Obama Administration Declares It Will Not Deport Young Illegal Immigrants

The Obama Administration again waited for a Friday afternoon to announce a major new policy change — repeating its practice of timing important announcements to reduce media and public attention. The latest change is obviously controversial. The Administration will no longer deport illegal aliens under 30 who came to this country as children — effectively negating part of the federal law. It raises some troubling questions, again, about President Obama assertion of executive power. While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination. It is one more brick in the wall of the Imperial Presidency constructed under Barack Obama — a wall that may prove difficult to dismantle for citizens in the future.

Presidents are given extreme deference in decisions on the enforcement of federal laws. It would be difficult for anyone to challenge this policy for that reason. However, that does not mean that this is a good practice — regardless of the merits of specific policy. It is also hard to ignore the obvious political play for Hispanic votes in key swing states. Obama waited for years to take this action and did so with polls showing that Hispanics will likely select the next president. Even some of the more liberal columnists and reporters are acknowledging that this change appears driven by politics.

Obama officials do not deny that they are circumventing Congress. In a recent interview, senior Obama adviser David Plouff told CNN “if congress would act, we would be happy to sign the DREAM Act tomorrow.” Since it has not done so, the White House is going to accomplish the same objection unilaterally.

This is different from past presidents who have not made deportation a priority in their policies. Despite the criticism of Obama, he is certainly no less aggressive on deportation than his predecessors. Indeed, he may be more aggressive in terms of numbers. Presidents like George W. Bush clearly did not push for deportation based solely on illegal status. The Administration, however, was forced to admit this long-suspected policy in court in fighting the Arizona law — stating that it did conflict with federal policy because the Administration did not want mass deportations.

This is different. Here the Administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal immigrations regardless of their age. Congress has refused to pass such laws and this is an obvious effort to circumvent Congress — something of a signature for this Administration. Liberals were outraged by Bush’s use of signing statements as a circumvention of Congress. Yet, when Obama broke his promise and started using signing statements, liberals were again silent. Now, he has gone further and (rather than advancing a restrictive interpretation) he has announced that he will simply not enforce the law.

The change could also create a new conflict with states passing tough immigration laws. We are awaiting the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Arizona case where the Administration may lose some ground. The announcement on Friday could be an effort to preempt the decision. If the Administration had already decided to stop deportations, it would look bad to come after the decision and appear to be circumventing both the judicial and legislative branches.

This is part of a pattern for the Administration. For example, the Administration has announced that it will ignore two federal statutes that bar betting across state lines. That effectively legalized Internet gambling. While his Administration claims that it has no choice but to enforce other laws like marijuana enforcement and for years, both DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell laws, it has not hesitated to declare other laws as unenforceable as a matter of policy. Ultimately, it took the same approach to DOMA — after years of defending it. DOMA is striking in that the Administration still refuses to accept that sexual orientation should be treated like race or gender as a category of discrimination. If it did, the refusal to defend DOMA would have been more clearly based on a view that it is unconstitutional. Instead, the Administration made general claims of states rights (that do not apply to areas like medical marijuana it seems) and even more vague references to privacy and equal protection.

What is left is a conflicted approach to enforcement based on the president’s changing views — in the latest case a change that seems motivated in large part by political advantage.

Liberals and civil libertarians were united on such questions in denouncing the circumvention of Congress by Bush. However, once again, there appears to be a blindness to the dangers of this practice when it comes to Obama. What will happen if a President Romney simply declares that he is not going to enforce environmental law or conflict laws or other parts of the federal code? Is the difference going to be simply that he is not Obama? Liberals are losing not just their credibility but principles in these controversies. Our system is based on a careful balancing of power that forces disparate factional groups to reach agreements in the legislative process. That is what brings the stability to our system.

This latest controversy is not about young illegal immigrants. There are strong policy arguments in favor of this change. However, those arguments need to be made in Congress. This should also not be an “after-the-fact” debate following a change late on a Friday where the president simply grants the equivalent of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of people. Polls show a sharply divided population with a majority favoring tougher immigration laws. We have a political system designed to address such divisive issues. It does not always work the way presidents demand. Indeed, the Democrats previously used filibusters and other techniques to block the Bush Administration and how the Republicans are doing the same thing. However, that is the point. Presidents should not be able to simply make federal laws discretionary to their whim or will. This may be a worthy end but it is the wrong means in a system based on shared powers of government.

Source: Politico

186 thoughts on “Obama Administration Declares It Will Not Deport Young Illegal Immigrants

  1. Professor,
    I have to respectfully disagree with you here. While the timing can be viewed as suspect, I don’t think you can ignore the fact that the Republicans in the Senate have un-Democratically blocked the DREAM Act with filibusters and won’t allow it to be even discussed in the House. When the right thing is blocked for partisan and political purposes, no President can wait out for a Congress that has openly stated its number one purpose is to make this President a one term President.
    Bush didn’t have a Congress that was obstructing his policies en masse. The Congress and Senate cooperated far too much for my liking and for the good of the country, in my opinion. Just compare the judicial appointments that are still being blocked by the Republicans in the Senate in record numbers and you will see that Congress is broken and we all know who broke it.

  2. Is what Pres. Obama did actually an executive order? What number is it? I can’t find that information in any of the articles I’ve read, but I could have missed it.

    Pres. Obama is in the position to not enforce a federal law that is on the books and Sec. Napolitano is in agreement to not enforce the law. It is in a way similar to election officials in Florida refusing to enforce the voter registration purge.

    It’s obvious that I am a lay-person in terms of law, so don’t hit me too hard on this. But I am very curious to learn.

  3. “President Barack Obama’s decision to stop the deportation of some immigrant children wasn’t politically motivated and didn’t expand his executive powers, White House senior adviser David Plouffe said.

    The policy is “fully within our ability,” Plouffe said today on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “This is not amnesty, this is not citizenship.”

    The deportation rule is a decision made by the Department of Homeland Security that will enforce the policy, according to Plouffe.

    “The Homeland Security attorneys are absolutely confident this is within our authority,” Plouffe said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “We still need a permanent fix.”

    Plouffe said congressional action on immigration overhaul is still needed. Obama is ready to sign into law the Dream Act which is designed to provide a path to legal status for younger undocumented immigrants. That legislation has been stalled in Congress. ” Bloomberg News

  4. This is the rule of fiat. It is in fact quite dangerous. Clearly, Obama’s handlers tell him to do this and don’t do that so that he will get elected. What is to prevent president Obama from changing his mind again once he gets elected? Nothing!

    His supporters completely ignore or even cheer on the dismantling of the rule of law. Cheer for torture, cheer for murder, cheer for women’s rights. Cheer for gay rights. Cheer for immigrants. Cheer for cluster bombs! But all of these things are connected. They depend on the willing acquiescence of citizens to lawlessness.

    It never strikes supporters that there is something fishy about Obama just now discovering that women are in trouble in this society. That gay and lesbian people do not have full equality, that immigrants have been dying in the custody of ICE a Federal agency. It never bothers them that Obama is even now, showing he does not care about these issues as a real problem, only as an election year PR disaster. He continues to engage in actions which are prejudicial to women, gays and immigrants.

    Some will immediately say, OMG, don’t let Romney do it! What is the argument against Romney? Why be offended that Romney will do something Obama is doing? That makes no sense. Pointing out that Romney will do something is a reason not to vote for him. Pointing out what Obama is doing is a reason not to vote for him. Without an underlying set of principles, these arguments ring hollow.

    Then there is the prudential argument. Every power supporters grant to Obama in fact will pass to another president, perhaps even to the evil Mitt Romney. Mitt will engage in these dastardly actions which, while approved under Obama might not look so hot under Romney.

    The answer to this conundrum is to have underlying principles as a people, ones that we don’t sell out for a chance to “win” an election. Rather, they are ideals that we hold to for the benefit of all the people in our nation.

  5. The pattern of violations of law here is obvious, and it is much worse than this article suggests. President Obama obviously has no respect for the law, and violates it at every opportunity. His “rationale” in the case of immigration law is simple: pandering to the Hispanic voting community to buy votes. But the attack on the law is equally evident with the U.S. Supreme Court, who attacked long-established protections under the First Amendment–eviserating First Amendment whistleblower protections for government employees in its majority opinion in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos. The USA is under attack from all sides.

  6. Once again, I agree with Raff. What congress? Do we have a congress? If there is politcal motivation it is to expose the lack of action/obstruction by the GOP.

  7. Can’t win for losing. The Republicans in Congress are literally committing treason against this country by refusing to do anything to help the economy, unless safety net programs are shredded. This does not mean in my opinion that Democrats and/or the President have behaved in a pristine manner, that is far from the case. However, when democratically elected legislators insist on behaving anti-democratically who then is to run the country and how is it to be run? As Franklin alluded a republic is hard to run. How do you run it when the opposition refuses to accept the judgment of the ballot box, as they did with Clinton and are doing with Obama?

  8. “His supporters completely ignore or even cheer on the dismantling of the rule of law.”

    Jill,

    I’m sure you’re “shocked” by this new revelation about the Satan in the White House.

  9. Mike,

    You need to face reality some time. When are you going to do it? Obama isn’t even in charge, the military is. You accept illegal and cruel behavior because you believe in Obama. You need to stop believing and start looking at reality. You were a social worker and you know what happens when people simply will not face the truth.

    Alan and rafflaw,

    We don’t have a functioning executive either. You won’t solve this nation’s problems by granting powers to the executive. You will only solve them by standing firm for the rule of law. (We don’t have a functioning upper level judiciary either. We are in big trouble.)

  10. I think it’s a horrible decision. It’s one thing to use prosecutorial discretion over which crimes to prioritize. It’s something completely different to announce, in contravention of the law that you will not only refuse to deport a class of illegal immigrants but will grant them work permits. And to do this at a time of 8% unemployment?

    From a purely political move it’s brilliant because it boxed Romney in.
    But I don’t think we want to start having the precedent that any time the President can’t get something done thru Congress he can just do it administratively.

    If a President Romney were to announce that the IRS/Treasury would no longer investigate or prosecute people who did not pay capital gains taxes or that the FBI was getting out of the business of going after people who bombed abortion clinics or harassed workers there, I think many people would be upset. There is a process to follow and use.

  11. I suspect the OLC must have issued a review of this action prior to the action being taken. I would like to see what they said. In the meantime, Professor Turley makes some troubling points.

  12. I wonder if ICE will come after the kids’ parents who will be outed. Could be a clever way to find more undocumented immigrants, after the election, of course. Or is that too cynical?

  13. rafflaw-“the fact that the Republicans in the Senate have un-Democratically blocked the DREAM Act with filibusters and won’t allow it to be even discussed in the House.”

    rafflaw, I agree with you on most of your points. Congress is busted, because the people who elected them are busted. The fault lies with the electorate, as much as the actual bodies in congress. However, you say “un-Deomcratically blocked”, but that is part of the system created by congress as part of our republican form of government. It’s very democratic, it’s just mind blowingly stupid. “…and you all know who broke it.” Yep. Libs, Conservatives, and all those in between.

    frandavey- An Executive Order, by definition, is a legally binding order given by the president to federal agencies. The courts have long granted the president a great deal of leeway in the management of the executive functions, including things that may go against the will of congress. However, I don’t see how this can be constitutional. I don’t know much of the case law involved, but Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Laws? What laws. We don’t need no steenkin’ laws.

    Mike S.- “Can’t win for losing. The Republicans in Congress are literally committing treason against this country by refusing to do anything to help the economy, unless safety net programs are shredded”

    Uhm, how is that giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States? Or were you meaning that as hyperbole? I agree they’re acting like horses’ asses, but not quite treason. After all, they merely reflect the choices of voters in this country. Baa baa dumb sheeple, you get the government you deserve

    Prof. Turley and Jill- Both of you mirror my thoughts on this exactly. It’s not that the policies he is supporting are bad, it’s the way he’s going about it. Again, I have very little problem with any government that acts in good faith. When someone makes such a bald vote grab, even the sheeple will tend to notice. There is such a thing as subtlety, and even the most blind can and will see this as a weasel move. Power given to the government is usually impossible to get back. This is a trend that is continuing and will continue until civil liberties, the checks and balances system, and the US itself are nothing but a sad shadow of former glory.

  14. Rubio now is saying he will withdraw his legislation and the dreamact that was backed bipartisanly (is that a word), is lying dormant because of the obstructionist republicans.
    As far as I am concerned, although I do not like a number of things the president has done, and I am a supporter, I think this obstructionist congress left him no choice.
    As for politically motivated, everything any politician doers is politically motivated, but there is a ways to go until the election, Romney still being called the “presumptive nominee”. So anything and everything Pres Obama does can be called politically motivated. Should he stop doing anything to help anyone, and everyone, that the congress has refused to help, by saying “No, wait, can’t do it. People will say Im doing it only for political gain.” Get real here. This is politics and accusing the other guy of only acting as a means to vote getting has always been the name of the game.

  15. Jill,
    the rule of law has not been challenged by this. It is the law that the executive branch can decide who to prosecute. The President is in a fight against Republican congressional corporatists whose only goal is to defeat the President. The economy be damned.
    JIll,
    If you are refering to the Supreme Court you are partially correct. It is functioning perfectly for the interests that own the majority.
    CLH,
    The system was designed by the Senate when they decide on their rules, but it is far from being democratic. Minority control is not what democracy is all about.

  16. People are just breaking down and crying for joy when they find out what the president did,” said Lorella Praeli, a leader of the United We Dream Network, the largest coalition of illegal immigrant students. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. I, personally, have had a problem with the deportations.

  17. One of the most disturbing things going on in this nation is the left’s desire for a dictator. Congress isn’t functional so we need a dictator? WOW!

    Leftists have a long, ignoble history of ushering in brutal dictators. Leftists complain loudly about this tendency on the right, as well they should. The right has brought in an amazing number of truly horrific “dear leaders”. But currently, it is the left who wants a savior, a father figure and a dictator to make things “right”.

    This is a very dangerous time in our history. Father figures, saviors and dictators have no place in a functioning democracy.

    There is another fact to consider. Women’s rights, inequality for the LBGT community and justice for immigrants as well as a tanking economy were all problems during the two years of a Democratic president, house and senate. The people were behind addressing these issues all the way. Funny how nothing ever got done, even when everything favored resolving these issues. Kind of makes you think the people in power didn’t want to solve them.

  18. “You need to face reality some time. When are you going to do it? Obama isn’t even in charge, the military is. You accept illegal and cruel behavior because you believe in Obama. You need to stop believing and start looking at reality. You were a social worker and you know what happens when people simply will not face the truth.”

    Jill,

    This statement is just so typical of you. You accuse me of things that are not true and you try to “educate me” on things that I’m way ahead of you on and that frankly I know more about than you do. See below for instance and then tell me that I don’t understand who’s in charge?:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/

    And as to your other charges perhaps actually reading what I’ve written on the subject might finally inform you of where I stand:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/02/the-pursuit-of-political-purity/#more-49610

    You have continued to conveniently ignore much of what I’ve written in blogs and in our long exchange of comments. You also continue to mis-characterize my position regarding Obama. Since your reading skills are not defective let me guess why. You are the kind of person that gains feelings of superiority through criticism, though I won’t speculate why that is so, merely I will point out that this is your “modus operandi”. The problem is Jill you and I see the same issues, but as dystopian as I see this country and this world to be, I look for pragmatic solutions towards keeping things from getting any worse.

    You on the other hand, have no solutions for improving any damn thing except to prove how politically pure you are by supporting the likes of Nader and Roehmer with meaningless protest votes that make you fell warm inside because you think you a “doing something”. As I’ve said and which you’ve ignored so many times in the past, show me a mass movement with a chance to change things and I’ll volunteer. Until then I choose to support/protect the rights of women, the rights of LBGT people, working people, poor people, the middle-class and all people of color in this country. You don’t give a damn about any of those categories as long as you can feel superior in your knowledge. You are an elitist Jill and I am not. Your elitism is bred in the feeling that you understand more than the average person and you obviously need that to feel good about yourself. I don’t feel superior to people and I’ve got the background to back up that statement. I spent 37 years on the front-lines of helping people in need and at some cost to my family and my own personal fortunes.

    Compared to what I’ve seen and what I’ve experienced in life, most people including you have no clue. Your empathy is only extended to those far away from you and ignores those living next door. My empathy is for all human beings who are oppressed in one way or another and I’ve lived a life that proves it. So work hard to assure that Obama is defeated and then we will watch you attacking Romney as it all gets far worse than the bad that already is. You’ll at least get off on feeling politically pure, up until the time when they take us all away.

  19. Jill, too many times people go to the first 2 years with majority in both houses and he didnt get his agenda passed.
    It is not that simple, pass by a majority, if it were the repubs would have their agenda codified.
    “It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, which is now the default to get pretty much anything done. …the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later.

    As Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/morning-doh-chris-christie-falsely-claims-president-obama-had-filibuster-proof-majority-for-2-years/

    Also he did get the stimulus through, auto industry bail out and health care to name a few things so he did not fritter those 14 weeks away by any stretch of the imagination

  20. “Leftists have a long, ignoble history of ushering in brutal dictators. Leftists complain loudly about this tendency on the right, as well they should. The right has brought in an amazing number of truly horrific “dear leaders”. But currently, it is the left who wants a savior, a father figure and a dictator to make things “right””.

    Leftists are bad! Rightists are bad! Citizens ARISE! It’s time to join the “Party of Jill”. While you won’t make things better, you’ll know you are right and isn’t self satisfaction better than accomplishing anything. Jill thinks so and after all she knows better than you do. She’s so special.

  21. “Uhm, how is that giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States?”

    CLH,

    The treason is to the Constitution and to the people of the US, who have suffered from a bad economy brought about by fraud.

    “After all, they merely reflect the choices of voters in this country. Baa baa dumb sheeple, you get the government you deserve”

    This is where you and I strongly disagree. I don’t blame the American people who have been the targets of an almost 50 year campaign by the wealthy elite in this country to not only negatively propagandize them through the Mass Media, to ill educate them by destroying a viable public education system and to destroy the Union Movement to destroy middle/working class power. “Sheeple” sadly reflects an elitist perspective, which I disagree with. I try not to blame victims for their problems.

  22. Here’s a story about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact that we Americans should be concerned about:

    Breaking ’08 Pledge, Leaked Trade Doc Shows Obama Wants to Help Corporations Avoid Regulations
    Democracy Now
    June 14, 2012
    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/breaking_08_pledge_leaked_trade_doc

    Summary:
    A draft agreement leaked Wednesday shows the Obama administration is pushing a secretive trade agreement that could vastly expand corporate power and directly contradict a 2008 campaign promise by President Obama. A U.S. proposal for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations would allow foreign corporations operating in the U.S. to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its ruling. We speak to Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a fair trade group that posted the leaked documents on its website. “This isn’t just a bad trade agreement,” Wallach says. “This is a ‘one-percenter’ power tool that could rip up our basic needs and rights.”

    *****

    Excerpts from transcript:
    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to a controversial trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations that until now has remained largely secret. It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. A chapter from the draft agreement leaked Wednesday outlines how it would allow foreign corporations operating in the United States to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its rulings.

    The agreement is being negotiated by the U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, appointed by President Obama. But the newly revealed terms contradict promises Obama made while running for president in 2008. One campaign document read in part, quote, “We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; [or] give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Earlier leaks from the draft Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement exposed how it included rules that could increase the cost of medication and make participating countries adopt restrictive copyright measures.

    No one from the U.S. trade representative’s office was able to join us, but in a statement to Democracy Now!, they said, quote, “Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government’s ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation.”

    For more, we’re joined by Lori Wallach, director of the fair trade group Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. The leaked documents were posted on her organization’s website early Wednesday morning.

    Lori, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain what the documents show and what this agreement is about.

    LORI WALLACH: Well, it’s been branded as a trade agreement, but really it is enforceable corporate global governance. The agreement requires that every signatory country conform all of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures to what are 26 chapters of very comprehensive rules, only two of which have anything to do with trade. The other 24 chapters set a whole array of corporate new privileges and rights and handcuff governments, limit regulation. So the chapter that leaked—and it’s actually on the website of Citizens Trade Campaign, it’s a national coalition for fair trade—that chapter is the chapter that sets up new rights and privileges for foreign investors, including their right to privately enforce this public treaty by suing our government, raiding our Treasury, over costs of complying with the same policies that all U.S. companies have to comply with. It’s really outrageous.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lori, there’s been a quite a bit of complaint, even in Congress, about the secretive nature of these continuing negotiations. About 600 or so corporate advisers have access to information that even members of Congress don’t? Could you talk about how that has come about?

    LORI WALLACH: Well, this is how you get a text and in a potential agreement that is this outrageous. I mean, this isn’t just a bad trade agreement, this is a one-percenter power tool that could rip up our basic needs and rights. How that happens is the negotiations have been done in total secrecy. So, for two-and-a-half years, until this leak emerged, people have suspected what’s going on, because, as you said, under U.S. law there are 600 official advisers, they have security clearance to see the text, they advise the U.S. position. Meanwhile, the senator, Ron Wyden, who is the chairman of the trade committee in the Senate, the committee with jurisdiction over the TPP, has been denied access to the text, as has his staff, who has security clearance, to a point where this man who has supported agreements like this in the past has filed legislation demanding he have the right to see the agreement that he’s supposed to be having oversight with. He’s on the Intelligence Committee, and he has security clearance, so he can see our nuclear secrets. He just can’t see this corporate bill of rights that is trying to be slipped into effect in the name of being a trade agreement. It’s a very elegant Trojan horse strategy. You brand it one thing, and then you put an agenda that could not survive sunshine into this agreement.

    We have been able also to get some of the texts on patents, expanding patents for Big Pharma, jacking up medicine prices. And we have analysis on our website, tradewatch.org, as well as information about how to get involved, because these agreements are a little bit like Dracula. You drag them in the sunshine, and they do not fare well. But all of us, and also across all of the countries involved, there are citizen movements that are basically saying, “This is not in our name. We don’t need global enforceable corporate rights. We need more democracy. We need more accountability.”

    *****

    AMY GOODMAN: The next round of negotiations on TPP are scheduled over the July 4th holiday weekend. Lori Wallach, can you comment on this? And also, what I assume would be President Obama’s response, if talking behind the scenes, like perhaps tonight when he’s going to be at Sarah Jessica Parker house with—with raising a lot of money—the financial sector is donating $37 million to Mitt Romney so far, the Obama administration’s haul, $4.8 million—that even his own Wall Street supporters are going over to Romney right now, so he would say he is doing better than Romney would in trying to take on these guys.

    LORI WALLACH: I think that, for President Obama, there are two scenarios. One is, he has not been on top of what these negotiators are doing. This really has been under the radar. It’s so important that the text finally came out, because it sends a warning to Congress, to the public, etc., and that basically he’s got negotiators on the loose. They are many of the same people who during the Clinton administration got us into NAFTA, that recycled back into the trade negotiating team. The other alternative explanation is just the money one, which is, it is the case that this is an agreement the 1 percent loves. This is sort of one-percenter fantasy. It’s not just that on the margins and in national governments you have to keep fighting with all your money and lobbying to try and get what you want; this would lock it in for the future, indefinitely.

  23. Turley is beyond the Pale. Now Obama is an Imperial President for giving some breathing space to kids who lived here for many years and fear getting sent back to Rubio’s Cuba. Turley probably has grandparents who got off the boat from Sicily without papers who would be ashamed of him now. Ivy League with no memory. With Out Papers — I hope you dont have a dog and a dog cage and a station wagon and if you do its probably got a Willard sticker on the bumper.

  24. SM, it is so good to have a place where I could put that info. It is conveniently ignored by all the Obama haters, nay sayers, and those on the right. You know facts getting in the way and all that. (:

  25. Isn’t this decision basically one to deport the dangerous ones first, and get around to the innocuous ones much later? The right wingers (I guess) would have us mount an instantaneous ethnic cleansing, herding every illegal and suspected illegal into a concentration camp. Who would fund this roundup? Who would carry it out? The Obama administration is already deporting more than his predecessors.

  26. Elaine I read about this a little while back.
    The best scenario, of a crappy one no matter what, is that it is rogue negotiators.

  27. While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination.
    —————————————————–
    baloney
    sandwich
    while the Bushites behaved this way there was a huge(ly ignored) hue and cry…..Obama has begun to do this because the bought P’sTB can do no better than to say “NO” to every attempt to protect the public from unbelievably self-serving oppressions. It’s not my favorite response, nor my biggest fear but good on him for finding away around the stinky end zone…..

  28. Clearly within his Presidential Authority……. It’s called prosecutor discretion……. Since Holder works for the President…… It’s clear…… He is not telling them to go out and torture people and saying it’s okay….

  29. leejcarroll,

    “The best scenario, of a crappy one no matter what, is that it is rogue negotiators.”

    I agree.

    I’m glad the document was leaked. I hope the present administration doesn’t go after the whistle-blower(s). We should know what our government and its negotiators are up to in cases like this.

  30. Mike S.- I would disagree with you on whether or not to blame the victims. People just don’t want to think. I went through the same public education system most other people went through. Heck, I went through the public education system in Texas, not exactly known for it’s stellar performance.

    There is a severe and, frankly, scary dismissal of what democracy is SUPPOSED to be about when you say “As I’ve said and which you’ve ignored so many times in the past, show me a mass movement with a chance to change things and I’ll volunteer.” When everyone feels that way, there is no mass movement. You seem to be politically active and active in the community, so you could easily form the basis for a grass roots movement. Not saying that it’s easy, but simply throwing in the towel before any effort is formed is silly. When people base their decisions on likelihood of political success, even when their candidate does not win, it ‘s not WASTED. That would be like saying that every vote for a D. candidate is wasted when a R. wins the office.

    I would also like to know (from anyone) why the left and right both use only diametrically opposed arguments in regards to immigration reform? There is only rhetoric being used in most cases, instead of logic and facts. Or propaganda, even.

    The common sense solution, IMO, is a three part approach.

    First, secure the borders. There is a valid national defense reason for that. I’m not talking about anything insane like land mines, but real, active border security. We have the tech and the knowledge to achieve economically feasible and real border security. It won’t be cheap, but it is I think a far more justified use of government money than fighting in the middle east.

    Second, scrap the immigration code in it’s entirety, and start from scratch, with the aim of making legal immigration much, much easier. In countries that provide large migration populations to the US, install diplomatic points that can be used by would be migrants to easily, efficiently, and cost effectively submit their background data (for violent criminal offenses only, as based on US standards, not host country standards) to expedite the certification process. Create minimum baseline standards- They must possess an ability to find work, or already have a job lined up. They must possess a willingness to comply with US Law, and to act in good faith in maintaining gainful employment. They must be willing to read and agree to support the US Constitution, and the process of peaceful transition of power. They must be willing to waive access to “safety net” policies until they achieve citizenship. (I don’t know if that’s a good idea, really, but otherwise that could entice people who would willingly migrate solely to get on welfare- I don’t know what the numbers would be on that, realistically, but I can easily see that happening). In other words, provide an incentive to go about migrating legally, by making it a better choice than migrating illegally in a risk v. reward analysis.

    Third- Grant a pardon. To all illegal immigrants. With the exception of those who are guilty of violent criminal offenses, migrants add far too much to the US to simply get rid of. It would be an economic catastrophe, the immigration population in the US is by far its hardest working population segment. Work, as defined as any task that decreases entropy in exchange for monetary considerations, ADDS TO THE OVERALL WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY. Which means more money to go around. Which means more products bought. Which means more jobs….

    Anyway, that’s an idea, feel free to pick it apart. :D

  31. Jill
    1, June 18, 2012 at 11:06 am
    One of the most disturbing things going on in this nation is the left’s desire for a dictator. Congress isn’t functional so we need a dictator? WOW!
    ———————————————
    wow is correct!
    you got that so wrong….wow!
    the Constitution has been shredded by the previous administration….our bottle-fed congress and airpop Senate can do no better than to squabble us to death while the banks and corrupted prdators get busy on us. I won’t do another 4 years of that and I won’t pay for another Republican wet-dream. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am that Obama found a way….and those immigrants, who have always been here with boots on thier necks deserve better too…….

  32. There is a severe and, frankly, scary dismissal of what democracy is SUPPOSED to be about when you say “As I’ve said and which you’ve ignored so many times in the past, show me a mass movement with a chance to change things and I’ll volunteer.” When everyone feels that way, there is no mass movement.~CLH
    ——————————————-
    There is a movement called ‘Occupy’ that we ALL KNOW is still very out there and viable and other than the mainstream blackout and calm refusal to acknowledge by the ‘State’ has not gone away…the 99%….the CONSTITUENCY…

    anyway, yes, agree w/this part of your murmmering “There is a severe and, frankly, scary dismissal of what democracy is SUPPOSED to be”…. as a nurse I learned when a body comes in bleeding and the danger is a bleed out….you put the pressure even if the field is nt sterile……. WAKE UP! The players of State are (supposed to be) representatives of the people….and the people don’t want to share their bed with ‘corporations dressed up to look like people’……. and we don’t like representatives that pimp our resources to the highest bidder and we are not blind and we know what is going on more than you know….or will acknowledge.

  33. Wootsy,

    Cheney definitely shredded the Constitution and the right wing (as well as many on the left following 9/11) went along with that. I have never shirked from stating that fact, although you would not know that because you were not on this blog during the Bush administration (at least in this name format).

    After 8 years of Bush I could see how desperate people on the left were for a savior. I also wrote warning about that on this blog. People talked of Obama as our “Bodhisattva president” as a religious leader, an image Brand Obama cultivated and continues to press successfully with his followers.

    Having a messed up congress is not remedied by having a messed up dictator, yet that is the remedy being presented here. Why didn’t Obama just implement the whole “Dream” legislation? Why only parts of it? Why does even this one part end in January? Why does it only apply to some age groups and not others? Why does it help if young people will go into the military? Don’t any of these things give you pause?

    Look at history. Cults are on the left and dictatorships have been established by leftists. When people start to write that we have a broken Congress so we need an executive to “fix” things, look out! All three branches of this govt. are not functioning as intended. More and more power is being lodged into the executive, even more than under Cheney.

    You have another logical fallacy in your post. You assume I am not happy that an immigrant would receive amnesty. I am happy that even one person gets that but the way it has been arranged by the executive means that amnesty can be taken away by his whim. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. That is the rule of fiat. I want the rule of law. That will protect the rights of immigrants far better than an election year period of grace which can easily be removed after the votes are counted.

  34. The puppet master will soon make an appearance and you will all start dancing to the tune played. You better not forget it either. Soon, I tell you, soon.

  35. @rafflaw,

    I like (most of) the policy the President and the Dream Act support, but perhaps before making a unilateral decision not to defend the law as it is, the President had other options, including using the power of his bully pulpit and jawboning to decry Republican intransigence.

    Done right it could have been an effective political speech as well as a way to break through the Republican logjam.

  36. @SwarthmoreMom,

    You’re an idiot if you think Arpaio’s officers should not have arrested that six year old.

    Little girl, traveling without parent or guardian, no one claims responsibility for her, but apparently you think it was wrong for Arpaio to arrest her and place her with responsible authorities.

    “It was part of a human-smuggling investigation that we’ve been investigating throughout the Valley,” Hegstrom said.

    The whereabouts of the girl’s parents or other caretakers is unknown. All of the people traveling with her claimed to know nothing about the girl.

    “Where was she going? What are they going to do with her? We’re trying to get to the bottom of this right now,” Sheriff Joe Arpaio said.

  37. anon,
    you are fooling yourself if you think anyone, even with a bully pulpit can convince the Republicans in the House and Senate to let Democracy control and not partisan politics. They have made their mandate very clear. The Citizens United case provided the free and secret corporate and even foreign money to obstruct the country and to prevent a more robust recovery of the economy.

  38. @rafflaw

    You might be right, which is why I wrote, “but perhaps before making a unilateral decision not to defend the law as it is…”

    I haven’t followed this issue closely, so I am very likely wrong, but I don’t recall hearing of Obama’s tour around the nation for a week or a month demanding Congress act and giving reasons why.

  39. “Nevertheless, it’s hard to overstate the impact of this decision on those eligible. At least for the time being, they will no longer have to fear exile from the only place they’ve ever really lived. Arguably, Obama could have done this earlier—but by doing it now, the president sharply defines a fundamental difference between him and Romney. If Romney wins, and he sticks to his stated position on immigration, the DREAMers will have to leave.” Adam Serwer, Mother Jones

  40. Now let me get this straight because in my humble opinion there exists an ongoing deficiency of logic here. More than a few ongoing commenters here, myself definitely included, believe that our government is little more than an oligarchy that is a mixed bag of Corporate America, the M.I. Complex and inherited wealth. Perhaps some may agree with me that the evidence shows that the oligarchy is not homogenous in policy and in outlook. The Koch Bros. are not as one with Warren Buffett, etc. Our political process, though in the thrall of monied interests reflects this division. One side wants to destroy the safety net, put Americans of Color, women and LGBT people under servitude, or prison and create a Christian-led America. The other side, though no less corporate, feels those particular steps are unnecessary.

    So if that’s the current reality, how much power does the Presidency have and how much can it wield? If it has no power that the President is irrelevant and why disparage him if it’s his “Masters” who are running the show? On the other hand if it is possible for the President to wield some few powers and he does it in a good cause, why not approve? Remember if you believe we are an Oligarchy-run country, then the Constitution is realistically meaningless and until that can be changed, anything that could possibly help the various people in need, or under attack is a blessing. For those who don’t believe we are living under an oligarchy then it is perfectly reasonable to call the President to task. However, for the others isn’t the President except for minor things that may keeps many people’s lives from descending further down the tubes. Try as one might, one can’t have it both ways if theirs is a dystopian perspective.

  41. Let us look at the cause and who has responsibility for this cause of the great immigration from Mexico.

    Could it be the USA which established sweat shop trade agreements which drew Mexicans to the Mexican side of the border in search of jobs; and which taught them that a better life lay only inches away. (How thick IS the border?)

    Having baited them here, and used them as the cheapest labor on the black market, can we then send them back
    when their labor becomes surperfluous for the moment?

    I don’t think so.

    The manipulations of the moment have less value to discuss than the root causes and effects, and what it says about us.

  42. After 8 years of Bush I could see how desperate people on the left were for a savior. I also wrote warning about that on this blog. People talked of Obama as our “Bodhisattva president” as a religious leader, an image Brand Obama cultivated and continues to press successfully with his followers.~Jill
    ———————————
    Jill you really are a black and white thinker…no pun intended. To mke a statement like “Cults are on the left and dictatorships have been established by leftists.” is bizarro supremo….there is not a solution to be had that is implementable in 1 fell swoop….in fact that sort of behaviour is what got us into this mess in the first place. The wild pendulum swings from Dem to Rep to Dem to Rep w/ea spending half their time dismantling and remolding what the previous party did is retarded and dare I repeat…schizoid at best. In our Democracy around a Republic there is much to fault but the dismantling of the constitutionally based laws and implementation of corporate cock swaddling is a two party endeavor that has victimized everybody. Obamas ticket was very obviously chosen because he was hoping (audaciously) to return some class and implement a return to sane and decent bi-partisanship action in Washington and the Country, …..he is now getting to show some stuff because he has been forced to acknowledge that that was a tad too difficult for those currently occupying the hallowed halls….

  43. Jill

    Relying on US history alone, please name all “dictators” that Americans have hoped would be installed to govern our country. By “Americans” I mean some number of over 500,000 – not 300 political bloggers.

  44. @rafflaw

    “You missed it anon. The DREAM Act was big news when it was going through Congress and being stopped by filibuster.”

    Could be, but even then, or for many issues, I just don’t see Obama out in front of the issues, explaining to the public their importance and why they need to demand more from their Congresscritters.

    I don’t recall the prime time speeches interrupting the tubes where Obama explained the importance of the Dream Act and demanded action.

  45. I don’t recall the prime time speeches interrupting the tubes where Obama explained the importance of the Dream Act and demanded action.
    —————
    and I don’t remember a decent debate since the League of Women voters were usurped…..but I am finding new places to find less corrupted news….

  46. “and I don’t remember a decent debate since the League of Women voters were usurped…..but I am finding new places to find less corrupted news….”

    I’m trying too.

  47. Woosty’s still a Cat

    has anyone else noticed that muppet master is a bot?

    ——————————————————————————–

    Swarthmore mom

    Woosty, yep.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Woosty & SwM,

    We’re a trio …

  48. Mike S,

    This is a damn good thing and the right thing to do and …

    Sometimes you just write stuff that makes me smile

  49. Yippee. Republicans get more cheap labor, businesses of all kinds, in every kind of business, get a couple of million new customers each year, O gets some more votes, so-called liberals get a rush, Mexico gets a little relief from fear of social upheaval, and Joe and Mary six-pack will pick up the bulk of the tab (they don’t care about any negative impact on the school system — they’ll continue to blame their kids’ poor education on the bloated
    Board of Education) and execs at Corrections Corporation of America will get that big raise they’ve been after.

    Such a deal.

  50. I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing. It appears that the only principle guiding these people is the “whose ox is being gored” principle. Simply put, if “their guy” is in office or if policy outcomes they desire are the result, they appear to have no qualms whatsoever about a President ruling by fiat.

    Fortunately, we have a word to describe this behavior: “Hypocrisy.” These very same people would throw unprecedented tantrums if someone of the opposite political persuasion were to act similarly. And yes, I’ve seen the posts that feebly attempt to justify this hypocrisy by claiming that what “the other guy” did was really bad, but what “our guy” is doing is noble and therefore OK. Nonsense! That’s nothing more than rationalizing, and only further illustrates the complete lack of critical thinking occurring in said craniums.

    What is it with the left and hypocrisy? Sure, we all are only human and are susceptible to it at times, but the left seems to make an artform of it. Example: The left professes to have the market cornered on “tolerance” and respect for “freedom of speech”, but just watch what happens when the rare conservative speaker is invited to speak on a college campus. Or how about the “tolerance” they display when liberal blogs are routinely filled with death wishes for any prominent conservative who happens to be ailing? Classy….

    As for the aforementioned “occupy movement”, a simple tally of the murders, rapes, theft, and general filthiness that have surrounded their camps should serve as ample testimony to their “character.”

    This is serious stuff. We have a certain segment of the country that literally pines for a dictator. The fact that some of the more reasonable in their midst see the danger that this presents is cause for some optimism, but not if the rest of their fellow travelers continue to shoot the messenger.

  51. Logan,
    We have already lived through 8 years of hypocrisy during the Bush years so we know it when we see it. This alleged pining for a dictator seems to be the latest talking point of the right. Go ahead and keep spewing that nonsense, but it is nonsense.

  52. “I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing. It appears that the only principle guiding these people is the “whose ox is being gored” principle. Simply put, if “their guy” is in office or if policy outcomes they desire are the result, they appear to have no qualms whatsoever about a President ruling by fiat.”

    so Logan5,

    Judging by the above and this below:

    “What is it with the left and hypocrisy? Sure, we all are only human and are susceptible to it at times, but the left seems to make an art form of it.”

    You were perfectly happy with a “Dictator” like George Bush, but when a centrist Republican like Obama takes office, under a Democratic banner, he is then dubbed a dictator. Where’s the hypocrisy, really?

  53. “I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing. It appears that the only principle guiding these people is the “whose ox is being gored” principle. Simply put, if “their guy” is in office or if policy outcomes they desire are the result, they appear to have no qualms whatsoever about a President ruling by fiat.”

    CURIOUS?

    One of the most disturbing things going on in this nation is the left’s desire for a dictator. Congress isn’t functional so we need a dictator? WOW!

    Leftists have a long, ignoble history of ushering in brutal dictators. Leftists complain loudly about this tendency on the right, as well they should. The right has brought in an amazing number of truly horrific “dear leaders”. But currently, it is the left who wants a savior, a father figure and a dictator to make things “right”.

    CURIOUSER?

    Hatred of Obama makes strange bedfellows.

    Jill meet Logan5, Logan5 meet Jill. It seems you two have a lot in common.

  54. Blouise,

    In the words of a great thinker, who sometimes sports a greenish hue, one lives to be of service.

  55. Mike,

    Pretty presumptuous of you to conclude on the basis of precisely zero knowledge that I was “perfectly happy” with George W. Bush. I most certainly was not.

    I thought, as did many on the right, that the Patriot Act was a euphemistically-named, dangerous piece of legislation. I also disliked Bush because, like Obama, he unilaterally decided to ignore immigration law. There are many other reasons I was not a fan of his.

    Executive overreach is one thing, and both Bush and Obama are guilty of it. But (in my opinion) Obama is going beyond mere overreach and is attempting to become a defacto dictator. I mean, come on…. the President of the United States hiring and firing the CEO of a private corporation, General Motors? Please cite the constitutional authority for that one! Or how about refusing to permit certain “too big to fail” financial institutions to pay back their TARP loans, apparently to keep them under his control? The examples are endless. He and his appointees are now openly reveling in their desire and ability to ignore the will of Congress (which by extension, represents the will of the People). And you liberals who were so incensed by Bush just cheer him on. Pathetic.

  56. Mike,

    Please don’t waste time with silly conspiracy theories. I don’t know who Jill is nor have I read any of her posts.

  57. Obama and George W are what we get nowadays. We have a justice system so corrupted and a legislature so irresponsible that the Chief Executive just expands like a helium balloon in a vacuum.

    The problem is that it is a damn noisy vacuum and nature abhors it.

  58. Mike S, Bush was too liberal on immigration for these folks. He actually did support the Dream Act unlike Romney, and he was fairly well regarded by latinos in Texas and elsewhere.

  59. “Not saying that it’s easy, but simply throwing in the towel before any effort is formed is silly. When people base their decisions on likelihood of political success, even when their candidate does not win, it ‘s not WASTED.”

    CLH,

    Why do you think I spend the amount of time writing that I do here? How do you know what organizations I support? If the shit comes down how near to the top of the roundup list will I be? I’ve been putting myself on the line since I was a teenager, so please try to understand what I’m saying, rather than simply viewing it through your pre-judgments? I’m voting for Obama for very specific reasons, which I’ve stated here time and again. None of those reasons have to do with my enchantment with him. He has been a disappointment to me and I stated that over and over here, in phone calls to the White House and using other means.

    I know of two people here who refuse to vote for Obama, Gene H. and Tony C., yet I’ve never argued the point with either of them, although I disagreed with Tony’s thinking on Ron Paul. The reason is that both of them make their cases very well and I believe in their integrity. Professor Turley certainly is not a fan of Obama, I understand why and I don’t have any problem with it, in fact given his career I can’t see him feeling any other way publicly.

    However, quite simply I can see reasons to vote for Obama ad the main one for me is to keep the Republicans from gaining full control of all branches of government. I personally believe that would be a disaster. This doesn’t mean that I overlook those breeches of the Constitution done by this Administration, quite the contrary. My nature is both pragmatic and iconoclastic. When I make political choices it is for reasons that are clear to me and I think I express myself clearly enough for people to understand that I am a person of integrity, but I see the world through a particular perspective.

  60. Logan5,

    My post was not aimed at you, because rather frankly you are a nonentity given your silly post. It was actually done to point out that people from purportedly different parts of the political spectrum think similarly and to let the reader draw their own conclusions as to what that signifies.

  61. “I don’t know who Jill is nor have I read any of her posts.”

    Logan5,

    I accept that as true, but then I must draw the obvious conclusion that you commented on this thread, with no idea of the ongoing discussion, since Jill is featured prominently. That doesn’t speak very well for your ability to absorb any information contrary to your rote beliefs.

  62. “Mike S, Bush was too liberal on immigration for these folks.”

    SwM,

    Reagan was too liberal for this crop of Republicans, though they’ve bestowed sainthood upon him.

  63. Mike S.,

    I notice that you mention being “near to the top of the roundup list.” I find it interesting that the very same fears and rhetoric are often expressed on the right as well. In fact, with notable exceptions in methodology that I noted earlier, both the right and left actually frequently use similar language and fear the “other side” for virtually identical reasons.

    Needless to say, a republic cannot function this way. While we certainly have profound differences on certain specific issues, I think that most Americans, whether right or left, share a basic desire to see government play by a mutually agreed upon set of rules. We cannot allow those rules, as enshrined in our Constitution, to be adhered to only when the party in power desires them to be. And we certainly must resist the temptation to look the other way when “our guy” is bending or ignoring the Constitution.

    The debate over the boundaries of Executive power in the federal government goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists vs. the Anti-Federalists. What is clear is that despite this debate, the majority of the Founders were dead-set against creating yet another king in the form of the President. We have unfortunately drifted far beyond the constraints they so wisely imposed.

    We are all familiar, I am sure, with John Adams’ quote, that we have a “…government of laws, and not of men.” That concept is absolutely essential to the American form of government. If we now think that we can simply turn our back on this concept, and instead allow an Obama or Bush or whoever to do whatever they please just so long as we personally like the outcome, then we will have payed too high a price for our momentary political gain. Wake up people! Put politics aside and stand on principle.

  64. Logan5
    1, June 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm
    I find the ease with which many here accept near-dictatorial rule deeply disturbing.
    ——————————————-
    Obama is the anti-dictater,or perhaps, on the grand scale of dictaters, he’s just a tad shy of a tater-tot.. ;) SCOTUS though, with their deciding of elections and pandering to uber-people ….they are a collective BUSHELL! of dictaters….

    Obama, well, He is just walking around a cess-pool of Stag-Nation…..

  65. “To forgo a repeat of last year, when labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields, officials in Georgia are now dispatching prisoners to the state’s farms to help harvest fruit and vegetables.”

    “The labor shortages, which also have affected the hotel and restaurant industries, are a consequence of Georgia’s immigration enforcement law, HB 87, which was passed last year. As State Rep. Matt Ramsey, one of the bill’s authors, said at the time, “Our goal is … to eliminate incentives for illegal aliens to cross into our state.”

    “Since 1950 the U.S. labor force has roughly doubled in size, but there has been no long-run increase in unemployment. Most economic studies also find little evidence that increased immigration depresses the wages of U.S. workers. At worst, it might push down the wages of high school dropouts, but even there the effect is small.”

    “Simple supply and demand analysis would seem to indicate if you increase the supply of labor, wages will decline. But immigrants don’t simply increase the supply of labor. They supply skills that most Americans don’t have. As such, they don’t replace American workers so much as free them up to do other, typically more-skilled, things. This symbiotic relationship benefits immigrants and native-born alike.”

    source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/

    Somehow I don’t think this controversy is motivated by economic factors…

  66. I thought, as did many on the right, that the Patriot Act was a euphemistically-named, dangerous piece of legislation.—Logan5

    Whenever I see someone saying the above, I reply:
    Did you read all the 357 previous acts of Congress which would be modified and make your decision based on that?
    Congress itself had only a few hours to read and decide.

    Did anybody dare? No, they were all busy dicking and ducking for George after 9/11 to do anything but pull out another roll and keep on wiping off the excess.

    As people we’ve always known who bought us, at the cheapest rate possible. Only some were stupid enough to think that if they said “yassuh, boss” then they might get more work. A sketch admittedly, but true in spirit of why folks vote Republican.

  67. “Nixon would also have been seen as too liberal by this crop of Republicans.”

    Which if that doesn’t scare the crap out of you about the current degraded state of the GOP, I don’t know what will.

  68. @idealist

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/02534215846/wasnt-patriot-act-supposed-to-be-about-stopping-terrorism.shtml

    In all honesty, the success of since industrial-scale commerce got its hands on it makes CALEA look downright premeditated (this was back int he days of the clipper chip debate, and when Phil Zimmerman had to send PGP overseas in a printed volume because encryption software was considered a munition).

    At the same time, innocuous sounding legislation like the Stored Communications Act of 1986 provide for law enforcement to access data left on a server without a warrant after 180 days.

    Add to that national security letters, which don’t have to go before a judge, and voluntary disclosures (when Verizon handed over customer data to the NSA, it was justified as “protected free speech”) and you begin to see how the PATRIOT ACT fits in with a larger campaign…

  69. Mike S.,

    I do love it when you get fed up with the stupidity and just call ’em out. It’s so Big Apple (originally a term jazz musicians used in the 20’s when referring to NYC)

    Anyway, it’s fun to read.

  70. Indigo Jones 1, June 18, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    “To forgo a repeat of last year, when labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields, officials in Georgia are now dispatching prisoners to the state’s farms to help harvest fruit and vegetables.”

    Georgia has been using inmates for a couple of decades at least to enhance the bottom line of various corporations. They found a way to bring slavery back.

  71. How long have we been working on a comprehensive immigration plan? Forever and never. Is this issue going to be like abortion, one that is never ‘solved’ but is used to get out the vote and appeal to the worst in more ignorant populations?
    …. We need these workers, with the current Mexican birth rate falling below replacement, in the future we will be begging and paying a premium to these workers to please, please, pretty please come pick our apples & tomatoes.

    As to the Dream Act kids, finally have some protection. But damn if there is ever going to be a equitable solution to immigration until they stop using it for political purposes.

  72. Bettykath, a judge in Southern Maryland sentenced about 100 young Black men per year to six months each (just under the amount of time that it takes to either appeal or bring some kind of habeas petition) but before sentencing them, he’d ask, “Do you know how to pick tobacco?” Yep. They served the sentence at the county jail, were picked up by trucks at 5 a.m. each day, shipped out to the judge’s tobacco farm, and were brought back to the jail at 7 p.m. for taxpayer-paid supper, then to bed in their taxpayer-paid cots. And this was in the late 1980s already. We’re well on our way.

  73. I remember reading a few years back where an official of the Bush II administration frankly proclaimed: “We’re just going to keep on pushing until some greater power stops us.” President Obama has clearly chosen to do a little pushing of his own. One may assume that he did this in his own political interest and/or in the interest of some worthy cause, but in any event, the “larger power” of the Congress and Courts — to say nothing of the Press and the People — may push back and stop him if they should feel the inclination.

    I await news of the coming of this “other power.”

  74. MIke S commenting on Jill:

    “Compared to what I’ve seen and what I’ve experienced in life, most people including you have no clue. Your empathy is only extended to those far away from you and ignores those living next door.”

    *****************

    Ain’t that the truth!

  75. Michael Murry:

    I remember reading a few years back where an official of the Bush II administration frankly proclaimed:“We’re just going to keep on pushing until some greater power stops us.”

    *****************************

    Try as I might with my memory, a Google search, a BIng Search, and with just about every other search engine, I can’t locate this quote. Is this, MM, like most of your other factual predicates and just another rabbit out of your … er … hat designed to start a conversation about how much you detest the current administration or do you get kicks out of just making things up out of whole cloth — or should I say “hole cloth”? Maybe it’s part of the Af-Pak conglomerate of ideas? LOL

  76. Speaking of Presidents pushing the outside of the power envelope, consider a modest proposal by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and former editor of the Wall Street Journal (so this guy’s got all the “conservative” cred he could ever want or need):

    Everyone wants a solution, so I will provide one. The US government should simply cancel the $230 trillion in derivative bets, declaring them null and void. As no real assets are involved, merely gambling on notional values, the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps (mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system. The financial gangsters who want to continue enjoying betting gains while the public underwrites their losses would scream and yell about the sanctity of contracts. However, a government that can murder its own citizens or throw them into dungeons without due process can abolish all the contracts it wants in the name of national security. And most certainly, unlike the war on terror, purging the financial system of the gambling derivatives would vastly improve national security.

    Mespo can find this and other “leftist” rantings at Counterpunch.

    Now if Dubya Obama really wants to do his autocratic fuehrerprinzip thing for the people and not the Wall Street Gangsters, he knows what to do.

  77. Sadly, I find the “whose ox is being gored” heuristic of political choices an accurate predictor of decisions made by left and right and terribly prevalent here. It is especially odd that the regular inhabitants of this blog, mostly haplessly overbilling lawyers and retirees would defend this behavior and proudly fly its flag at the blog of a lawyer known for his many principled defenses of civil liberties.

    What’s amazing is how this heuristic is most enthusiastically demonstrated by blatherers that would have you believe they would be the most opposed.

    Oh well the 32oz happy hour beer only carries so far.

    Upton Sinclair: ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’

  78. For you, Mespo, to save you time searching for what you couldn’t read even if you found it. From Ron Suskind’s now-canonical expose of the Bush/Cheney (or vice versa) administration, published in The New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2004.:

    In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

    The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

    .

    You can find any number of statements by Bush/Cheney officials to the same power-drunk effect, and I’ve now provided you with two. Keep searching, though, as you will surely find all you can stomach if you only keep at it long enough.

    Personally, I read books and magazines, as well as the Internet, and not everything I’ve read always shows up in both venues. Try to branch out a little.

  79. anon, It is not surprising that posters that came to this blog years ago because of Prof. Turley’s stand against torture would also be pro-immigrant and against deportations. Think about it…… the professor chose some of the people that you are critical of to be his guest bloggers.

  80. “President Obama today changed the future for hundreds of thousands of Texans who were caught in legal limbo. Our President announced that he would grant administrative relief to undocumented students who have grown up in our communities, stayed out of trouble, and studied in our schools. This administrative relief, known as deferred action, does not grant these young people citizenship or permanent residency. It simply means that young immigrants who were brought to this country at a very young age will be able to come out of the shadows and work legally in our country or join the U.S. armed forces.

    The provisions in the President’s announcement are similar to those in the federal DREAM Act, which Texas Democrats overwhelmingly supported as a ballot referendum.

    These changes are particularly important in Texas. For ten years, undocumented students who meet specific requirements have been able to pursue a higher education in Texas. Thanks to our President, these students will be able to practice their professions and contribute to our economy.

    Every day it is clear that Democrats continue to push forward while Republicans attempt to impede change. The President has kept the hope alive for children who have been raised as Americans and contribute to this country.

    The President’s position lies in stark contrast to that of Mitt Romney who has the most extreme position of any presidential candidate in history. It’s also in sharp contrast to the “Bracero” type guest worker program that the Texas Republican Party is touting as a signature piece in their platform. Republicans are willing to turn their back on young people who are faced with the prospect of deportation and an inability to find gainful employment unless such young people are part of a “Bracero” guest worker program.

    Although today’s announcement is a huge step forward, Congress needs to follow President Obama’s lead and pass the DREAM Act to enact a more permanent solution. Republican opposition to the DREAM Act will be remembered as another example of their embarrassing record of consistently being on the wrong side of history.”

    Gilberto Hinojosa Signature
    Gilberto Hinojosa
    Chair of the Texas Democratic Party

  81. Anon,
    Obama’s Stacey on young immigrants is a principled stand against the radical right that has done nothing about illegal immigration. By the way, I o not overbill and I am not a retiree.

  82. What a telling contrast between the deeply principled, reasoned (and likely prophetic) comments offered by Jill and JT with the blind partisanship and pack mentality of the guest bloggers that flood post after post on this blog.

  83. “By the way, I o not overbill and I am not a retiree.”

    Well, I’d say it probably depends on what form of law you practice. But since most/many lawyers do not participate in a free market where any participant is free to walk away, it’s almost certain that you are not billing free market rates even if you are not double-billing.

    It’s part of the fundamental logical fallacies that most lawyers cling to, the notion that because they command high prices, that must mean they provide value to their clients. The notion that because they are paid as much as doctors they provide value to society.

    In reality since many lawyers set prices based what the other lawyers are charging and knowing that their clients are over a barrel and unable to walk away, there is no basis to any of these beliefs.

    You may think I am wrong about this (and maybe I am), but you might also consider:

    Upton Sinclair: ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’

  84. Puzzling,

    So sorry to disappoint you yet again since I know your standards are so high. Oh well, I guess I’ ll have to live with your disapproval in sadness because your opinion means so much to me.

  85. Logan5,

    I just love how you conservative hypocrites now put down George Bush after voting for him twice. It is your way of distancing yourself from his failures, only to try to replicate his policies with yet another figurehead fot war and greed.

  86. The GOP are corporatist, criminal fascists and minions of special interests not interested in doing the job as described by the Constitution but rather in lining their own pockets and stroking their maladjusted overinflated egos.

    The DNC are spineless, corporatist fascists and minions of special interests not interested in doing the job as described by the Constitution but rather in lining their own pockets and stroking their maladjusted overinflated egos.

    The Libertarians are clueless, corporatist fascists and minions of special interests not interested in doing the job as described by the Constitution but rather in lining their own pockets and stroking their maladjusted overinflated egos.

    Most Americans are tired of all of their self-serving bullshit from all of the major political parties that comes at the expense of tax dollars better spent elsewhere and ever eroding civil liberties in the name of a war against a noun that is less likely to kill you than your own furniture and increasingly is turning this country into a military police state.

    Now everyone got equal time in a non-partisan manner.

    Happy?

  87. Professor Turley— Your comments are on point! Irrespective of whether Obama is frustrated with Congress, he does not have executive authority to circumvent Congress (federal law) by granting special treatment and rewards in the way of work permits to ILLEGAL immigrants and permission to a class of people not to have federal law applied against them!

    Americans overwhelmingly (including this life-long Democrat) are DEMANDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF OUR MOST-GENEROUS-LAWS-IN-THE-WORLD IMMIGRATION LAWS. We permit 1 million LEGAL immigrants into our country every year— it is WRONG to grant rewards for lawbreaking when so many LEGAL immigrants have paid a high price, waited the wait, and gone though a backgound check to come here LEGALLY!

    AN ADMINISTRATION WHICH PLEDGES THE SUBVERSION OF FEDERAL LAW IS INTOLERABLE!

  88. Guys, IMHO, at the core of this next election there is only one thing that will matter. It will not be about drone strikes, outhouses, gun control, lack of gun control, or even the stock market. It will be about the SCOTUS. We have some Justices hanging on by a thread, and the next appointments will shape the direction the Court takes for another generation. Do we really want any more appointments in the mold of Alito or Thomas?

    When I go to my polling place in November, I will be voting to keep more right wing reactionaries off the Court.

  89. “Anon,
    You are wrong and way off base.”

    Wouldn’t be the first time, but I have seen other lawyers agree with me.

  90. Followup on the 6 year old girl whose arrest offended SwarthmoreMom

    http://www.azcentral.com/community/northvalley/articles/20120618sheriffs-deputies-turn-over-year-old-adults-ice-abrk.html

    A 6-year-old child taken into custody by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office as part of a human-smuggling investigation is under the care of a faith-based social-services organization, the El Salvador Consulate said.

    The child, whose name has not been released, was picked up on Friday by deputies along with 16 others suspected of being in the country illegally. The child was unaccompanied and others in the group claimed to know nothing about her, sheriff’s officials said.

    Officials initially believed the girl was from El Salvador, based on her statements to deputies. Sheriff’s officials transferred custody of the girl to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    José Joaquin Chacon,El Salvador’s consulate general in Phoenix, said an investigation found the child was not from El Salvador, but Mexico.

    Chacon said consulate officials inquiring into the child’s origin found she was in the care of a faith-based social-services group. Officials from the organization said that without a name, she was not able to confirm the girl was in her group’s care.

    Socorro Cordova, a spokeswoman for the consul general of Mexico, was not able to confirm the girl’s current location.

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, released a statement saying only that the child was handed over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, would not comment on the case.

    Cordova said that sometimes official are not able to locate the family of youths taken into custody. In those cases, the child is put up for adoption after about six months.

    ICE officials say that so far in fiscal 2012, they have transferred 1,636 unaccompanied and undocumented minors to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. That number was 1,736 in fiscal 2011.

    Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said deputies do see cases like this from time to time.

    “I think out of all of them, I think this is the most disturbing, one, because of the circumstances that (there was) no idea where she was going,” he said. “Nobody will take ownership of her. I always think, ‘Could she have been kidnapped?’ I don’t know what the motive was to bring her into the United States.”

    He said that in a typical case, the child is on his or her way to parents who sent for her. This seemed to be a different matter as no one claimed to know where the child was headed, Arpaio said.

    Anyway that Joe Arpaio is a real racist and sexist for trying to stop human trafficking and arresting these 6 year olds and unaccompanied minors.

    “Being on the opposite side of Joe Arpaios just has to be right.”

  91. MM:

    No, MM you provided us a direct quote — not an approximation, summary, or paraphrase — to support your argument and it never was. It’s just exactly what I thought: Your intellectual integrity is about as reliable as your commentary. There never was any such quote and you know it. No mention anywhere of “pushing until a greater power stops us.” And when caught in the prevarication, your retort is some tired old imperialistic rhetoric everyone on this blog can quote from the unnamed Bush official that only roughly approximates your point and, upon closer reflection has little to do with Obama “pushing” anyone.

    Sorry MM, but like most here I don’t suffer fools gladly especially ones who have to fabricate a quote to get their point across. Keep reading those books and magazines there MM, maybe even try a newspaper or two. You’ll probably read about Jayson Blair. He couldn’t keep his quotes straight either or even where he was when he quoted them.

  92. @rafflaw

    Joseph Stiglitz on rent-seeking and people that don’t create value just shift money from the lower and middle class to themselves

    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/06/18/joseph-stiglitz-america

    Wiki on rent-seeking

    “Rent-seeking
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In economics, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth, for example, spending money on political lobbying in order to be given a share of wealth that has already been created. A famous example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. People accused of rent seeking typically argue that they are indeed creating new wealth (or preventing the reduction of old wealth) by improving quality controls, guaranteeing that charlatans do not prey on a gullible public, and preventing bubbles.

    Many current studies of rent-seeking focus on efforts to capture various monopoly privileges stemming from government regulation of free competition. The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land.”

    Stiglitz is of course a Nobel prize winning Keynesian but in decrying rent-seekers he agrees with the Libertarian lawyers like Ilya Somin that want to get rid of Bar requirements and the lawyers guild.

  93. “Lip service is all you’ll ever get from me” — Elvis Costello

    “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed…There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president,” Mr. Obama told Univision in a town-hall meeting in 2011.

    “Oops, I did it again” — Britney Spears

    Once again, any means to justify his political ends:

    Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html

    Napolitano keeps referring to what they’re doing as “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion” when the determination of whether to deport is not even a prosecution.

  94. So is the purpose of lawyers to bar justice to all?
    I won’t repeat all the jokes you must have heard, I don’t know them as we never frequented the same bars, sorry places of education. But I could create many anyway.

  95. Jack,
    Do you have difficulty distinguishing between “prosecutorial”, “persecutorial”, and “executorial”? Ask Napolitano the same question.
    Prosecutorial is the same as executorial in my mind.

  96. Rafflaw,

    The fact that congress refused to cooperate with Obama does not change the fact that Obama is WAY out of line.

    Presidents are not authorized to declare which laws they will not enforce unless they can show that their oath to the constitution constrains them to do so because they believe the law to be unconstitutional. Under no circumstances are presidents authorized to declare they will ignore laws because they simply do not fit within their policy or political aims.

    That’s what Bush did with his signing statements and that’s what Obama did here.

  97. […] “Here the administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal [immigrants] regardless of their age. Congress has refused to pass such laws and this is an obvious effort to circumvent Congress – something of a signature for this administration,” writes Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University in Washington, in an analysis. […]

  98. Geve the Prez a little slack, he’s doing the best a moderate Republican can do. The other two branches and the opposition would have us all in brown shirts and whistling like the Hitler Jugend, even the ladies would have mustaches. Sieg Willard….!

  99. Bob,

    The rules have changed since Bush. Obama is a good guy. That’s why he can refuse to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes–it really just doesn’t fit his policy and Congress might not like it either!!! I’m personally fine with everything such a great guy does. War with Libya? Cluster bombs and drones for civilians with nations we haven’t even declared war against? No prosecution of financial criminals? Sure that shit is against the law and all but Obama has such a great dog and did you know he has an organic garden at the WH?

    Everything changed on 9/11. It all changed again when Obama was elected. Now we don’t ask questions or look too closely at what is going on.

  100. If Bush had done the same thing for immigrants, i would have applauded him for the same thing. The tea party with its anti-immigrant fervor is alive and well on this blog.

  101. Bob,
    I understand what you are saying, but Congress didn’t just refuse to cooperate, they have undemocratically blocked the DREAM act and countless other pieces of legislation. Secondly, I consider his decision to be within the prosecutorial discretion every adminstration has utilized. While I don’t always agree with the use of that discretion, I believe it is valid and legitimate.

  102. Everything changed on 9/11. It all changed again when Obama was elected. Now we don’t ask questions or look too closely at what is going on.
    ———————-
    speak fo ryourself.

    Unfortunately, the misbehaviors by the Bush have put our entire Country at risk to the rest of the World. Congress is broken. What Obama did was small time and absolutely humane compared to an unprovoked aggression against a Country the relative size of a mosquito….a move that apparently was encouraged by his oil industry buds and who knows who else….and just think, the whole thig could have been avoided if SCOTUS had not had their little hankerin and turned a deaf ear to the voting public….

  103. Here’s the problem. There is a pattern of lawlessness by this administration. For example, it is mandatory under our law that torture be prosecuted as a war crime. Both Dick and George openly admitted to torture. There is no investigation of this admission.

    Likewise, prosecution is mandatory for financial criminals. Instead of prosecution these individuals have been put in charge on US economic policy from which they have profited handsomely.

    Bradley Manning is gay. He was openly declared guilty by the president who also had his administration casting aspersions on Manning’s character by virtue of his being a homosexual. He is being illegally imprisoned and has been tortured by the “pro-gay” president.

    Libya was declared a non-war, war and regime change implemented. This is currently being planned for in Syria. These are not legal actions. Iran has been attacked via cyber warfare and regime change is being openly planned for. This is no more legal than what Bush did to Iraq and which Obama continues there.

    The use of kill lists for drones and indefinite detention ought to speak for themselves.

    The heart of the matter is rule of fiat verses rule of law. The worst part of what is happening in our nation is the willingness of Obama supporters to lie both to themselves and others about what is being done. This lawlessness might benefit some people, for example it is currently benefiting people who will donate and vote for Obama. However, this same lawlessness will harm many people. (Unless you think dead people and their families as well as people who are being tortured should be grateful for their treatment because it was by a Democrat!)

    Here some people are gaining a real benefit. But the truth is there are legal ways to give more people a real benefit and it is legal ways that should be used. Further, while some are gaining a benefit by lawlessness many others are harmed. If you want to help and avoid harm, then doing things according to the law instead of fiat is ALWAYS the way to go.

  104. Rafflaw,

    You’re kidding yourself.

    Go back to law school and imagine yourself giving the following answer

    rafflaw: “[Because] Congress didn’t just refuse to cooperate, they have undemocratically blocked the DREAM act and countless other pieces of legislation, [the president is justified in bypassing congress entirely by ignoring the law.]”

    Or this:

    rafflaw: “Secondly, I consider his decision to be within the prosecutorial discretion every [administration] has utilized. While I don’t always agree with the use of that discretion, I believe it is valid and legitimate.”

    Really? Did you catch this part of the article above?

    Turley: “Here the Administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal immigrations regardless of their age.

    Not for nothing, but

    Since when can prosecutorial discretion be used to violate the Equal Protection Clause??

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyler_v._Boles

    Violation of the law is never excused simply because “your guy” happened to do it.

  105. Jill,

    You’ll get no argument from me, Christ, I’m still waiting for Mespo to tell me why I can’t get a posse of sharp shooters together and go hunting for our most “dangerous neighbors,” i.e. the ones that prey on children every hour of every day of the year. After all, that is the logical extension of HIS reasoning.

  106. The worst part of what is happening in our nation is the willingness of Obama supporters to lie both to themselves and others about what is being done.
    ————————
    Jill disagree.
    You imagine much if you think people are lying to themselves in addition to being lied to….

  107. Bob,
    I understand your viewpoint, but we will have to agree to disagree. Even Prof. Turley suggested that it is not a violation of the law. “Presidents are given extreme deference in decisions on the enforcement of federal laws. It would be difficult for anyone to challenge this policy for that reason. ”
    My comment about the filibusters was inserted to correct what I saw as an incorrect statement about Congress, not as a reason to support the decision to not prosecute young immigrants who were brought here by their parents.

  108. “The rules have changed since Bush. Obama is a good guy. That’s why he can refuse to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes”

    Jill,

    Irony is not your forte. What is though is the firm belief that you are one of the few that is not brainwashed and that those who disagree with you are ignorant. You repeat yourself, time and again, with information that we all know already. Many people here, including me, have made it clear that we have specific reasons for voting for Obama. No one here has told you that if you don’t that you are a stupid, brainwashed “Obamabot”, which is the term you use for people who feel as I do. You are an elitist Jill in the worst sense of the word.

  109. The President has the power to pardon and as we saw with Nixon and others, the President can pardon before the fact. Given that why not just see this as a blanket pardon, with some strings. Now also I must say that marijuana possession is against Federal, as well as may State laws. Were I President I would pardon before and after the fact, anyone prosecuted and/or convicted for marijuana possession and use under Federal Statutes. In the process I would proudly be ignoring laws on the books. Now of course I’m not a lawyer, merely a long time political activist, who is tired of the bad guys being allowed to run rampant while the good guys remain purists. You must remember though, that I believe that there was a coup in the 60’s and the premises about our Constitutional system became moot.

    The bringing a knife to the gunfight analogy is actually much worse. Many of us are using wooden clubs against Panzer Tanks. I would like to know where in the Constitution it was envisaged that major players in the political process, wouldn’t even abide by it and what Constitutional remedy exists for that short of violence? I don’t need to be lectured about the crap this Country has done since 9/11, were it not for my bad heart rearing its’ head as I flunked the final test (blood pressure) in my Selective Service physical, I might have been sent to Viet Nam, where the horrible excesses committed in Iraq/Afghanistan, bad as they are, pale in comparison. I certainly don’t need a history lesson from some who think that this lack of Constitutional government is something new.

    You give me Bradley Manning Jill and I’ll raise with Kent State, COINTELPRO, Napalming Southeast Asian Jungles, carpet bombing Cambodia and the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK. Some people think life began when they were born and to me that constitutes blindness. The course of human political affairs has sadly always been a brutal one with the forces of money and power usually having the upper hand. And yes there are some of us who are committed to evening up the game, but at the same time ensuring a minimum of collateral damage. To the perfect purist collateral damage such as women’s rights, racism, destruction of the middle class, poverty and Theocracy, is worth their effort to keep themselves above the fray.

    “God save us from the idealists of the world, they get everyone else’s backs broken” – James Garner’s character in “The Americanization of Emily”.

    “An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it makes a better soup.”
    ― Bertrand Russell

  110. Hey Mike Spindell, I had some neighbors from Turkey who wanted our roses because they used them for cooking. I let them have all the roses they wanted — they grew over our brick house like weeds — but I don’t know if it was soup or not. I think it might have been some kind of candy.

  111. I find the hostility directed towards Jill quite amusing and quite telling. God forbid that someone actually take the time to remind us of everything we let slide; much less point out that we may be lying to ourselves.

    Who me?? Lie to myself about Obama???

    How dare you suggest such a thing Jill!

    Let me tell you all the reasons why I’m not lying to myself…..(yada yada)

    “You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” — R. Pirsig

  112. Malsiha,

    You’d be surprised at the food and drink you can make with roses. Everything from rose pesto to rosewater to candies, cakes and jellies. I briefly dated a Turkish girl in college. She made me a Turkish pudding called Asure (sp?) that was flavored with rose petals.

  113. Bob,

    True, true, but by the same token Jill often paints with a very large brush. While I’ll stipulate that Obama does seem to get an easier pass by his supporters for some of actions, I don’t think he gets a free pass here.

  114. Gene,

    I don’t need to agree with Jill’s arguments to point out that the apologetic rhetoric around here is neck deep.

    This is just another illustration of the “it’s okay if our guy does it” justification speak and the hostility towards Jill speaks to the self-deception involved.

  115. “Who me?? Lie to myself about Obama???
    How dare you suggest such a thing Jill!”

    Bob,

    Spare me the Zen, although Persig was a good guide back in the day, Perls’ whole philosophy which I live, drips with it. Now I could prove to you that I’m not lying to myself about Obama and much else, but you see that would entail me having to spend hours finding, then posting quote after quote from my own writing. If you have so little respect for me, there’s little point in trying to prove differently to you, after all I really don’t remember you ever admitting you were wrong…….about anything. However, in your case we understand that you may not always be right, but you Kant be wrong. You’ve got authority on your side. :) :)

  116. “This is just another illustration of the “it’s okay if our guy does it” justification”

    Bob,

    If you’ve read what I’ve written and actually were capable of comprehending it, then quite frankly your statement above makes you a blatant liar, or is it that you just feel like playing? Bob, I’ve argued you to at least to a draw in the past and only desisted after a personal call from a acquaintance of yours asked me to desist for the good of the blog. In all these years I didn’t take you for a liar, though now I may have to reassess. I’ll let my exact words speak for themselves in this case because I know how hard it is for you to back down on anything. That’s why it really is so funny that you would quote Persig, because you behavior is anything but zen. Have a ice day. :)

  117. Mike,

    First of all, my words were not directed solely at you and my reference to Jill goes to a long history of apologists attacking her for being such an annoying gadfly.

    Accordingly, the comment

    “This is just another illustration of the “it’s okay if our guy does it” justification”

    goes to my problem with the shameless apologetics of liberals when it comes to Obama.

    Second, I don’t need a degree in psychology to notice that Jill irritates you. Hell, she, like Glen Greenwald, bothers me a bit as well; only because she constantly reminds me of all the things I’m not paying attention to.

    But instead of noting it and moving on, what do you do? You attack her with crap like

    “I don’t need to be lectured about the crap this Country has done since 9/11”

    and

    “I certainly don’t need a history lesson from some who think that this lack of Constitutional government is something new.”

    Are you questioning the truth of her assertions?

    No.

    So what are you doing Mike?

    What is this?

    “You give me Bradley Manning Jill and I’ll raise with Kent State, COINTELPRO, Napalming Southeast Asian Jungles, carpet bombing Cambodia and the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK.”

    What does that have to do with anything she said? Jill is talking about things happening NOW. Things happening now that we, the people, are in some way responsible for to the extent that we ignore it and let it happen NOW.

    I’m sorry Mr. Peabody but due to the fact that we don’t have a “Way Back” machine to travel into the past and remedy the problems you brought to our attention, you have no rational reason for dismissing Jill’s concerns for things happening NOW.

    Accordingly, if you are a rational man, your hostility directed towards Jill just might be related to something else that’s eating you.

    Then again, I Kant really tell can I.

  118. Even after all the puffery of the anti-Obama people, no one has changed their mind in this small blog group. I suppose it gets frustrating for those that want to skim off a percentage or two and guarantee a win for Romney. Most of the women will stick with the candidate that Planned Parenthood has endorsed, and so will the men that support them.

  119. The better part of wisdom is to stay out of bar room brawls.

    Frankly, I think the whole shebang was corrupted no later than the Andrew Jackson’s administration.
    Although, as a child of my times, I have a certain affection for JFK, RFK and MLKjr as the modern breaking point, where pride of self and country were defeated as motivations for our national actions.

    So, Jill can abandon her love of the FF and the pure past that never existed.

  120. Bob,

    My problem with Jill is not the information she delivers, but with her dismissal and denigration of those who have different ideas. She is just as guilty as Bron is when he calls everything not Bron socialist, except to give her her due Jill usually has facts, whereas Bron doesn’t.

  121. Bob, Mike,

    Jill has some valid points….. But as Mike states, she does seem to paint with broad strokes, which has been pointed out is quite irritating. At present, the only reason to vote against Mitt is the potential of a nomination to the Sct. Other than that, most white males not doing suffrage would be more inclined to vote 3rd party…… But here that will get you labeled a Republican…… I used to be party loyalist until I developed a conscience…… Yes, I voted for Nader……

  122. Bob,
    So now I am throwing a tantrum because I am suggesting something that you don’t agree with? Once again, I stated that the reference to Congress was to correct your statement that Congress was doing more than merely not agreeing with Obama. I also suggested that Prof. Turley stated that a President is given wide latitude on the discretion issue.
    I am not a shameless apologetic as you are suggesting. I have criticized Obamaon this site when he needed to be criticized. However, I also understand when the Right is selling the country a bill of goods and puposely hijacking the economy for partisan gain.
    As to Jill, she is the one who has attacked myself and others here for the mortal sin of actually agreeing with Obama or stating that I would vote for an imperfect Obama over anyone the Republicans have presented. She doesn’t like that and because of that I am an apologist in her eyes. She is entitled to her opinion. But I have the same right. At least I thought I did.Or maybe it is just another one of my tantrums.

  123. Rafflaw: “So now I am throwing a tantrum because I am suggesting something that you don’t agree with?”

    Rafflaw,

    Has congress exercised any power that it was not granted in Article I? Has congress broken or ignored any laws?

    No.

    Pointing to the (legal) obstructive actions of congress as justification for ignoring the law is a tantrum because it’s no justification at all.

    Furthermore, no amount of latitude afforded via prosecutorial discretion permits violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyler_v._Boles

    If you have a counter legal argument, other than repeated appeals to bare prosecutorial discretion as discounted above, I’d like to hear it.

  124. Bob,
    I have told you three times now, my comments about congress was related to your statement that they were merely being uncooperative when they were being obstructive on purpose. I did not state that as justification for Obama’s decision to not deport the young immigrants.
    As to the Equal Protection Clause argument, I made no comment about that in my earlier responses. However, The link that you provided suggests the following holding “failure to proceed against other offenders because of a lack of knowledge of prior offenses or because of the exercise of reasonable selectivity in enforcement does not deny equal protection to persons who are prosecuted.” This holding seems to suggest that Obama has the discretion because being selective in enforcement does not deny equal protection to those that are prosecuted. A fuller reading of the Justia version of the opinion which your Wiki link was from suggests that the majority stated that the petitioners did not allege that the selective enforcement was due to a disallowed arbitrary classification so therefore the claim was not allowed. I am not sure this is a good case for your argument.I will qualify that my statement is based only on the reading of the Justia version that your citation linked to. Maybe a reading of the official decision might be a stronger example for your argument.
    Finally, even Prof. Turley did not suggest that Obama was violating the Equal Protection Clause. He asserts that the enforcement policy change was a bad idea because it is an end run around Congress.

  125. Oyler says that prosecutorial discretion exercised in the absence “a deliberate policy of proceeding only in a certain class of cases or against specific persons.” is not a violation of Equal Protection and is therefore constitutional.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=368&invol=448

    Rafflaw: “Finally, even Prof. Turley did not suggest that Obama was violating the Equal Protection Clause.”

    No, but he hints at it:

    Turley: “The Administration will no longer deport illegal aliens under 30 who came to this country as children — effectively negating part of the federal law.”

    Turley: “Here the Administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal immigrations regardless of their age.”

    All I did was tie up the loose end with this:

    By law of non-contradiction, Oyler clearly holds that prosecutorial discretion exercised as “the result of a deliberate policy of proceeding only in a certain class of cases or against specific persons” IS a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.

  126. So we get a grandson clause instead of a grandfather one.

    Or a statute of limitations, in reverse. Up to thirty years you get a freebie, but not citizenship (which stinks, I think, if your nose is clean).

    Both ways is good by me.

    Suggest starting over with new C.
    Talk about gridlock. Or a new bunch of parties with new ideas. Nader for garbage collector. Starts with Cheney and Rumsfeld.

  127. I checked out the language in OYLER. Here:

    Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
    The petitioners in these consolidated cases are serving life sentences imposed under West Virginia’s habitual criminal statute. This Act provides for a mandatory life sentence upon the third conviction ‘of a crime punishable by confinement in a penitentiary.’ The increased penalty is to be invoked by an information filed by the prosecuting attorney ‘immediately upon conviction and before sentence.’ Alleging that this Act had been applied without advance notice and to only a minority of those subject to its provisions, in violation respectively of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the petitioners filed separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Both of their petitions were denied without opinion. Unlike [Chewning case, citation] here each of the petitioners was represented by counsel at the time he was sentenced. Finding the cases representative of the many recidivist cases that have been docketed in this Court the past few Terms, we granted certiorari. [citation omitted] We now affirm the judgment in each case.

    William Oyler, … was convicted of murder in the second degree on February 5, 1953, which offense carried a penalty of from 5 to 18 years’ imprisonment. Sentence was deferred, and on February 11 his motion for a new trial was overruled. On that same date the Prosecuting Attorney requested and was granted leave to file an information in writing alleging that Oyler was the same person who had suffered three prior convictions in Pennsylvania which were punishable by confinement in a penitentiary. * * *
    II.
    Petitioners also claim they were denied the equal protection of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Oyler stated:
    ‘Petitioner was discriminated against as an Habitual Criminal in that from January, 1940, to June, 1955, there were six men sentenced in the Taylor County Circuit Court who were subject to prosecution as Habitual offenders, Petitioner was the only man thus sentenced during this period. It is a matter of record that the five men who were not prosecuted as Habitual Criminals during this period, all had three or more felony convictions and sentences as adults, and Petitioner’s former convictions were a result of Juvenile Court actions.

    The Petitioner was discriminated against by selective use of a mandatory State Statute, in that 904 men who were known offenders throughout the State of West Virginia were not sentenced as required by the mandatory Statutes, Chapter 61, Article 11, Sections 18 and 19 of the Code. Equal Protection and Equal Justice was (sic) denied.’
    Statistical data based on prison records were appended to the petition to support the latter allegation. Crabtree in his petition included similar statistical support and alleged:
    ‘The said Statute are (sic) administered and applied in such a manner as to be in violation of Equal Protection and Equal Justice therefor in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.’

    Thus petitioners’ contention is that the habitual criminal statute imposes a mandatory duty on the prosecuting authorities to seek the severer penalty against all persons coming within the statutory standards but that it is done only in a minority of cases. This, petitioners argue, denies equal protection to those persons against whom the heavier penalty is enforced. We note that it is not stated whether the failure to proceed against other three-time offenders was due to lack of knowledge of the prior offenses on the part of the prosecutors or was the result of a deliberate policy of proceeding only in a certain class of cases or against specific persons. The statistics merely show that according to penitentiary records a high percentage of those subject to the law have not been proceeded against. There is no indication that these records of previous convictions, which may not have been compiled until after the three-time offenders had reached the penitentiary, were available to the prosecutors.11 Hence the allegations set out no more than a failure to prosecute others because of a lack of knowledge of their prior offenses. This does not deny equal protection due petitioners under the Fourteenth Amendment. [examples omitted].

    Moreover, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of selective enforcement, it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged. Oregon v. Hicks, supra; cf [other cases] (by implication). * * *

    OK, it’s the President saying a certain kind of enforcement will not be used against “illegals” under 30 who came here when they were children. Therefore, they came here when they were not legally responsible for their own legal status, nor were they legally able to choose where to live or with whom. There are actually custody battles involving 17 year old children who are not given the right to choose where they live. So the “illegals” against whom Obama has instructed his executive branch NOT to enforce by means of deportation are a “class” of people whose status has been imposed upon them not by their own choice — their own presumably illegal or unlawful choice — but by the choice of other individuals. It IS selective prosecution. Is it selective prosecution in violation of anybody’s federally protected rights?

    I guess not. Nobody has an expressible RIGHT to have them deported.

  128. “While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action…”

    While today’s political liberals may celebrate unilateral action that gives them what they want, they surely oppose it when they don’t want the ends that come of it. If it wasn’t for double-standards, some people wouldn’t have any standards at all.

    The scope and breadth of this seems to extend far beyond any reasonable definition of prosecutorial discretion, that is allocating the use resources to their highest and best use. It’s immigration policy. But that is one of the enumerated powers of Congress, not the Presidency. The president’s lawyer had to be reminded of this distinction before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Arizona’s SB 1070.

    Edwin Needler: The Constitution of vests the subject matter immigration with the national government.

    Judge John Noonan: No, national government no, in Congress. There’s a big difference between the national government and Congress.

    Obama could have well just instructed DHS not prosecute deportations on the small number of the population this policy includes that would have actually faced the deportation. That was already being done in many cases. Instead he is offering de facto legalization and work permits to what may be more that a million illegal immigrants.

    By the way, if those to whom Obama intends to give this temporary amnesty as a down payment are to be viewed as innocent because their parents made the decision to bring them here, why aren’t the parents held responsible? Instead they too will remain in the country illegally with little chance of being deported, if they don’t get arrested for other crimes, until they too are given amnesty or are allowed to be sponsored by their amnestied children.

  129. People who have caused problems do not get prosecuted.
    That’s how our country works.
    People get prosecuted for crimes that are written down — if someone decides to prosecute them.

    Then, again, there are those who get prosecuted for things that are NOT written down as crimes — that too.

    So yes, people have standards. The wholesale abandonment of all proper and appropriate standards in a selective way has been the modus operandi of our government(s) (that is, state and federal) for so long that I can’t scream about an instance of it when the pile-up is so great that the horizon no longer appears in view. I think it was an end-run around Congress, yes, but am I up in arms about it? Well, let’s see. Compared to drones killing innocent people, random government targeting and destruction of ordinary people’s life interests, every kind of economic crime and social abomination, and a few etceteras, well, um…nah.

  130. “The parents would still be eligible for deportation.”

    Theoretically. In practice, the recipient of deferred action will be like a quasi-anchor baby and will make it less likely that the parents will be deported.

  131. “I think it was an end-run around Congress, yes, but am I up in arms about it?”

    You should be–as should every citizen. Otherwise, our system of government becomes trust the hopefully benevolent autocrat.

  132. “If it wasn’t for double-standards, some people wouldn’t have any standards at all.”

    What if a general amnesty were passed as law by Congress and then the president arbitrarily carved out this very same under 30 category as being the only people whose applications would be accepted using the very same limited resources and executive discretion excuses? All these people defending the power of the imperial president in this case would be singing a different tune.

  133. Not the Onion — Fox Nation: “Obama’s Lawless Presidency Close to Totalitarianism.” From the Maddow blog.

  134. Jack, ““I think it was an end-run around Congress, yes, but am I up in arms about it?”

    You should be–as should every citizen. Otherwise, our system of government becomes trust the hopefully benevolent autocrat.”

    Well here’s why I’m not, Jack. Because I would have basically agreed with you on this one for the first 64 years of my life, but guess what happened?

    MY RIGHTS WERE ALL TAKEN AWAY in 1982 and I was neither charged with a crime nor sued for a tort. They just got taken, one after the other, without due process, without even having things written down on paper, because some wacko who had gotten citizenship fraudulently pestered public officials and did end-runs around every agency and court there was. End-run after end-run after end-run, deprivation of constitutional rights after deprivation of constitutional rights after deprivation of constitutional rights. First I started fighting it by hiring lawyers and then I couldn’t afford to do that any more so I started fighting it by studying up and defending myself pro-se and then I got sick and then I carried on as well as I could and then I got pro bono counsel and then they committed perfidy and worked for my adversary and then I made formal complaints against them and then and then and then and then and Jack,

    NOBODY WHO DID ANYTHING ILLEGAL TO ME EVER GOT TAKEN TO TASK FOR ANYTHING, EVEN WHEN I PROVED IT ON PAPER, AND THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA LIED TO ME AND THE BAR COUNSEL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIED TO ME AND THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND LIED TO ME AND ALL OF THIS WAS PROVEN AND CAN BE PROVEN AGAIN AND AGAIN AND NOTHING,

    Nobody helped,
    No great constitutional lawyer got onto my case and began to sue for my life interest,
    No academic climbed on board and changed clothes in a phone booth, and

    POTUS didn’t help me and
    SCOTUS didn’t help me and
    ATIOTUS didn’t help me and

    none of them will EVER help me and I already know, I know in every cell of my body, with every breath I draw, I know, I KNOW that

    OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS TRUST THE HOPEFULLY BENEVOLENT AUTOCRAT WHEREVER HE, SHE, or IT IS FOUND,

    That is ALREADY what we have, Jack,
    it is what we have, already,
    I LIVE HERE!

    Now, others are beginning to understand that they also live here with me.

    So, guess what, I am not up in arms about it ANY MORE.
    Now, I am just trying to pull myself out.
    And, like the little red hen, I’ll try to do it myself.
    If I totally fail, I hope to make somebody else simmer in the same chicken soup I end up in. And that, Jack, is my assessment of the government I have to call “my government” and that is all I expect of it. So those under-30 “illegals” who won’t get sent to a different country — I don’t even envy them.

  135. rafflaw,
    You can’t have ALL the good luck, now can you?
    First they come, then they multiply, and now they get to wave goddby to an educated grown child who can stay. Talk about luck. Gotta share a bit. What happens to the kid after 30????

  136. Malisha,

    There are no benevolent autocrats, otherwise you got it right. Some occasionally will fall into a “Lady Bountiful” mood someday and boost there self-esteem by doing the right thing, just then. Lightning does strike.

    Otherwise it is continous sunshine on their cheeks and a lively bartering between power holders, eased by a little cash when grease is needed.

    I got good handling in the justice system for two reasons:
    I was not a threat to them, only to myself.
    I had more value in the economy than as a profit unit in the incarceration system. Other factors are possible, like good effective engaged attorneys.

    Strange that no attorney feels like immolating him/herself with your case. A change to start a historical career.
    That of course assumes the system doesn’t sabotage the action again—which they would. Dreams of heaven usually end under 6 feet of clay.

  137. Idealist the attorneys are too c hummy with one another.
    Sorry to Prof Turley, and others on here who are decent, but my experience is most are no. (I hope my current lawyer is in the decent category – re sold a house was told was lemonade and turns out lied and it is a dangerous lemon)
    Self and political interest always comes first.
    In my med mal case Dr. Jannetta, the defendant, committed perjury. The Pa court said so but the no one cared. In fact 4 weeks after I was forced to settle a case worth millions (many atty’s said so even after the fact) for bupkis (I have written about this before Dr. Jannetta was nominated by Gov Ridge for sec’t of health which despite notifying Ridge and all fifty senators of the perjury (and to which only 3 senators replied, 2 to say who cares essentially and a third wrote me nice letter but tough luck (my translation). Ridge aide replied after confirmation that Ridge was satisfied Jannetta was a fine person and would do a good job.
    He only stayed 6 months (1995 – 1996) so looks like it was ore for his resume.
    At any rate long story long, sorry, I went to Ag while Ridge still governor. I showed the proof of the perjury as well as statement by Pa. Superior Court. I was told nothing there. Move on and they would do nothing about it.
    A few years later when Ridge out I decided to go back to AG office. I talked with a staffer who at first wasn;t interested but then when read depositions and trial testimony, and decision by Pa Superior Court said I would absolutely have taken this case to the court, but you missed your statute of limitations by a few months.
    It was happenstance that I even decided to go again but it was politics and the good old boy lawyer network that let this doctor get away with criminal behavior.
    Jannetta was also a “name” and that was another reason.
    Unfortunately Malisha is right, these guys get away with it and we get ( ).

    (When Ridge was to appear with Romney I tweeted and emailed Romney people, wrote comments to articles touting Ridge would be coming.
    I asked why Romney would allow himself to appear with someone who knowingly had a perjurer in his cabinet. I did not get a personal reply but strangely, and may just be coincidental, Ridge decided not to go. I have not seen Romney tout Ridge as his supporter since.

    (“”We have little difficulty in concluding that Dr. Jannetta’s testimony at deposition was different than, or inconsistent with, the testimony at trial.” Levy v Jannetta, CCP Allegheny County, GD 81-7689; appeal -J. A370017/92 Levy v Jannetta et al, No. 00150 Pittsburgh, 1992. settled, 1995.)

  138. “Fox Nation: “Obama’s Lawless Presidency Close to Totalitarianism.””

    What I find interesting is that we have competing memes which negate each other, yet the purveyors of the memes see no dichotomy. The first meme, which came from the Left, with support from the Right, is that Obama is a startlingly ineffective President who can’t get anything done. The second meme starting on the Right, with support from the Left, is of an Imperialist Dictator as President, destroying America’s independence. Which is it, because it can’t be both. When some people all over the political spectrum agree on outright hyperbole, the result is the confusion we see on this thread. The timid, ineffective dictator, who has sold out to the M.I Complex, Wall Street, Religious Right, Gays, Environmentalists, “Feminazi’s” and of course to the Communists. Politics certainly does make strange bedfellows.

  139. Int terms of not getting anything done Obama is his own worst enemy. He never came out shouting about the things he has done. When parts of the health care law came into play where was he, when the auto industry cam back, where was he, when the stock market came back where was he when jobs coming back, although slow are coming back, where was he, etc, etc, and so on.
    Part of the “ineffectiveness” is that he does not let us kknow what he has accomplished.

  140. ” Most of the women will stick with the candidate that Planned Parenthood has endorsed, and so will the men that support them.”

    And you wonder why you’re called a vagina voter.

  141. LeeJCarrol,

    Guess we must conclude that that law is a form of guild, with those restrictions and binding internal rules.

    I think it odd the silence which meets you, and others who I won’t name. Who speaks here for the lawyers when these tales of injustice are parleyed for hope for betterment? None is heard.

    We get tales of judges, lawyers, officials from JT and even others. But nothing in terms of offering a solution to this evil. For it is a cancer, ie it is growing and deadly in the end.

    Are there no lawyer organizations willing to challenge this sickness? Where is the equivalent of the ACLU.
    Perhaps their are. Describe them.

    Where is the federal law equivalent to the consumer financial protection laws which would offer a time unlimited appeal and prosecutorial path?

    I am not a lawyer and here am I presuming to mention alternatives and needs. Where the hell are the lawyers here? And their fellow travelers? Why is it so quiet here?

    Is baring your woes uncouth in this place. OK. Skip the personal. But letting the comments stand at just that, without mentioning the rare case when they get caught.

    Where is the EFFing oversight???????

  142. “And you wonder why you’re called a vagina voter.”

    Anon,

    Proof you are a misogynist, actually only a teeny part of the proof.

  143. And you wonder why you’re called a vagina voter.~anon
    ——————————————————————–
    I’ve never heard that before….anon, what have you got against vaginas anyway?????

  144. ANON,

    Now that I know you should be reading my words (pretend I am one of your opponents).
    With your love of women, I suggest you read Hemingway’s:
    “The short happy life of Francis Maccomber”.

    Hope it convinces you to seek help. And don’t do anything rash in the meanwhile. Seriously. I was on that path for some years. Not a good one.

    A good woman can compensate for a bad one. After you have resolved things.

  145. Anon, people routinely vote their own interests.

    But getting into the symantics of this “issue” you have been displaying:

    We are not vagina voters. We are uterus voters. Aye, there’s the rub.

  146. Boy. After reading the comments on this article I am glad I am a dog. Bite each other in the ass once in a while but be civil and dont bark so meanly humans.

  147. Hello! I realize this is somewhat off-topic however I needed to ask.
    Does managing a well-established blog like yours
    require a large amount of work? I’m brand new to writing a blog but I do write in my journal daily. I’d like to start a blog so I can easily share my
    personal experience and feelings online. Please
    let me know if you have any kind of suggestions or tips for brand new aspiring bloggers.
    Thankyou!

Comments are closed.