Monday, June 25, 2012

Obama’s “Week From Hell” Coming Up

Everybody’s had one of those weeks, where everything goes wrong. Obama is about to experience a big one! Indeed, this week will likely be the week which will define his Presidency as a total failure in the history book. And it starts with ObamaCare.

Obama bet his entire Presidency on ObamaCare, and that’s going down in flames this week. Yep. Sometime this week, the Supreme Court will finally issue its decision. We’ve discussed that a lot, including the likely outcomes (LINK), but any way you slice it, this will end poorly for Obama. At the very least, the individual mandate will be struck down. But more likely, the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law. Either result, however, will be seen by the public as a complete reversal of ObamaCare, and with it, a complete undoing of his entire term in office.

My biggest concern here is if only the mandate gets struck down. That could kill the momentum for a repeal of the entire bill, which is what is truly needed. Indeed, the individual mandate is the least harmful of the provisions. The rest of the bill raises taxes, hands out favors, reshapes how hospitals function, limits the way doctors can arrange their businesses, slashes Medicare, subsidizes some people’s healthcare, imposes requirements on insurers, and forces states to create these massive insurance exchanges which will never go away. That is the real heart of ObamaCare and that’s what needs to be eliminated. On the plus side, once people think ObamaCare is gone, it will be hard to stop the Republicans from repealing the rest. On the downside, once the pressure is released, Washington tends to return to rest and let things stay as they are. Let’s hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and kills the whole bill.

But ObamaCare is just the beginning. This week the Supreme Court will also uphold Arizona’s law to let its police enforce the nation’s immigration laws. If immigration truly is THE issue for Hispanics, and this bill is as bad as the left claims, then Hispanic won’t be too happy that Obama proved impotent on this issue.

More importantly, as more and more states pass these laws, the ability of the Democrats to ignore the illegal immigration problem by sabotaging ICE efforts in Washington will vanish. Instead, the states will start taking care of these issues, with a likely first round resulting in a demographic shift as illegals flee to welcoming states like California. . . which can’t afford them.

On Thursday, Obama’s lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, will find himself held in contempt of Congress for lying and withholding documents from Congress related to his “Fast and Furious” program which resulted in thousands of weapons being given to drug cartels in Mexico. Interestingly, even the left is mocking Obama’s claim that Holder has the right to withhold the requested documents under Executive Privilege. Apparently, young Barack Obama once said Bush’s identical claims were illegal.

On Friday, Obama’s latest effort at a stimulus bill, a $109 billion highway bill, will probably fail in the House. So much for spreading around a little bribe money before the election.

Finally, student loan rates will double unless action is taken by June 30, and the House Republicans don’t seem all that interested in stopping this. This will upset yet another key Obama demographic, students. This one might pass, but we’ll see. But it won’t help the mood on college campuses that Obama let this happen.

That’s a big week for Obama and from the looks of it, it’s all going to go wrong. :)

126 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

For those who don’t know, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Arizona immigration law. The court split the baby, but it’s a good split for conservatives. Essentially, the court is allowing the portion of the law which lets state law enforcement officers arrest illegals go into effect. But it struck down other attempts by the states to prohibit certain conduct related to illegals.

Right now, both sides are claiming victory, but the real loser is Obama for two reasons. First, this will allow millions of police officers to become immigration enforcement offers. That will have a dramatic defect on deportations.

Secondly, there is lots of speculation that the reason Roberts joined the court’s liberals in this decision was as cover for going strongly against ObamaCare. I would say the odds of a total repeat of that just went up.

DUQ said...

Andrew, How big of a victory is the Arizona ruling for each side?

(Going to read the article now, sorry if you answer this in the article.)

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, As I mention in the article, this is bad for the Democrats any way you cut it. This will allow millions of cops across the country to start acting like ICE agents. That will result in a lot more deportations and will cause illegals to shift to liberal places like California, who will not be happy to have them.

Also, don't forget, the Supreme Court has already held that states can punish businesses who hire illegals. I wrote about that here: LINK

This ruling today only says that the states can't make it illegal for illegals to seek work.

Ed said...

I saw that Obama is running around calling this decision "partisan politics". That's basically proof that his side lost badly.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That's a smart way to look at it. If Obama is whining are acting like the decision wasn't important, then it's bad for him.

DUQ said...

Nice article Andrew. This is going to be a good week!

I don't really care about the student loan issue, but the rest will be a good week for America.

I like that the stimulus bill went down too. I'll bet a lot of his supporters were counting on those last second bribes!

DUQ said...

Also, do you know when we're going to get the ObamaCare decision?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Thanks! It's going to be a rough week for Obama. This immigration thing was only the first round. The Fast and Furious hearings won't go well for him either because so many leftists are now attacking Obama for invoking Executive Privilege after he blasted Bush for doing the same thing.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: If you keep this up, I'm going to begin to suspect that you won't be voting for Obama.

As for the decision, if handled right, this could be a biggie for the Republicans. We already know that Obama has ordered ICE not to detain a certain class of illegals, even if turned over to them by what is now legal action by a state. He'll probably try to expand that. The illegal immigrant revolving door is spinning wildly.

But the big Republican plus is that they can say "elect us, and you will see the law being enforced and a Supreme Court decision implemented." No back door amnesty by executive fiat. Done right, Obama wins a battle, Republicans and constitutionalists win the war.

I hope that's right about Roberts, but as much as I liked the Arizona law in toto, I still had serious questions about the three provisions that the Court struck down.

Ed said...

Yeah, this is going to be a very nice pre-Fourth of July week! Have you noticed how historic things seem these days?

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, A decision on ObamaCare is now expected on Thursday.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I'm "undecided"! LOL! Undecided how many times I want to try to vote against the bastard!

I think this will be a biggie for the Republicans. If they use the original decision last year to punish employers who hire illegals and then empower their cops to locate illegals, I would think that would drive illegals out of those states, which would eventually get the Democrats in liberal states demanding a solution as well.

I'm not 100% convinced that's Robert's reasoning, and that makes me nervous. But that is what a lot of people are saying today.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, What do you mean "historic"?

Ed said...

Andrew, I mean that every time we have a Fourth of July or some other patriotic holiday over the last couple years, it seems that we have some vote or decision which is critical to maintaining out country. It feels like this is the moment the people saved America.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I get it! And you're right, this has absolutely felt like an historic moment, with all these reminders about the things that made America great.

Heck, there's even a great Denny's ad out right now which goes into this (think about what they list and what they don't): American Greatness

tryanmax said...

Cross-posting a couple of comments left on the earlier thread:

1. Obama's already begun speechifying about Americans living under a "cloud of suspicion" because of what they look like. He's talking about a state that is over 1/4 Latino. The idea that Arizonans are suspicious of Latinos is absurd.

2. Does it concern anyone else that "partisan politics influencing the bench" has become one of the new favorite claims of the progressive left? I can't imagine how our Federal Justices could be better insulated from politics, so the claim makes me think the Dems are up to something...

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, On your first point, that was obviously going to be his attack if this stood up. He's going to scream about racial profiling and he's going to try to inflame Hispanic anger.

On your second point, that's just a factor of them disagreeing. When the court was going in their direction they spoke of the sanctity of the court. Now that it's going the other way, they call it partisan.

As with everything else, they only "respect" institutions which work for them.

What are you concerned about specifically?

DUQ said...

Ed, You're from Vegas right? ("No, it doesn't stay in Vegas." - LOL!) Is Nevada doing anything like Arizona?

Ed said...

DUQ, Yeah, that's me! :D

I'm not aware of anything Nevada is doing. They could be, but I haven't heard it. I think it's harder in Nevada because everyone is scared of angering tourists.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, LOL! I figured that was you! Thanks for the reviews. :)

Ed said...

No problem. I really did enjoy the books. They were excellent!

ellenB said...

What a wonderful week America will have!

In order, I just feel like ObamaCare will be thrown out entirely. That's too big of a mess not to be thrown out.

The immigration things is good new. You can tell because Obama is whining about it. The man whines. It's disgusting.

Holder, ha! I hope they can lock him up and throw away the key, but I'll bet this ends up just being a rebuke.

No stimulus, is a good stimulus.

Don't care about student loan interest, so I can't speak to that.

ellenB said...

tryanmax, Compare that to putting the rest of us under a cloud of suspicion for not buying health insurance! I hate Obama.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I'm glad! :) I hope to write more.

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, It is a wonderful week for America! All we need now is for Obama to decide to resign. Or even better, get caught in flagrante with Biden. ;)

I also think little will come from the Holder vote, and I hope the Republicans aren't stupid enough to start talking impeachment. But it is an embarrassment to Obama.

CrispyRice said...

Andrew, that is just what I thought when I heard about the "split baby" AZ thing. This is a "see how unpartisan we are??" right before they smack O'care down hard.

oh please oh please oh please...

CrispyRice said...

Oh, sorry, one more thing. My concern on the way that AZ was split is that the police officers can now ID as many illegals as they want, but don't they still have to call ICE to come get them? If ICE simply says, "Nope" -- then what do the cops do?

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, I can't say if that's right (no one really can), but it does make sense. This makes it harder for Obama to scream that the court is partisan and the "victory" he got is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, That's true, and that is a concern. But that's where some clever Republican president should be able to add something to ICE's rules requiring them to take anyone local police authorities contract them about.

ellenB said...

Andrew, That image with Biden was truly uncalled for!

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, did anyone see Scalia's scathing dissent on the Arizona decision? He blasted the majority and the government for saying that they clearly had no desire to enforce immigration laws.

Here's the money quote:

"What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that 'federal policies' of nonen­forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, I would say I'm sorry, but. . . well, I'm not. I'd pay real money to see that happen! LOL!

BevfromNYC said...

I wonder what Pres. Calderon thinks of the SC's decision? Why, only last week he was praising Obama for his illegal immigration mandate! He must be downright apoplectic over the SC's ruling.

ellenB said...

I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see that happen, but I just don't need the image in my head!

Speaking of Biden, I still remember your "Most interesting man in the administration" article. That was very funny.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's a good question. It's funny how Mexico seems to think it has the right to dump people in our country?

Want to bet we'll hear about how evil our country is now?

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, You mean this: The Most Interesting Man In The Administration?

Tennessee Jed said...

I really will be satisfied when 1) Obamacare is overturned, repealed, gone, gone, gone--done moved on. I will celebrate when Obama is defeated and must leave the white house to a man and a party much better suited to getting us the right economic track. I really, really, really will celebrate a senate super majority (because realistically I doubt it will happen this time.)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That's the biggie. The Arizona thing is great, but it if had been struck down, nothing would have changed. ObamaCare needs to be stopped because it is destroying our medical system.

And I will absolutely party when Obama loses in November. We need to do something special at the blog. I wonder if they make e-Champagne?

CrispyRice said...

Good point, Andrew. Man, if Romney gets in, we'd better not see him for like 3 weeks because he's stuck inside the Oval Office 24/7 signing orders overturning everything the Dear Leader did. Grrrr...

ellenB said...

I'll be here election night! :D

(I will probably be using real champagne, however, or real Martinis!)

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, LOL! That would do my heart good. I can see the news now...

"Report: There is the President, emerging from the office for the first time in three week, his pen is worn down to a nub."

"Romney: America is free at last!"

:)

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, I'm sure Bev will happily come up with some pre-election night Martini recipes for everyone. She's our expert.

ScyFyterry said...

Jed's right. I won't be happy until ObamaCare and Obama are on the assheap of history.

ScyFyterry said...

Sorry, I meant "ash heap."

Oh, who am I kidding? I meant "assheap."

rlaWTX said...

I've read stuff showing it (AZ) both ways.

I am looking forward to the O'care ruling...

Biden flagrantly doing anything but showing stupidity is not a pleasant image.

Assuming that they hold Eric "Worst Man in the TOTUS Admin" Holder in contempt, what happens next? It's not DOJ is going to DO anything...

tryanmax said...

Andrew, no specific concerns. It just seems like a distinct rhetorical shift forwarding the idea that the Supremes are too vulnerable. I don't expect anyone to abolish a branch of gov't or anything like that, but I wonder how this line of thinking will develop and be employed the next time a seat opens up.

Jocelyn said...

Andrew, for the student loans, did the government keep them artificially low? And that is now going to expire? I'm interested just in relation to interest rates overall. I wondered if this was an indication that interest rates in general would go up, or was there something specifically done for student loans. I don't quite remember.

And I can't wait for Thursday for the Obamacare decision, I just hope it's super excellent news for us.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, I agree with you and Jed. That's when we celebrate. These are just battles, the real war isn't finished yet.

AndrewPrice said...

Oh, and Terry, I prefer "assheap" LOL! It fits.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I see the Arizona decision as a disaster for the left and their attempt to say it cuts both ways are face saving. The only really important part of this bill was the part which allowed local law enforcement to find illegals and hand them over.

The rest isn't needed, especially in light of their prior ruling that states can make it illegal to hire an illegal.

I'm not sure how striking any of it down helps the left, unless they think this will turn people off.

Totally agree on Obama, and Biden... but it would still be hilarious! Could you imagine the press trying to cover that one up?

On Holder, I haven't fully looked into it, but I am not aware of any negative consequences here except public relations. But I'll look into that closer and let you know.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It is a definite rheotrical shift and they are now in full slash and burn mode. How this plays out will be an interesting question. My guess is that the Democrats will start playing extreme hardball in the Senate and simply refusing to allow confirmation hearings on Republican nominations -- which may lead to an end to the filibuster rule.

Beyond that, I would just expect that they will no longer consider decisions of the court valid and will try to fight them in every way they can.

Any other thoughts?

AndrewPrice said...

Jocelyn, I can't wait until Thursday either! This could be a heck of a week for freedom! :)

On the interest rates, this is just student loans, nothing else. Congress sets the allowable interest rate for federal subsidized loans. You and I (taxpayers) make up the difference tot he banks. The current rate is set at 3.4%. But the bill setting that expires on June 30, and rates will increase to 6.8% on July 1. That will affect about 7.4 million people. Keeping the rates low will cost about $6 billion per year.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It looks like there are two things Congress can do.

1. They can vote the person in contempt and have the Sergeant at Arms arrest the person and hold them. But they can only be held until the end of the term.

2. They can shift to Federal court and use the contempt power of the Federal courts. In that instance, you can actually be held in jail indefinitely (until you comply).

tryanmax said...

Andrew, no other thoughts as yet. More of a sinking feeling at this point. I do think that Democrats stonewalling is a best-case scenario: intransigence on display like that would turn off all but the true believers. Off the top of my head, I would guess the new rhetoric is a prelude some new iteration of borking.

Looking further out, I also wonder if this is early evidence of a shift in progressive thinking. I'm not saying this will happen soon, but is it possible within our lifetimes that we'll be entertaining debate over the size of the court? No one has broached the subject in 75 years, but that doesn't mean no one has been thinking about it.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew and Ellenb - Oooh, I'm gonna start working on my NoMObama Martini recipes now. You know, it is going to take A LOT of trial and error before it can be perfected by Nov. 6. I will keep you all apprised of my progress. ;-)

tryanmax said...

On Holder: regardless whether they turn him over the the Sergeant at Arms or to the Federal Court, having him found in contempt will make for a nice birthday present!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I could see that, all of it actually.

I have no doubt they will be beyond hateful at each new nominee. They will also attack the court's legitimacy. And I think they might well suggest making the court elected by popular vote since they think they'd win that one.

And you're right, it is an ominous shift. I actually would be concerned they are thinking even better. Look at the violence they poured out on Bush. That was WAY beyond the pale. I think that will all feed on itself until they pop.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Excellent! Good luck with the trial an error! I'm sure it's for a good cause! LOL!

Seriously, that will be a great night and it would be nice to have an official Commentarama-tini or something similar.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I agree. I don't care if they arrest him or not. I just like the stain on Obama's record. I just don't want the Republican repeating the Clinton impeachment garbage, i.e. don't push this too far -- that's how you lose the public.

ScyFyterry said...

tryanmax, You're harshing my buzz man! :(

ellenB said...

Bev, Do as much research as you need! :D

BevfromNYC said...

Hmmm, now what does this mean? So Janet Napolitiano has decided that she is not going to do her job and has directed her department to refuse to take any additional calls from local law inforcement in AZ. So the SC rules the locals can check, but DHS won't do anything. How can they unilaterally decide to suspend upholding the law?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, We kind of figured that was coming. Either Congress will need to pass a law requiring them to act, or they will have to wait for Romney to reverse that order.

In the meantime, I would hang any crime committed by anyone Napolitano refused to pick up around Obama's neck.

Here's your link: LINK

wahsatchmo said...

Andrew, as an AZ guy myself I tend to agree with CrispyRice on the AZ ruling. I questioned its efficacy even in toto based on some conversations I had with a Mesa police officer (one of our more Hispanic populated cities). His perception was it would tend to put police departments more at risk for racial discrimination lawsuits, and that there wasn't any additional funding to necessarily enforce the law even if such risk were mitigated.

That said, we've had a lot of hispanic flight from our state anyway just based on the declines in real estate construction. So I'm not sure we'll see much effect now that police officers may act as immigration officers. Sheriff Joe's immigration efforts are mostly theater, sadly, with the exception that once arrested, his jails work with ICE to identify illegal aliens.

But the best news is that the ruling was framed as an issue of states rights, not as racial discrimination as the federal government originally argued. That in itself is a victory against the left, who expect the Supreme Court to abdicate constitutional law in favor of politics.

AndrewPrice said...

whasatchmo, It's always hard to tell how these things will work. I think it would be a step up if they could simply deport illegals who end up in jails. Right now, that rarely happens.

But you could well be right that this may ultimately lead to nothing. And the racial profiling suits will be problematic because so many courts will want to give those more credence than they deserve.

I agree with you about Joe. I think you and I have spoken about him before and I think he's all theater really.

tryanmax said...

Terry, I'm so that guy.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL! Maybe it's the pre-Election Night Martini's talking, but that was funny.

K said...

The SCOTUS decision on immigration has the potential of radicalizing millions of illegals, just at the moment when our electoral process - no ID required - is at its most vulnerable.

We've had a laissez faire immigration policy under both parties and imported 10s of millions under it. They are technically criminals with little likelyhood of being arrested and thrown out. They now find themselves in big trouble - e.g. the loss of their homes and business, splitting their families and an end of an established a life here. Just imagine the fear these people have at this point.

Don't care? Try imagining how much more energized all the "bleeding heart" liberals will be in their defense. Imagine how much money Obama will be collecting from the illegals and large Mexican interests.

I agree with Andrew's immigration plan - legalization with "wait your turn" citizenship.
Once that is in place, THEN we need this law.
But this decision at this point has the potential to really be a monkey wrench in the getting rid of Obama process, IMO.

If I were advising Romney, I would go on record now that arresting and throwing long term illegals out of the country should be on hold until a process is in place to take care of the people who have established a good life here. I would try and prevail on the Arizona government to put a hold on the law until the details of some kind of amnesty is worked out first.

AndrewPrice said...

K, I suspect the effects of this ruling will be rather more sedate because only a couple states have passed laws like this, because people are being told this is a baby-splitting decision, and I suspect this will mainly be applied only to criminals who happen to be illegals, rather than illegals who just run into cops. So few people will actually face any danger from this. And I doubt many police departments will want to actively do this work.

But that said, you might very well be right. Just because it's good to have the right to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually do it.

I do firmly believe the only solution is the "wait your turn" plan. And trying to get too harsh with deportation would be a huge political mistake as it will just agitate people.

So I agree with you that the best move for Romney to take would be to defuse this law by calling it a sideshow and talking about the need for a long term fix. I think he's done that so far -- though I wish I knew what his long term solution was.

This is another reason I think Rubio makes so much sense. He's been talking about long term solutions as well and I think he would make Hispanics comfortable that Romney won't do anything extreme. (Plus, he gives Romney cover from the right for a future amnesty.)

Tam said...

I am tardy to the party, but here's what the AZ AG and one of the state senators who co-authored the law said about the immigration law: there were 6 parts. 4 were challenged, 1 upheld in the challenge. Claims that "most of the law" was struck down are false. Also, regarding the hiring of illegals. AZ requires employers to use e-verify, so that part basically prevented the gov. from expanding the definition of "wmployer" to individuals, like my husband for example, who might "hire" a guy he picked up at home depot to work on a project. Another thing was that the court said the state can't overstep the federal law and since AZ's penalties were more aggressive than the federal law, pretty much all we have to do is change the penalties to match fed law and it's good to go.

Again, the "show your papers" provision was the most significant one and the fact that Dear Leader and his minions are stomping their feet pretty much says it all. I heard that the powers that be in DC aren't taking calls from AZ. Nanny nanny boo boo! We can't hear you! Very mature. Exactly what all good leaders do.

Tam said...

that would be "employer." I don't know what a "wmployer" is.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, That's my take on it as well. The real substance was the "show your papers" provision. The rest was just tinkering at the edges.

As for the employer provisions, the court has already said that it is legal for Arizona to require employers to use the e-verify system, so this ruling doesn't really change much. My understanding was that this law tried to make it an additional crime for illegals to seek work, but that's really not needed to enforce immigration policy.

And I agree with you that Obama stomping his feet and whining shows clearly that this decision was not the quasi-victory the left is trying to claim.

I see this as a good day for state's rights, legally speaking, and for ultimately solving the illegal immigration issue. But, I agree with K above, that deportation is not a realistic answer and so we need to do something else long term. But I also think that if the states have these rights, that will ultimately force the Democrats to the table to get a real solution in place.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. I actually stared at "wmployer" for a minute or two trying to figure out if I was missing something. It does look like it should be a real world.

Doc Whoa said...

I agree with K. While I like the state's rights aspect and I think these power probably won't be too bad, this is not something Romney or the Republicans should be crowing about. The more they make this a big deal, the more radicalize Hispanics will become.

BevfromNYC said...

I think with enough Commentarama-tinis, anything can be a real word. Or "wmployer" could be our "safety" word! When the black helicopters start coming, just type in "wmployer" and we'll know you are in trouble!

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I think K made a very insightful point and I agree with him. This isn't something to trumpet. It is instead, something to apply wisely and as part of a longer term solution.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, LOL! I like that! Now we have a safety word to aid us in our escape should we be discovered by whoever may be looking for us (probably the Koch brothers trying to get their checks back!), and we'll soon have an official drink.... a Commentarama-tini! :)

T-Rav said...

Of course all this had to happen the one day I was away from my computer.

I'm not doing any celebrating until the decision actually comes down. Assume nothing is my motto (okay, actually no, it's "leave no witnesses," but when it comes to politics and questions of government power, it's "assume nothing"). But I did see speculation that Ginsberg will be writing the dissenting opinion on Thursday's decision, because she hasn't done a lot up to this point, so....that's a good sign.

Also, I will be eagerly following Bev's Martini recipes, because I will probably want a drink on Election Night. I can set aside my abstinence for that. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's an excellent motto: "leave no witnesses." You'll go far! :)

I don't think we can assume anything, but I am very much encouraged. I've heard that Roberts is writing the majority decision, which means it's probably going to be very strong if he's got Scalia and Thomas onboard.

I'm looking forward to the Commentarama-tini. If there was ever a good night for celebration, I hope it will be this November.

Berkely Logic Institute said...

Andrew

Obama feels that all immigration laws should not be enforced becuase they are by definition profiling. After all only foreignors ever get departed. To date not one American Citizen born in the US has been departed by the Immigration service.

Don't you see how blatantly unfair that kind of profiling is.... Really Andrew ... we applaud B arack Obama's decision to tell the Immigration Servicer to quit their agreements with Arizona until at least 1,000 rightwing Amercians are departed. It is only FAIR....

Berkely Logic Institute said...

Sorry forgot our rhetoric memes are not known to right wingers...

If one is deported they will starve in their own country and thus become departed so it is the same thing.

T-Rav said...

Dear "Berkely Logic Institute": I guess the use of proper spelling and grammar is another tool the white man uses to suppress others, huh?

AndrewPrice said...

Berkely Logic Institute? I thought you guys were shut down for unsound thinking?

That said, that is an impressive bit of logic -- only foreigners will be deported, so only foreigners will be profiled. Wow, that's tight! :P

As for not one American born citizen being deported, I disagree. It happened to Cheech Marin in Born in East L.A.!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, LOL! I know you think you're being funny, but I've heard that before and it was said seriously.

AndrewPrice said...

BLI, That's a funny point. Think about how insulting other countries SHOULD find that. Strangely, they don't. They seem happy their people got away.

tryanmax said...

When it comes to Commentarama-tinis on Election Night, you can't lose. No matter the outcome, there will be reason to drink!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's true. We can't lose! :)

BevfromNYC said...

I think we need a special Commentarama-tini for Thursday. A Commentarama-care-tini. We will either need to drink to forget or to celebrate. Either works for me.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Works for me. This could be a huge moment for our country.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, you're not telling me anything new. I personally know several people who would say that.

No martinis for me on Thursday, in all likelihood. But it will be my birthday, so I'll either wish for the right decision as I'm blowing out the candles or really, really enjoy the cake and all.

AndrewPrice said...

Hey, Happy Birthday T-Rav! :)

I won't drink either on Thursday. I'm not a big drinker. But the election will be different!

Yeah, I've known people would say that too. There are some really dumb people out there.

K said...

I got deported to Pacoima once.

Had to sneak back in through the Mulholland overpass.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, you too?

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, are you telling me your birthday's on the 28th too???

That is not fair! I'M SPECIAL!!!

tryanmax said...

Yeah, you and everybody else!

Yes, you, me and Mel Brooks will all be celebrating on Thursday.

BevfromNYC said...

Okay, for all of you tea-totalers, well, really what is more fitting than drinking tea!! If Obamacare gets scuttled, it will be a great victory for the Tea Party, so let's drink tea!!! And eat birthday cake for T-Rav!

AndrewPrice said...

K, That's hard core! LOL!

BevfromNYC said...

Ooh, and my birthday is on the 28th too! Okay, December 28, but that's close right?

And a cake for Tryanmax too!

AndrewPrice said...

What the heck?! It's tryanmax's birthday too? Was everyone around here born on June 28th?

By the way, my birthday in July 8th, for those of you looking to buy me gifts. I've got a birthday gift registered at the Federal Reserve. :)

tryanmax said...

Okay, tea it is. Long Island Ice Tea! Woot!

tryanmax said...

Andrew, only the good ones.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's a great idea! Tea and birthday cake! Woo hoo!!

AndrewPrice said...

LOL! Only the good ones.

//shakes head

T-Rav said...

This is getting too confusing. Someone work out a blog schedule for who gets whose gifts when.

I'll agree to some tea drinking, but only if it's mixed with vodka. And formaldehyde.

Mel Brooks said...

It's good to have a June birthday!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Send all gifts as cash donations to Commentarama Central, care of "Dirty Thieves". We'll sort it out. ;)


....Save the formaldehyde for November, just in case things go wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

Mel, LOL! It's good to be the king too.

BevfromNYC said...

Long Island Ice Tea for Thursday...

1 part vodka
1 part tequila
1 part rum
1 part gin
1 part triple sec
1 1/2 parts sweet and sour mix
1 splash Coca-Cola®

Pour into shaker over ice. Shake so there is a little bit of foam at the top. Pour into tall glass over ice and garnish with lemon.
(also known as Texas Tea)

BevfromNYC said...

Or...
Boil water
Add tea (loose or bagged)
Steep for 5 minutes
Pour over ice
Garnish with lemon and add sugar if desired...

T-Rav said...

Andrew, nothing doing. The formaldehyde's how I get my kicks. If things go wrong in November, I have plenty saved up, including but not limited to cyanide, my "Four Horsemen" computer virus and an antimatter bomb.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's a useful recipe! Actually, they're both pretty good.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's MEGA-prepared! You must have been a Boy Scout!

Jen said...

What's this about June birthdays? They are great, aren't they?

T-Rav said...

Good Lord, you too? Is everyone trying to steal my month?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, LOL! Yep. It sounds like half the blog has birthdays in June!

Think of yourself as a trendsetter. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, It does seem to be a popular month.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

It does look like it's shaping up to be another hellish week for Obeezlbub n' company.

Good to know the SCOTUS decision on AZ's law ain't as bad as some are thinking it is for conservatives and the rule of law.
Of course, I expected Lord of the Flies n' company to throw yet another tantrum and declare it not applicable by executive fiat.

I hope the first wordsa out of Romney's mouth after winning the election in a landslide is:

"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."

I also hope we also get a republican super-majority seanate or at least a majority.
And I fully expect Congress to draft a bill making executive decisions that ignore our laws and Constitution illegal.

Well, technically they are illegal since it's not supposed to be a President's perogative to enforce only the laws they like or to make up new ones.

However, it's obvious we need to have that spelled out again so that no future Presidents can use them in a fascist manner like Herr Obama has.

If that's even possible. Can Presidents ignore such a law?
At what point can the House and Senate have a President arrested?
I think I used to know the answers to those questions but now I'm no longer sure.

It's past time for all three branches of our government to be equal, again.

Maybe if we insert Presidents with a chip that's programmed to, um, do something really bad if they do anything unConstitutional.
That would be pretty cool to watch.

"Let be be clear! I'm enacting an executive decision to counter our Constitution, laws, SCOYUS decision, legislation (or the code buzzword of the day) because it's unfair. BOOM!

Next.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

The mispellings were made by BLI who hacked my blogger acct..
I'm getting tirurd of thiss BLeye!

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, The decision really wasn't bad for conservatives or rule of law. Frankly, it could (and maybe even should) have been much worse. There is a widely accepted doctrine which holds that when Congress sets out to regulate in an area, it precludes the states from doing anything in that same area. That's a little over simplified, but it's essentially correct. The justices could very reasonably have said, "since immigration is a federal issue, the states may not pass any laws related to it." But they didn't. They took a much more Tenth Amendment friendly interpretation. That's a good thing.

It's a complex question how far Presidents can go in ignoring laws. Here though, keep in mind the Feds have even more power than normal because this isn't a law passed by Congress which is getting ignored, it's the feds refusing to help a state. It's rare that a court would say the states can force the feds to act on anything other than federal laws.

I also blame my misspellings on the BLI! ;)

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew:

Thanks for the clarification. I mostly meant that irt everything else Obama has done by executive fiat (executive privilege on fast n' furious...which doesn't make any sense in any sense if, as Obama claimed, he knew nothing about it, adding 800,000 plus new workers in his semi-illegal immigrant reform thing, etc., etc.).

Anthony said...

Its hilarious that liberals have started railing against the Court (the HuffPo has posted a couple articles claiming that the SC always sides with big business). Judges have opinions and thus every nomination is important. That's always been clear.

I don't know if the SC's decision will hurt Obama among Hispanics. Lots of politicians offer up symbolic, flagrantly unconstitutional laws in order to demonstrate concern (Terri Schiavo springs to mind) but they tend to credit for trying while the courts get the blame for preventing their efforts from succeeding.

Anyway, I agree that this is going to be an extraordinarily bad week for Obama, though I think what history will judge him on is the economy.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, In theory, executive orders can be challenged in court. But one of the problems with our system is that courts no longer take that responsibility seriously and they let the president both exceed his authority and shirk his responsibilities all the time. That wasn't true in the past, but it has been since about the 1940s and it's a problem which is getting worse.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I think history will ultimately judge Obama on the economy. But history also likes to look back at "the moment when we knew..." and that's what this week could provide. Right now, his only achievement of any note is ObamaCare. If that goes down, it will be like his entire term just got erased, and they will link that to the momentum which brought him down in November.

Plus, there is the irony angle. When Obama came to power, he had a chance to ensconce liberalism as the new majority way in America. But he failed. He risked everything on ObamaCare and that brought an amazing backlash which pushed the country right back into Reagan's lap. I think history will note that.

As for symbolic legislation, that's true. Both sides do that all the time because too many people are too stupid to see it as the sucker ploy it is.

Anthony said...

Andrew,

I saw Obama's win as a repudiation of Bush rather than an embrace of liberalism (as I've stated before, I believe any reasonably convincing Democrat would have won in 2008).

I never worried that Obama would somehow liberalize America's politics (his stated ambition) because as I've stated before, in modern times it seems like nothing fails like electoral success. From 1992 onwards popularity and power has swung back and forth like a pendulum.

A party wins power, then excesses, scandals and the fact that America didn't become Eden cause a backlash which eventually translates into the loss of power.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I did too. I think the election was clearly a repudiation of Bush. BUT, I think that if Obama had proven to be a genuine moderate, i.e. a different kind of Democrat (strong on military issues, not in love with tax hikes or over the top spending, trying to move us toward a color-blind society), then I think he could have easily started this country down a slow-moving path toward more liberalism and more socialism. I think he could have made "liberalism" acceptable. But he tried to run rather than walk and that led to a huge backlash which took him with it.

rlaWTX said...

Bev, that's some tea alright!!! ;)

October birthdays are better... Mine is so special I can go door to door and get candy from strangers!!

At this point, anything that causes apoplexy in huffpo or Carney is a GOOD thing!!!!!

Post a Comment