THE GOP's RIDICULOUS EXECUTIVE - AUTHORITY HYPOCRISY

The GOP's ridiculous executive-authority hypocrisy

From The Week:

Speaker of the House John Boehner wants to sue President Obama. Former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants to impeach President Obama. And Republicans across the board are in a froth over the president's allegedly aggressive use of executive authority.

And yet, there are some issues that have so discombobulated Republicans that they are turning their lonely eyes to Obama for answers: Namely, the influx of Central American child migrants on America's southern border. Faced with the unappealing prospect of using their own congressional power of the purse to solve the problem, Republicans are reacquainting themselves with the allure of executive power.

The current border crisis is the result of Obama following a law signed in 2008 by President George W. Bush and designed to save children from human trafficking. The law created different rules for children hailing from nations contiguous to America — Mexico and Canada — and children from elsewhere. For children coming from the two contiguous nations, Border Patrol agents can use their discretion to quickly send them home to their families. But since repatriation is more logistically complicated for children coming from farther away, the law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to provide housing and care as well as the guidance to seek legal counsel, which generally puts them on a path for a formal judicial review.

Speaker Boehner has now proposed changing that law, saying last week, "I think we all agree that the non-contiguous countries, that now we're required to hold those people, I think clearly, we would probably want the language similar to what we have with Mexico." But to apply the language we have with Mexico to Central American child migrants, you'd have to empower Obama's Border Patrol agents — and effectively, Obama — to decide if those children must go back.

While Boehner wants to pass new legislation expanding Obama's executive power, other Republicans just want Obama to assert his Oval Office authority without action by Congress. On Fox News Sunday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry repeatedly shrugged off the stipulations of the 2008 law and suggested Obama solve the problem on his own by deploying the National Guard to block entry at the border. Fox's Brit Hume incredulously responded, "Are they really going to be deterred by the presence of troops along the border who won't shoot them and can't arrest them?"

House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers said on Meet The Press that Obama "has tools in his toolbox that he can use immediately to stop this," citing Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's interpretation of the 2008 law which she co-authored. What Rogers chose not to highlight on national television is that Feinstein says Obama has the power to modify how the law is being implemented by directing the Department of Homeland Security to write new regulations — exactly the type of action that has prompted all the Republican talk of lawsuits and impeachment on other issues.

This may seem like your standard-issue Washington hypocrisy: Shake your fist against presidential power when you don't like what the president is doing, and then pound your fist to demand presidential action to shift focus away from your reluctance to take any responsibility for governing the country.

But the Republican two-step is about more than hypocrisy. Their sudden renewed attraction to executive power lays bare how empty their excuses are for burying comprehensive immigration reform.

If Republicans really believe Obama is too slippery to trust with any legal directives to "secure the border," they would be pushing for laws that tie his hands, such as mandatory deportations without judicial review and mandatory increases of National Guard or Border Patrol troops on the border.

They're not, because deep down Republicans know their talking points about a lawless, trustless president are bunk. And the only thing stopping Republicans from passing comprehensive immigration reform is the fear of losing votes from anti-immigrant bigots. Any other excuse has been rendered inoperative.

http://theweek.com/article/index/264...rity-hypocrisy

You're an idiot, BigKotex, if you believe that the Congress can just pass a law to tie Obama's hands when he has control of all the enforcement agencies.

BTW, how's that Business Mandate coming? I hear Obama is going to implement Cruz's version of it.

BTW, you're an idiot.

How long before WTF weighs in?

"bigklan" the grand wizard of the KKK(D) ... I know you miss your friend

You're an idiot, BigKotex, if you believe that the Congress can just pass a law to tie Obama's hands when he has control of all the enforcement agencies. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Who's the Idiot? The Idiot is the Smelly ol' Turdfly who has clearly jumped to conclusions.

I merely posted a political news story in the Political Forum and even went so far as to actually provide the link.

Now you're trying to shoot the messenger as if the messenger actually wrote the article.

I did not state whether I agreed or disagreed with the content. Did I?

But stay tuned, I might decide to express an opinion later.

When I do, feel free to agree or disagree with me at that time.

Until then, you're a fuckin' Idiot!

Unlike TrendingIdiot's "cut and run" routine in the MLK thread, I posted the link in the OP

It is impossible to satisfy the Idiot's as well as the Smelly ol' Turdfly's constantly buzzin' over the Idiot's head.

As far as the Idiot's and their ever-present Turdfly's are concerned, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

No friggin' gratitude!

I knew you copied and pasted the article without expressing an opinion. That's why I worded my response as such.

Thanks for proving my point that you're an idiot, Bigkotex. Now finish off your bottle of Chardonnay and hit the rack.

I knew you copied and pasted the article without expressing an opinion. That's why I worded my response as such. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The statement that you made clearly says otherwise. You obviously thought I was expressing an opinion, otherwise why would you have made the following statement?

if you believe that the Congress can just pass a law to tie Obama's hands when he has control of all the enforcement agencies. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I clearly did not express a personal opinion in the OP for either the reader or myself to believe or not believe. If you chose to believe otherwise, it was of your own doing, not mine!

Idiot!

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who helped write the [2008] measure, said the White House does not need new power to act. “That law already provides the administration with flexibility to accelerate the judicial process in times of crisis,” she said. “The administration should use that flexibility to speed up the system while still treating these children humanely, with compassion and respect.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us...afficking.html

And Feinstein should know! She helped write and co-sponsor Biden's bill in 2008. Odumbo should also know, since he endorsed the Wilberforce Bill with his vote!

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s3061

You should have taken my advice and hit the rack.

That's why I wrote if not since.

You're the lead idiot in the Austin Reacharound Crew.

You're the lead idiot in the Austin Reacharound Crew. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Turdy is the lead Turdfly in Idiotville!

It's a shitty job munching on Idiot Klan, errrr Clan Turds all day, but someone's got to do it.

No doubt, Turdy's up to the task, he has a voracious appetite.

No doubt, there is a constant Turd flow in Idiotville.

Enough to keep Turdy busy 24/7.

Don't forget Turdy, watch out for the Turd Swatters!

When I saw that bigtex started a threAD I bet myself lunch that it would be a cut and paste of somebody's. Damn now I owe myself lunch.

When I saw that bigtex started a threAD I bet myself lunch that it would be a cut and paste of somebody's. Damn now I owe myself lunch. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

2Pups, who are you trying to shit?

You're not worried about repaying yourself.

Hell, you've owed me $1 since the 2008 elections.

You thought I forgot, didn't ya?

Did I remember to tell you about the ongoing interest charges on what will soon be 6 years of an unpaid debt?

This is what is more commonly referred to as a 2Pup bump!

How long before WTF weighs in? Originally Posted by boardman

He's dug into telling people what GOP/TEA Partiers think thread like an Alabama tick. Which is hilarious because he was backing Rand Paul for President not knowing he was closely associated with the TEA Party.

This is what is more commonly referred to as a 2Pup bump! Originally Posted by bigtex

A two pup bump? Isn't that Saturday night at the Austin Reacharound Crew's SPCA meeting?

BTW, can you provide a link as to where 2Dogs made the bet?

Stop posting thread titles in ALL CAPS.

I reflexively ignore them because I think they are Whirlagay threads.