Downside of Living in an Echo Chamber

I am wondering if this performance represents a failure of Obama's staff to perform even the most rudimentary ideological Turing test.  I am sure it has not been discussed on Lefty blogs, but it would take only the briefest perusal of center or Right news sources to guess that this would be the first and most obvious challenging question Obama would get on his Immigration decision.  Is the President's staff simply not used to getting anything but softball questions?  Or are they just incompetent?

  • Trapper_John

    Wow. That was painful to watch. The argument "it's not the same" is correct--he likes one policy and doesn't like the other, so they're different. Duh.

  • Tom S

    "Is the President's staff simply not used to getting anything but softball questions? Or are they just incompetent?"

    Can't it be both?

  • Matthew Slyfield

    The Stupid is strong with the Obama administration.

  • Sam L.

    Not expecting such a question for George, the True Believer.

  • Ken

    He's used to softball questions, because the media is largely being controlled by government. To understand how this came about, read the current New York Times bestseller,
    Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington by Sharyl Attkisson

  • Noumenon72

    I didn't watch the video, but might the most strategic response when you're accused of deliberately ignoring the Constitution not be "wow, we so totally weren't thinking about that that I didn't even prepare talking points about it!" Better to look dumb than defend it?

  • Zachriel

    It's not that complicated. "The Executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences." — Office of Legal Counsel

    Because of limited resources, the president does have discretion on whether to go after people for capital gains as long as the decision is based on valid enforcement efforts. However, those people would still owe the tax, and the government may later go after those people.

    In the case of immigration law, Congress prioritized the removal of convicted criminals, which reduces resources elsewhere. The courts have ruled that the INA has wide discretion, and that directives to preserve the family unit are within that discretion.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    It’s actually even less complicated, and Obama got it wrong:

    http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-amnesty-problem

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    To my knowledge, no president has ever put forward
    his inability to persuade the Congress to adopt his position as a reason to act
    alone, especially when the system of checks and balances is intended to limit
    the scope of unilateral presidential action.

    That is the problem caused by Obama’s lawless action.

    [FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with toadys, and there have likely been other similar attempts to intimidate various parties, but no sitting president has asserted a petulant right to action]

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Other than Lincoln.

  • DaveK

    Definitely both!

  • DaveK

    I'm surprised that our Dear Leader didn't use his "middle-finger-ear-scratch" at that point... That seems to be his go-to-gesture.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: That is the problem caused by Obama’s lawless action.

    You contested our comment while ignoring its content. The courts have held that the executive does have discretion with regards to immigration laws, especially with regard to keeping families intact, while Congress has made its intent known by prioritizing the deportation of convicted felons.

  • Zachriel

    Yes, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is a case in point. Wonder whatever happened to that guy?
    http://grandwashington.hyatt.com/content/dam/Multimedia/park/wasph/737x415xWASPH_P086_Lincoln_Memorial_1280x720_54628.jpg.pagespeed.ic.-67RdJJkhw.jpg

  • Zachriel

    8 U.S. Code § 1229b

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    No, I refuted your ignorant comment’s content entirely.

    The executive branch is not empowered to act unilaterally given inaction by the legislative (or judicial) branch.

    There is no legal precedent for that action.

    Perhaps you should learn how to read before commenting.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Lincoln was assassinated. That's what happened to that guy.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Where in that statute does it explicitly state “In the absence of Congressional action, the Executive is authorized to act under Constitutional powers granted to him”?

    Nowhere.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: The executive branch is not empowered to act unilaterally given inaction by the legislative (or judicial) branch.

    Arizona v. United States: "A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all... Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns."

    Because it is an executive action, it can be undone either by legislation or by further executive action.

  • Zachriel

    Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain nonpermanent residents ... establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

  • Zachriel

    Yeah, but the slaves are still free.

    --
    In 1908, Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist, told of traveling in the Caucasus, where he was the guest of a wild chieftain and his tribe. The chieftain asked about the great leaders of the world who lived beyond his borders, whereupon Tolstoy spoke of great Tsars and generals from Alexander to Napoleon. But the mountain man said:

    You’ve not told us about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He spoke like the voice of thunder. He laughed like the sunrise; and his deeds were as strong as the rock and as sweet as the fragrance of roses. He was so great that he even forgave the crimes of his greatest enemies, and shook brotherly hands with those who had plotted against his life. His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived was called America. Tell us of that man.

  • Ward Chartier

    What's left to do? Would that Obama resigns today, and Biden tomorrow. One can dream, I suppose.

  • ErikTheRed

    They had such a nice post going and then had to throw in this howler at the end: "Republican presidents obey the Constitution. Unlike him."

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    That is a faulty ruling, as the executive cannot simultaneously decide to not enforce extant law, and prevent the sovereign states from doing so themselves.

    It will be reversed, possibly by force.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Irrelevant.

    Where does it state that the Executive may act in the absence of Congressional action?

    Nowhere.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Your Lincoln worship reveals the true extent of your cataclysmic ignorance.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: It will be reversed, possibly by force.

    Gee whiz.

    In any case, your previous claim that there is no legal precedent was false.

    If you want to reverse an executive action, it only requires new legislation, or another executive action perhaps by a new president.

  • Zachriel

    We certainly don't worship Lincoln, but as we said, the slaves are still free.

  • Zachriel

    The Congress did act, 8 U.S. Code § 1229b. Congress said removal can be cancelled if it creates an unusual hardship to spouse, parent, or child, who is either a citizen, or lawful permanent resident. That's why the executive action only applied to some undocumented aliens, and not others.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    You most definitely worship him, as evidenced by your previous distasteful quote.

    Was slavery immoral? Absolutely, people are not property.

    Was it moral to maneuver the country into a civil war, killing 600,000 Americans, to “solve” it? Doubtful.

    You are a truly ignorant and dangerous person, believing might is right and ends justify means, whatever the cause.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    No, it is absolutely true, unless you use your now infamously tortured logic to conclude that forcing the country into civil war was “legal” (which you do).

    Arizona has taken the first step towards rollback of federal overreach -

    http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Rejection_of_Unconstitutional_Federal_Actions_Amendment,_Proposition_122_(2014)

    Whether this will come into play in the immigration disaster remains to be seen.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    If the Congress acted, then the Executive has no claim to action, because the Congressional action didn’t suit his tastes.

    If he didn’t like the Congressional solution, he should have vetoed the legislation. He cannot unilaterally change it.

    You have multiple problems with your reasoning, Zachs.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: You most definitely worship him, as evidenced by your previous distasteful quote.

    The quote was to show the global influence of Emancipation. The slaves are still free.

  • Zachriel

    Calling for violence when there are peaceful and democratic means for reform is beyond the Pale.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    The quote revealed your Lincoln worship. It was distasteful.

    600,000 Americans are still dead as a result of Lincoln’s actions.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: If the Congress acted, then the Executive has no claim to action

    Congress did act. Congress granted the power to the executive to make certain decisions. That's why some undocumented aliens are included in Obama's executive action, and others are not.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Inciting violence through dictatorial destruction of the established system of government is inexcusable, and extremely dangerous.

  • Zachriel

    The South fired the first shots of the Civil War. They said the preservation of slavery and white supremacy was their goal. The slaves are still free.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: Inciting violence through dictatorial destruction of the established system of government is inexcusable, and extremely dangerous.

    The president acted in accordance with statute and judicial precedent. The executive action can be changed by new legislation or through the peaceful election of a new president. Calling for violence when there are constitutional means available for redress undercuts any point you might be making. ;

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Then Obama has no reason or cause to act, because Congress did act (your assertion is in direct opposition to what Obama has been using to “justify” his action, btw).

    The Executive is not authorized to unilaterally change what Congress enacted.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Highly oversimplified, and wrong, but that’s a whole different conversation.

  • Zachriel

    Simplified, yes. Wrong, no. Have you ever read the declaration of causes of secession? They are very clear. For the southern states, it was all about slavery and white supremacy.

    --
    Mississippi Declaration of Secession: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

    Texas Declaration of Secession: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: The Executive is not authorized to unilaterally change what Congress enacted.

    What Congress enacted was to grant power to the executive to cancel removal when certain conditions are met.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Incorrect.

    Unfortunately, this President has an extremely well-established history of unilateral and inappropriately expansive executive action.

    The true extent of Obama’s lawlessness will come out in the next 2 years, when Congress will effectively be at war with him, and vice versa.

    As Jonathan Turley has observed, in the Madisonian system of government, how you do things is as important as what you do.

    As he has also observed, Obama has become the very danger to government that the Founders warned about -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-4_bnPxiHs

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Completely different discussion, for a different thread.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Congress did not grant the Executive the power to change what they enacted, and he is making the case that Congress did not act at all, so someone is lying.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: Incorrect.

    We provided statute and court rulings supporting our position.

    One can reasonably argue that Obama is expanding executive power, but his actions are within the law. It's up to Congress to push back, if they want to preserve their prerogatives.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: Congress did not grant the Executive the power to change what they enacted

    No. Congress gave the executive power to make decisions to prevent family hardship. That's why only certain undocumented immigrants are included in Obama's executive order.

    They can change that authority at any time through legislation.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Under a “normal” government administration, there would be multiple options for them to do so, but under the most corrupt Attorney General in US history, that is impossible.

    Congress has allowed their power to be usurped by the Executive, much of it illegally and expansively beyond historical standards.

    The unprecedented House lawsuit against a sitting Executive (led by Turley) is prima facie evidence that Obama has been acting well outside the legal envelope.

  • Zachriel

    mesaeconoguy: Congress has allowed their power to be usurped by the Executive, much of it illegally and expansively beyond historical standards

    We were discussing the executive order concerning undocumented immigrants. We have shown you the statute and the judicial precedent. There's also executive precedent.

    mesaeconoguy: The unprecedented House lawsuit against a sitting Executive (led by Turley) is prima facie evidence that Obama has been acting well outside the legal envelope.

    Accusations are not evidence.