U S V Varona Department of Justice Justice Form

I don't think that Holder was pushed out, at all. He serves at the president's will, like any AG, once appointed, and by all accounts, President Obama was sorry to see him go. It seems clear that Holder acted as the president's proxy in some areas where Obama has felt he can't take an overt stand, especially regarding social justice and race--something one sees as recently as in Holder's trip to Ferguson, Missouri, and in the longer range in the Justice Department's unfolding focus on capital punishment and the inequalities and lack of efficacy in its application.The wording of this question contains a tacit assumption that Holder should have been pushed out sooner, or that he was pushed out at all, and I'm not sure this is accurate. Certainly it seems that he is leaving under his own steam--my sense is that Obama would prefer that he stay, perhaps partly because the confirmation battle for a new AG in a deadlocked congress is bound to be a messy one, and perhaps partly because Obama has consistently demonstrated a great deal of loyalty to his appointees.Whether Holder has "held on" as AG despite some of the failures on his watch--the position covers a lot of bureaucratic terrain and there certainly are some incidents in departments he oversees that have been unfortunate and messy--depends on how one parses the quality of his tenure. My sense is that Obama is canny enough to recognize the limits to any cabinet-level appointee's ability to control the inertial systems he or she oversees, and that Holder performed a very useful role for him, as a sort of proxy in matters of social justice.It seems clear to me  that Holder is leaving for personal reasons, not being asked to go, and in that sense he has neither "held on" nor is being "pushed out." However one may judge his execution of his role., ultimately, he serves at the will of the president, and from everything I have read, Obama would have preferred that he stay in office.

"Legal" is that which the law permits.  Simple as that.Was it legal for Union troops to fight and kill what were, essentially, American Citizens seceding from the Union during the Civil War?  Was it legal for the US to kill American citizens fighting on behalf of Italy or Germany during WWII?  (some did)If US citizens are outside the USA, fighting on behalf of the US's enemies, with explicit intent on doing harm to the USA, frankly, I have no issue with the US government killing them the same way the US government might target a terrorist or enemy combatant.  Ultimately the Supreme Court is the arbiter of these things.  My guess is that they'll come down on the side of the US government and thus, such actions become de jure legal and not just de facto.

"How much of other people's money would crooks spend to get the verdict their bosses demanded of them"All of it.$4,800,000,000,000,000.That's the total estimated  value of everything on earth - 4,800 Trillion dollars.  Maybe a little higher when you consider that governments can (and do) borrow against future earnings.

Because they don’t want their targets get help! And the government know who have been involved with those kind of operation! However, the government couldn’t tell which operation is a real deal from their secret agency or which one is some corrupt agents’ self-made part time job!Also, there might have been too many cases of mental illness patients reports or even more fake mental cases forged by the corrupt agents in order to sabotage all the victims who report gang stalking!

Some. Less than most people would believe.Humanities departments are definitely left leaning. Few would be surprised to learn that. Fewer people wqould be surprised to learn that engineering and business departments tend to be right-leaning.Many HUM departments rely heavily upon adjuncts for suvey classes. Many are failed PhDs. Some are recent PhDs. with limited real-world experience. These tend to be idealistic. As reality bites, may adjuncts get regular jobs and perhaps continue part-time.Some full-time HUM faculty can also be idealistic. Like other faculty, HUM professors are experts in their narrow specialties. Many spend most of their time sheltered from the worst parts of realities. Faculty who complain about heavy teaching loads have not needed tomove real boxes in the real world. Tenure allows many faculty to think what they want and say what they want provided they meet reequired quantity and quality levels of publications. Combined that means HUM faculty are a little more idealistic and a little less cuatious than say technical writers in industry.On the other hand HUM faculty members span the ideological spectrum, I know many right-wing faculty inhabiting HUM departments.HUM faculty members have heavy obligations, like most employees. They need to cover their classes, handle committee meetings, supervise TAs, perform other service and do research. Most have limited time for any kind of activism. You are more likely to see HUM faculty bleat on Quora or FaceBook than devote huge amount of time to heavy protests.Most HUM faculty are risk averse. In general, successful academics play it safe and keep their nose to the grindstone. If HUM faculty had more guts, they would pursue the big bucks in-law or industry. Many HUM faculty will hit the occasional Pride event or join occasional peaceful protests, but few will devote more than a few hours a week to anything other than their jobs, research and family. Hard core SJWs are much more likely to be trust fund babies (just like the alt-right) or failed grad students who use the temp gig (e.g., adjunct) to fund their hobby.Thanks for the A2A, Allen Shen

Without going back and re-reading the Circuit Court opinions, my recollection of them is that the Tenth Circuit's opinion rested most squarely on the notion of "marriage as a fundamental right" and treated the sex-equality or protected-class concerns as side issues, and I have the same impression from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion.  The Fourth and Seventh Circuits held there was no rational relationship to justify the bans; the Ninth went so far as to posit that official discrimination against gay people should be subject to intermediate scrutiny using the "protected class" regimen (a discussion Kennedy avoided).  All four of these decisions cited Romer v. Evans.  A few district courts decided the issue on straight sex-discrimination grounds.Only the Sixth Circuit's opinion (which held that the marriage restrictions could be "rational") was actually on appeal; cert. had been denied in the other cases.  The issue of whether gay rights is one of a protected class is up in the air.[There were only five Circuit Court opinions. The First, Second, Third, and D.C. Circuits were never required to rule on the issue as it was resolved by state courts or political process, or in the case of Pennsylvania by the state's declining to appeal the district court ruling, in their territories.  The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, and possibly the Eighth, had appeals pending at the time and had not yet issued opinions.]