get his appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB attempted to operate without a legal quorum. After a successful challenge to that obviously illegal move, about 600 decisions the tribunal issuedwere of no legal effect. Most were never relitigated to the Board.
It speaks ill of the education Harvard Law School provided Obama that he hasn’t figured out that under our laws an illegally constituted tribunal is without effect but a scant two years later he repeated the error.
This latest defeat involves the president’s refusal in January 2012 to follow precedent respecting the Congress’s decision as to when it is in recess.

(Subsequently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rammed through a provision to the Senate rules, making it harder thereafter for a minority party to filibuster presidential appointments. Thus, recess appointments are now less necessary for a president hoping to install unpopular candidates. My online friend Alex Bensky predicts, “If the GOP wins back the Senate this fall, Harry Reid and the Democrats will suddenly find that allowing filibusters in everything, specifically judicial appointments, is a cornerstone of democracy.”)
He made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board at a time when Congress explicitly denied it was in recess. It is a longstanding precedent of obvious merit in a system where power is divided among the three branches of government that the executive and judiciary must respect the procedural rules the legislature sets for itself. The Senate had sought a longer than three-day break and the House had refused to grant it. (Ironically, these short breaks were a tactic Senate Majority Leader Reid had devised to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments.) Now that the White House was in Democrat hands, the president felt free to ignore the Congressional jurisdiction to set its own rules about recesses and went ahead with appointments to the NLRB anyway.

Obama’s improvident action and the Court’s rebuke now set hundreds of cases decided in the 19 months these unlawful appointments were in effect -- I’ve seen figures in the 430 case range -- in limbo. Approximately 100 of these cases are in court already having been challenged for the lack of a legal quorum and those challenges surely must be upheld under this ruling. As for the remainder, unless the losing party before the Board decides to simply comply,the Board will have to relitigate them, even if, as some have predicted, they result in similar outcomes. Relitigating so many matters will surely strain their operations and delay action on new matters,
However this turns out, the president’s petulance, disrespect for the coequal branches of government, and boundless view of his powers continues to add to the kinds of uncertainty and stasis that is so harmful to our economic and political life. His shortcomings deny him firm footing …they are a kind of quicksand into which he is rapidly sinking beyond rescue.