There was an unscripted moment for President Barack Obama yesterday that might make Justice Department lawyers defending the recent unilateral changes to immigration laws a bit uneasy. The President was faced with an understandably annoying problem of hecklers who interrupted his speech demanding an end to deportations of anyone. The President responded with a clearly justified admonishment that they should let him speak, but he added in obvious frustration “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” That is what the Administration lawyers have striven to deny. They are insisting that this was not a change in law (which is a legislative act) but the exercise of discretion allowed under the law.
I have to say that I have always admired how the President handled such hecklers. He stay calm and respectful despite dealing with some pretty rude characters in the past.
President Obama admonished the protesters initially by saying “Don’t just start yelling, young ladies . . . I let you holler . . . You’ve got to listen to me too.” He then said “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.”
His other statement was more in line with the legal position of the Administration: “Although I disagree with some of your characterizations, it does not make much sense to yell at me right now, when we are making changes.”
Here is the encounter:
The statement comes after another statement earlier where the President seemed to draw an uncertain line over when he is entitled to act unilaterally and when he is not. The statement came in an excellent interview by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos where President Obama made some strong points. However, Stephanopoulos asked Obama: “How do you respond to the argument, a future president comes in, wants lower taxes. Doesn’t happen. Congress won’t do it — he says I’m not going to prosecute those who don’t pay capital gains tax.” When the President did not address that question, Stephanopoulos pressed again “So you don’t think it’d be legitimate for a future president to make that argument?” The President responded “With respect to taxes? Absolutely not.” Despite the President’s skills in argument, the separation-of-powers question is how that line is drawn from taxes to health care to online gambling to immigration etc.
Well thank you rcocean, I’m glad to oblige. Anytime.
This thread needs more “Inga”. No John Turley thread seems complete without at least 50 percent of all comments being directed to – or being written by Inga.
She’s fascinating baby! The rest of the John Turley commentators need their Inga fix!
OMG – it’s baaaaack!
Paul – if I’ve insulted you or caused you to find fault with my behavior, I apologise. I came here, with kind of sharp elbows, from ‘Politico’ where it’s like the wild west and I probably got off to a bad start. This morning I read Jonathans civility rule, and honestly tried to engage on a more friendly, (at least benign) level and actually enjoyed some interaction with people I don’t see eye to eye with. I lead a pretty mundane life lately and this has been more fun, and certainly more intelligent debate than that to which I have become accustomed. This is just to let you know that I’m working on it.
zedalis – I accept your proffer of good will and in that event will proffer you a fresh start to our relationship. No hard feelings. 😉
I don’t think the lawsuit names Obama as a defendant.
can anyone tell me when will the lawsuit start , and will president get to be questioned by JT about his lawless behavior ? I am wondering if he will be able to control his patronizing tone when questioned by an attorney under oath.
Sorry, that should be moderating! Darn you iPad!
Darren is possibly moldering for JT, zedalis. I would appreciate some equity from him if this is so.
wow – do posts appear then disappear here often? Perhaps I’m losing my mind. My ‘under the bed’ comment was right behind an Inga post that said ‘Paulie sees Ad Hominem…’
Ruh-Roh.
I hope Paul’s comments calling me Ingie dearie, Ingie sweetie are also awaiting moderation, to be fair of course. I don’t appreciate his condescension.
Since when does the Obama administration follow the law, they just circumvent it, as does all other government agencies and law makers and bankers and on and on and on. Power and money are the real gods.
under the bed
Paulie sees Ad Hominems…..
He’s mistaken, and knows that he is mistaken, else, he would have provided a rationale for the charge. I’ve asked him twice and in all sincerity to point out my bad behavior because after reading my comments, I honst-to-God cannot see what he is talking about. I am not afraid of owning up to bad behavior or making a mistake as he might remember from the apology I provided to him last night for an incorrect attribution.
zedalis – you need to swim upstream.
Ok Paulie poo, whatever you say dearie.
Ingie dearie, do you need a cookie?
Well at least he hasn’t condescendingly called you sweetie or dearie for the last two days as he has done to me. :/
Schulte, I’ve reviewed my comments on this thread, and unless I am wildly mistaken about the meaning of ‘ad hominem’ I fail to see what you are talking about. Again, please refer me to the offending comment containing an ad hominem attack.
You are using the “responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character” definition?
Oh, my wait. It couldn’t have been my little “your excellency” joke, could it? You do bear the name of a minorly famous clergyman by that name, no? If it is, you have my apologies for the offense, if any was taken. If not this, then what?
Paul, seriously, you of all people should not accuse anyone else of bad behavior.
Ingie – sweetie, I can accuse anyone I want of bad behavior. If one is unaware of their own ad hominem attacks they either do it so much that they are meaningless anymore or they could care less about doing it.
Squeeky < < "And make no mistake about it, significant numbers of these people will vote in elections…"
Presumably you have foretold this happening by dint of the 36 cases of voter fraud out of the last one billion votes cast in the US?
Schulte <<< "zedalis – nice ad hominem attack."
Sorry, I thought I've been on my best behavior today. To which comment do you refer?