Patterico's Pontifications

6/15/2012

Teh One Ignores Teh One

Filed under: General — JD @ 9:41 pm

Obama on the DREAM Act:

I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.

I guess it would be too much to ask of Teh One to pay attention to his own hectoring. But since they are just mailing it in, recycling old rebooted pivot economic speeches, maybe it is asking too much.

140 Responses to “Teh One Ignores Teh One”

  1. Ding dong

    JD (318f81)

  2. he’s just pandering cause he wants to rape america for four more years and a lot of hispanics just aren’t as amused by his rapey ass as they were four years ago

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  3. I was thinking about putting DONG after the DING, but here it is! What the!?

    Are you a co-blogger now JD? If so, congrats!

    Noodles (3681c4)

  4. Just helping out

    JD (318f81)

  5. “Just helping out” on the best blog in the world! It’s still cool JD!

    Noodles (3681c4)

  6. If Teh One can stop teh oceans rising, why can’t he pass Teh Dream Act administratively? Don’t dictators have that kind of power?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  7. What surprises me is that Hispanics are actually taken in by this. He will issue the edict, it will be overturned in a court of law and he will blame evil Republicans. Again. Yet they will still be asked to vote for him again. Their question should be, “How come you didn’t take care of this when you had both houses?”
    Because shut up, that’s why

    Gazzer (331276)

  8. JD!

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  9. JD – Don’t let the fame go to your head.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. I forgot.

    Raaaaaacist!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. obama is a racist mother trucking pig. This sob needs to be impeached, yesterday. The thought of border crossing ingrates coming here and taking work away from me is flucking driving me nuts. I despise democrats. And I have told my flucked up family to kiss my American ass.

    mg (44de53)

  12. Shorthand POTUS: “Here’s some amnesty; now vote for me!”

    Icy (b3c882)

  13. They took our Jerbs!

    sheldon (77ac66)

  14. What the…mg called Obama a racist then spewed that hate filled diatribe?

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

    tye (3305fb)

  15. Other than polling, what is different today that makes him able to do the exact opposite of what he lamented a mere 9 months ago?

    JD (95e569)

  16. The MFM will ask him about his about face any moment now. Right after they get done investigating Munro and Carlson.

    JD (95e569)

  17. 0bama thinks He
    can pick and choose which laws he’ll
    enforce… teh damn bum

    Colonel Haiku (b8a395)

  18. Richard Nixon’s got nuthin’ on 0bama… Barry is the most subversive, selective law enforcement chief executive evah!

    Colonel Haiku (b8a395)

  19. Wake the _____ up, lefties and undecideds!

    If one individual, namely 0bama, can wake up one morning and decide to exempt nearly 1,000,000 residents from the law – when it’s a near certainty he couldn’t get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action, i.e., PER THE CONSTITUTION – then what can’t He do?

    Teh Left needs to curtail their idol worship and use what’s left of the brain teh Good Lord gave them.

    Colonel Haiku (b8a395)

  20. If teh media actually did its job (instead of sitting in certain laps), we’d be reading about the avalanche of security leaks, the murder of an American Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans by criminals using guns that this administration armed them with, selective law enforcement and an economy that is terrible and getting worse chiefly due to to the Clown-in-Chief’s ineptitude… that’s what real reportage would cover.

    Colonel Haiku (b8a395)

  21. Congress has failed to fully fund the enforcement of our laws, so Obama has decided to ignore some laws that he doesn’t like. This is an excellent precedent, because President Romney can use the same rationale to stop enforcing laws against Republicans. It will be much less expensive for the Romney administration to enforce the law against Democrats only.

    Andrew (1cdaa5)

  22. Was that satire?

    JD (95e569)

  23. One day, the Left will hear the knock (crash) on the front door in the middle of the night, and look around and discover, there is no one left to ask for help (well, except for a few members of the VRWC out in the forests who are attempting to keep Freedom & Liberty alive).

    AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434)

  24. Was that satire?
    Comment by JD — 6/16/2012 @ 9:06 am

    A Primer!

    AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434)

  25. Semi-satire.

    It appears that the incumbent is faithfully executing his policy preferences. I guess he’s emulating his favorite Supreme Court justices.

    Andrew (1cdaa5)

  26. The Republicans saw this coming and are prepared with a House resolution declaring it illegal for the President to unilaterally change federal law as a matter of policy.

    Right?

    Holder said there would be a constitutional crisis. What happens if you stage a constitutional crisis and nobody shows up?

    Hint: the Roman Empire still had a senate.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  27. Faithfully executing his policy preferences? In SEP 11 he said that was contrary to how our system of governance is set up.

    JD (95e569)

  28. “Other than polling, what is different today that makes him able to do the exact opposite of what he lamented a mere 9 months ago?”

    You don’t seem like the type that finds it hard to believe that Obama has taken wrong positions. It shouldn’t be shocking when he finally does the right thing that this is in contrast to when he was wrong.

    “when it’s a near certainty he couldn’t get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action, i.e., PER THE CONSTITUTION ”

    DREAM got 55 votes in the senate. Per the constitution, that should be enough.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  29. sheldon, nope, the Constitution does not state that at all. Shame you never actually bothered to read Article I.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. He also said in September 2011: “Now, what we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources, and say we’re not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who’s been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the DREAM Act passed.”

    His action yesterday went far beyond that. My sincere view is that POTUS ought to enforce even laws that he doesn’t like; even if he does so only occasionally, it would still have a deterrent effect. But what he did yesterday was to cast an absolute veto against a law that was already enacted and signed. And we all know that only SCOTUS can do that (semi-satire again).

    Andrew (4af20b)

  31. What changed in our system that made his prior position wrong, sheldon? Hint, he was surprisingly correct in SEP.

    JD (95e569)

  32. You don’t remember talk of the “constitutional option” on judges?

    sheldon (77ac66)

  33. “What changed in our system that made his prior position wrong, sheldon?”

    It was always wrong.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  34. Constitutions and Congress are just messy. Easier to just let a petty dictator pick and choose what laws he will or will not enforce on politically advantageous groups.

    JD (95e569)

  35. Article I, Section 5. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    Per the Constitution, sheldon, you’re full of crap.

    The Senate decides what “should be enough.” Not our imperial president.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  36. Yeah, they’re messy. Dictatorship is much simpler. :-(

    Andrew (4af20b)

  37. Andrew,
    Precedent is a horrible excuse to do anything. It takes our focus off what is right. Just ask any obamabot about obama’s continuation of bush’s policies, and you’ll get one answer, and one answer alone: “I didn’t hear you complaining when Bush did it!”

    No, but we heard you during bush, and we hear your silence now. We can be better than that. If Romney decides to continue with obama’s policies of selective justice, then our country dies, and the next president will become a dictator.

    Let’s just stop being hypocrites, and hold their damn feet to the fire.

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  38. A fun compendium of all the Bush era “unitary executive” blog talk from the left would be interesting to re-contemplate about now.

    elissa (f56a61)

  39. Andrew, that’s what Tom Friedman’s been saying in the pages of the NYT since, like, forever. The PRC is so much better than we are.

    Getting back to Teh One, apparently laws are unconstitutional when they hurt his re-election chances.

    Of course, he never made the argument that this law is unconstitutional. But since the Constitution requires of the president that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and Teh One constantly reminds us he’s Teh Most Fabulous Conshtitooshunal Scholah Evah, surely this law he refuses to faithfully execute must be unconstitutional.

    I’d like to hear him explain why that it.

    Surely it can’t be just because he doesn’t want to (snark).

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  40. The Atlantic has a decent article up about the President’s immigration announcement. It posits that Obama was trying to get out ahead of Rubio who has been floating/proposing a somewhat similar “dream act” plan for younger illegals. Of course, Rubio is planning to do it all official like, through Congress, and all that prickly folderol. But, by outmaneuvering Rubio with a speech and the stroke of a pen, the Obama campaign thinks it will get all the “credit”. I guess we shall see.

    The article also makes what I think is another important point:

    Rubio’s contribution to the DREAM Act debate made it harder to allege the GOP was the “do nothing” party on immigration reform. The senator had been spreading the word in the media that the administration was telling DREAM Act advocates to refrain from working with him on his effort. It put pressure on the administration to shore up its credentials with Latinos, a voting block that could decide whether Colorado, Florida, and Nevada end up in the Red or Blue column this fall. With its announcement Friday, the administration did just that.

    Nonetheless, the administration’s announcement is life-changing for these men and women. Senator Rubio released a statement criticizing the president’s decision to bypass Congress in order to make that possible. But make no mistake about it: it was his own effort that helped spur the administration to action, and it has made Rubio the most influential freshman senator serving in the U.S. Congress today.

    elissa (f56a61)

  41. “Rubio’s contribution to the DREAM Act debate made it harder to allege the GOP was the “do nothing” party on immigration reform”

    As Romney’s statement makes clear, we still need the DREAM act, so there’s plenty for Congress to do. And it would be easier to do if just stuck to the constitution.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  42. National Review has a good editorial about it.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303035/illegal-amnesty-editors

    Andrew (ab67d0)

  43. That is a good editorial, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough.

    The President and his party are in rebellion against the Constitution and this nation’s sovereign. The people.

    What I found most galling about the President’s imperial proclamation yesterday was this :

    “It is the right thing to do,” the president said with uncharacteristic emotion, raising his voice over a heckler. ”We’re a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids.”part

    Now this guy’s the effin’ pope? Apparently so. Not only is he able to tell the Catholic Church what constitutes a ministry as well as what it’s doctrine ought to be, but now he feels free to pass moral judgement on the laws of this country and ignore those that don’t pass muster.

    And pass moral judgement on the people of the United States when our elected representatives pass laws that reflect our values.

    We’re a better nation than …that

    Excuse the **** outta me, Chicago Jesus, but what did you just say?

    Then there’s this:

    W.H.: Obama’s determination on immigration undiminished by heckler

    “The incident won’t diminish the President’s commitment to pursuing immigration policies that reflect our values, our laws and our history as a nation of immigrants,”

    Got that? He’s going to rewrite the law to suit himself as he pursues an immigration policy that reflects our laws.

    This guy is unhinged. And what’s more, his party thinks it’s great. Up until now the democrats were ok with just amending the Constitution by judicial fiat. Now, they’re ok with the president amending the Constitution and our laws by executive fiat.

    When they know they can’t win elections. Democrats luv them some democracy. When they can stuff the ballot box with enough votes. When they can’t, the luv them some PRC-style dictatorship.

    I realize there are rules of decorum in Congress. But the fact of the matter is this president is a serial liar and a megalomaniac and if this Congress, or at least the Republicans in it, don’t get tough with this guy and rein him in then they’re fools.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  44. I meant to add that if this guy feels the need to issue a statement that he won’t be deterred from implementing “our shared vision” (as he always claims for a vision he shares with no one) by a single heckler then he is even more of a wimp than I even thought.

    Especially when that “heckler” is a reporter who’s being no tougher on the poor baby than other reporters have been on other Presidents.

    Reporters are tougher on plumbers who ask Obama a question than they have been on Obama.

    He can’t take the heat. So hold his feet to the fire. If his conscience, and by conscience I mean his ambition as informed by his poll numbers, won’t allow him to faithfully execute the laws of this nation then he needs to resign. Or be impeached.

    And if the Democrats won’t go along with that because they’re fine with an imperial presidency as long as its their imperial presidency, then they need to be exposed loud and long as the mendacious outlaws who swore a false oath to support a constitution they always meant to subvert that they are.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  45. Obama has a point.

    Why have a congress at all if it’s just going to block stuff the president wants to do?

    His order is like a retroactive signing statement, except with the justification being the right thing to do in his opinion rather than constitutional precident.

    We Can’t Wait – for legitimacy.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  46. “Not only is he able to tell the Catholic Church what constitutes a ministry as well as what it’s doctrine ought to be, but now he feels free to pass moral judgement on the laws of this country and ignore those that don’t pass muster. ”

    On this one, I would think the Catholic bishops are in agreement.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  47. Sheldon – how about picking just one name to comment under?

    JD (318f81)

  48. He wanted to do something, and he did it in the most slapdash way, so the folks that failed to spot
    AbdulMutallab and AlSawsari, are going to get this right, sure,

    narciso (494474)

  49. I blame ChemTrails. I think sheldon would be in agreement.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  50. 46. On this one, I would think the Catholic bishops are in agreement.

    Comment by sheldon — 6/16/2012 @ 7:02 pm

    On this point, sheldon, you are not full of crap. Which is why earlier I contacted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and sent them this e-mail:

    To whom it may concern,

    I can not tell you how unsurprised I was to read this statement:

    “On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I welcome the announcement by President Obama today that, consistent with his executive authority, he will grant deferred action on a case-by-case basis to youth who entered the United States by age 15 and have not committed certain offenses. Many of these youth would qualify for immigration relief under the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act.”

    I would like to point out that this decision on immigration is as consistent with the President’s executive authority as his decision to tell the Catholic Church to pay for birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacients. He has no more lawful authority to take the action you celebrate than he did to take the action over which you are suing his administration. And frankly, given how frequently you welcome violations of the basic law of the land whenever the resulting policy suits you, I hope you lose this lawsuit in this one instance where you dislike the lawlessness you so often encourage.

    There is a reason I’m a lapsed Catholic. I simply can’t sit still and be sermonized by a bunch of nitwits spouting nonsense. If you people want to encourage the President to act unconstitutionally and simply ignore his mandate to take care that the laws are faithfully executed country (Article II, Section 3) and instead usurp authority to legislate on his own, I simply don’t see where you have any room to complain when he acts unconstitutionally and orders you to violate your stated doctrines.

    I say stated because when public officials such as Nancy Pelosi say that Catholic theology supports gay marriage and abortion you tolerate scandal. So I can’t be entirely sure how sincere you are in your beliefs.

    In any case, you can’t complain the President is acting unconstitutionally only when it’s your own ox being gored. When you issue statements such as the one in support of the President’s unlawful, unconstitutional action on immigration you simply remind people like me that you asked for everything you’re getting from HHS.

    You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. If you don’t like the government defining what is and isn’t a ministry, or what is and isn’t consistent with your doctrine, you shouldn’t have gone into business with that mafia. But you did, and you have no one to blame but yourselves for your predicament.

    I simply can’t step into a Catholic Church as long as it’s run by you liberation theologians encouraging public officials to demonstrate contempt for the law as long as that contempt isn’t directed toward you.

    Yours in Christ
    But no longer a member of the flock of His unfaithful shepherd on Earth,

    After years away from the Church I tried going back. But I couldn’t sit through a sermon. At least, not in civilian life. Catholic Chaplains aren’t the same kind of left-wing mush-heads you find these days in your average parish these days.

    This is not the Church I grew up in. And it hasn’t been the Church I grew up in for about 30 years. You know what? Teh One’s/Rev Wright’s favorite Catholic priest, Fr. Pfleger, is pretty effin’ mainstream.

    I would like to support the Church’s first amendment rights. But they make it pretty damned difficult to support them in anything.

    And, by the way, I did correct them that this was not a case by case policy that the president announced. It was a blanket policy, a rewrite of federal law in which the executive branch unconstitutionally usurped the powers of the legislative, that the President announced.

    I told them I found their rhetorical sleight of hand no more convincing than they found the President’s compromise in which he proclaimed they wouldn’t have to pay for birth control directly.

    Both cases were fictions. I don’t need a church to tell me fictions about legislation. I have a government for that.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  51. 46. On this one, I would think the Catholic bishops are in agreement.

    Comment by sheldon — 6/16/2012 @ 7:02 pm

    On this point, sheldon, you are not full of crap. Which is why earlier I contacted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and sent them this e-mail:

    To whom it may concern,

    I can not tell you how unsurprised I was to read this statement:

    “On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I welcome the announcement by President Obama today that, consistent with his executive authority, he will grant deferred action on a case-by-case basis to youth who entered the United States by age 15 and have not committed certain offenses. Many of these youth would qualify for immigration relief under the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act.”

    I would like to point out that this decision on immigration is as consistent with the President’s executive authority as his decision to tell the Catholic Church to pay for birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacients. He has no more lawful authority to take the action you celebrate than he did to take the action over which you are suing his administration. And frankly, given how frequently you welcome violations of the basic law of the land whenever the resulting policy suits you, I hope you lose this lawsuit in this one instance where you dislike the lawlessness you so often encourage.

    There is a reason I’m a lapsed Catholic. I simply can’t sit still and be sermonized by a bunch of nitwits spouting nonsense. If you people want to encourage the President to act unconstitutionally and simply ignore his mandate to take care that the laws are faithfully executed (Article II, Section 3) and instead usurp authority to legislate on his own, I simply don’t see where you have any room to complain when he acts unconstitutionally and orders you to violate your stated doctrines.

    I say stated because when public officials such as Nancy Pelosi say that Catholic theology supports gay marriage and abortion you tolerate scandal. So I can’t be entirely sure how sincere you are in your beliefs.

    In any case, you can’t complain the President is acting unconstitutionally only when it’s your own ox being gored. When you issue statements such as the one in support of the President’s unlawful, unconstitutional action on immigration you simply remind people like me that you asked for everything you’re getting from HHS.

    You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. If you don’t like the government defining what is and isn’t a ministry, or what is and isn’t consistent with your doctrine, you shouldn’t have gone into business with that mafia. But you did, and you have no one to blame but yourselves for your predicament.

    I simply can’t step into a Catholic Church as long as it’s run by you liberation theologians encouraging public officials to demonstrate contempt for the law as long as that contempt isn’t directed toward you.

    Yours in Christ
    But no longer a member of the flock of His unfaithful shepherd on Earth,

    After years away from the Church I tried going back. But I couldn’t sit through a sermon. At least, not in civilian life. Catholic Chaplains aren’t the same kind of left-wing mush-heads you find these days in your average parish these days.

    This is not the Church I grew up in. And it hasn’t been the Church I grew up in for about 30 years. You know what? Teh One’s/Rev Wright’s favorite Catholic priest, Fr. Pfleger, is pretty effin’ mainstream.

    I would like to support the Church’s first amendment rights. But they make it pretty damned difficult to support them in anything.

    And, by the way, I did correct them that this was not a case by case policy that the president announced. It was a blanket policy, a rewrite of federal law in which the executive branch unconstitutionally usurped the powers of the legislative, that the President announced.

    I told them I found their rhetorical sleight of hand no more convincing than they found the President’s compromise in which he proclaimed they wouldn’t have to pay for birth control directly.

    Both cases were fictions. I don’t need a church to tell me fictions about legislation. I have a government for that.

    In the final analysis I will support the First Amendment. Just not on behalf of the Catholic Church. As far as I’m concerned if they’re going to celebrate getting the right result and they don’t care if they get it by fair means or foul, they’re on they’re own.

    But I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and I lived by that oath for 20 years. So unlike the Catholic Church I’m going to have to demand that government officials abide by the entire document at all times.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  52. I apologize for the apparent double posting.

    My optical mouse is up to it’s old tricks of selecting, cutting, and pasting on it’s own.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  53. How familiar are you with Papal doctrine on the topic of migration?

    sheldon (77ac66)

  54. You don’t remember talk of the “constitutional option” on judges?

    I do. What do you imagine it means?

    Milhouse (312124)

  55. sheldon – The Bishops don’t speak for the Church according to Nancy Pelosi.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  56. Is “Sheldon” the name you have decided to stick with?

    JD (9f41b2)

  57. “sheldon – The Bishops don’t speak for the Church according to Nancy Pelosi.”

    I do think that Catholics ought to be as cafeteria as they like, but on this one, the Bishops and DREAM proponents are in line with papal doctrine.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  58. It doesn’t really matter what n ame he goes by, the
    rule change is like a last minute term paper, one expects some sources to appear as foundation, but I wouldn’t be dissapointed,

    narciso (494474)

  59. JD!!!!

    MayBee (37e6f5)

  60. I miss MayBee.

    JD (9f41b2)

  61. “but on this one, the Bishops and DREAM proponents are in line with papal doctrine.”

    sheldon – The Bishops are in line with the Constitution and papal doctrine on Obama’s contraception mandate.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. Rodney King now asks
    “can’t we all just swim alone?”
    sad end to sad life

    Colonel Haiku (316a30)

  63. Happy Father’s Day!
    his father was a mudder
    Secretariat

    Colonel Haiku (316a30)

  64. “I do think that Catholics ought to be as cafeteria as they like, but on this one, the Bishops and DREAM proponents are in line with papal doctrine.

    Catholics ought to be as “cafeteria” as they like?

    That’s brilliant, sheldon, you entirely missed the Reformation and Counter-Reformation didn’t you? No clue why your comment is silly?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. SPQR – “Sheldon” of many names thinks Pelosi is the model Catholic.

    JD (9f41b2)

  66. sheldon shaid:
    You don’t seem like the type that finds it hard to believe that Obama has taken wrong positions. It shouldn’t be shocking when he finally does the right thing that this is in contrast to when he was wrong.
    – If granting de facto amnesty, the timing of which was intended to do NOTHING other than generate votes in November, is what you call ‘doing the right thing,’ I’d hate to see what you consider to be doing the wrong thing.

    DREAM got 55 votes in the senate. Per the constitution, that should be enough.
    – Perhaps you will be invited to the WH so that the constitutional law ‘professor’ may give you a lesson.

    As Romney’s statement makes clear, we still need the DREAM act, so there’s plenty for Congress to do. And it would be easier to do if just stuck to the constitution.
    – WHO is it that isn’t ‘sticking to the Constitution’?

    How familiar are you with Papal doctrine on the topic of migration?
    – Oh, Good Allah! What IS he going on about now?

    I do think that Catholics ought to be as cafeteria as they like, but on this one, the Bishops and DREAM proponents are in line with papal doctrine.
    – And you’re moving the goal posts all the way to South Bend because WHY?

    Icy (a3c527)

  67. And on Father’s Day? Rodney, Rodney, Rodney . . .

    Icy (a3c527)

  68. “Sheldon” also seems to think that Jews have some special spidey-sense about jewelry. Or something like that, I haven’t quite figured it out.

    Milhouse (312124)

  69. “If granting de facto amnesty, the timing of which was intended to do NOTHING other than generate votes in November, is what you call ‘doing the right thing,’ I’d hate to see what you consider to be doing the wrong thing.”

    I think it’s wrong he waited this long! We should have enacted DREAM like policies a long time ago, like when it got 55 votes in the Senate.

    “sheldon – The Bishops are in line with the Constitution and papal doctrine on Obama’s contraception mandate.”

    Maybe the papal doctrine. The Constitution, neither me nor Scalia think so.

    “How familiar are you with Papal doctrine on the topic of migration?
    – Oh, Good Allah! What IS he going on about now?”

    You know where the Bishops get their ideas from? Do you know how the hierarchy works?

    Steve hasn’t come back. Maybe the cafeteria is closed for him.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  70. Anyone else recall a serial troll that used multiple names and had joooooooooooish issues?

    JD (9f41b2)

  71. sheldon, your comments are incoherent.

    SPQR (8bc2a2)

  72. “Maybe the papal doctrine. The Constitution, neither me nor Scalia think so.”

    sheldon – Care to cite an opinion?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  73. “sheldon, your comments are incoherent.”

    And you talk about the reformation when I’m talking about cafeteria Catholics….

    “sheldon – Care to cite an opinion?”

    Leave the plantation and read Employment Division vs. Smith (1990). Majority opinion by Scalia.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  74. Remember back when this thread was about the DREAM Act?

    Icy (a3c527)

  75. I do think that Catholics ought to be as cafeteria as they like, but on this one, the Bishops and DREAM proponents are in line with papal doctrine.

    Comment by sheldon — 6/17/2012 @ 7:10 am

    Now you are back to the full of crap side of the scale.

    1. Catholic Catechism does not dictate a specific policy like the DREAM act.

    2. Catholic Catechism teaches that there is a qualified right to immigrate, not an absolute right. To the maximum extent possible, consistent with its other obligations to the common good, governments should accommodate immigrants seeking security or a livelihood they can’t find in their countries of origin.

    3. That government have an equally vital obligation to control their borders and enforce immigration law for the common good, in particular for reasons of security and the rule of law.

    Catholic Catechism does not equal the DREAM act. It means Catholics should base their policy decisions on a conscience informed by Catholic Catechism.

    And frankly, the UCSSB by welcoming lawlessness if further from doing the latter than I am. They are ignoring reality when they pretend the majority of illegal immigrants can’t find employment in there own countries. We have had an outflow of illegal immigrants due to our economic downturn. They aren’t true economic refugees, they came here because they could get richer here than they could in their own countries. (Which is not at all the same thing as not being able to make a livelihood.) Now that’s no longer the case, they are leaving.

    The reason why I called them liberation theologians is because they’ve strayed from the Catholic Catechism because they see the world through an ideological prism. Liberation theology is a heresy (read Preliminary Notes on Liberation Theology by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI). Which would explain why the Catholic Church in the US was so enamored of the Community Organizer from Chicago. The heresy of liberation theology is that it reduces Christ the Redeemer down to the Radical Social Reformer from Nazareth. Who teaches you must support a particular policy on rent control, socialized medicine, and now the DREAM act.

    Uh, uh. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. If it’s working that way, it’s not a church but a political machine masquerading as a church. It’s evidence of rot, that they’ve abandoned their mission.

    If the USCCB wants to advocate unconstitutional actions in order to pretend we’ve got some moral obligation to provide benefits to people whose sole reason they are associating with us is because the committed the crime of breaking and entering against us all, then I hope the USCCB enjoys its new role as the nice, tame, state authorized church of leviathan.

    And they can start doing the bidding of the new master with whom they’ve made their faustian bargain.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  76. sheldon, your comments remain incoherent. Employment Division vs. Smith predates Religious Freedom Restoration Act which still applies to Federal government.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. Say, this Obama Doctrine could be handy! Get Ron Paul in as President, and he can do away with the income tax!

    “I decline to enforce the collection of income tax, and am firing all IRS workers.”

    No unemployment, no EBT, the president has only to decide that he isn’t going to do that anymore.

    Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    tweell (03511b)

  78. sheldon, your comments remain incoherent. Employment Division vs. Smith predates Religious Freedom Restoration Act which still applies to Federal government.

    Yes, but RFRA isn’t the constitution. Remember what this exchange is in reference to:

    daleyrocks: sheldon – The Bishops are in line with the Constitution and papal doctrine on Obama’s contraception mandate.

    sheldon: Maybe the papal doctrine. The Constitution, neither me nor Scalia think so

    Citing RFRA doesn’t affect that. Oddly enough, sheldon has a bit of a point here. Not a terribly relevant point, since RFRA is a valid law, but a good theoretical one.

    Milhouse (312124)

  79. “Citing RFRA doesn’t affect that. Oddly enough, sheldon has a bit of a point here.”

    Milhouse – Employment Division v. Smith which dealt with individuals and their consumption of illegal drugs rather than the federal government mandating religious institutions providing goods and services contrary to its faith is not on point to Obama’s contraception mandate. The RRFA contains conscience exemptions for religious institutions which the Obama Administration refused to consider for inclusion in the contraception mandate, so I fail to see what point, apart from the top of sheldon’s head, is visible.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  80. Daleyrocks, the point is that the constitution does not require that anyone be exempted from generally applicable laws, no matter how strong their religious objection. There’s little difference between preventing someone from smoking peyote (or marrying two women, or drinking sacramental wine) when his religion requires it, and requiring him to subsidise his employees’ contraceptives (or enlist in the military, or drink coffee) when his religion forbids it.

    The constitution is fine with such laws, so long as their purpose has nothing to do with religion. The government may grant religious exemptions from such laws, but it doesn’t have to. RFRA doesn’t change that; it can’t. All it represents is Congress’s decision to voluntarily extend such accommodations. Obamacare’s regulations appear to be in conflict with RFRA, and that’s why the bishops are suing. But sheldon appears to be correct that the regulations are in line with the constitution and the bishops’ position is not.

    Milhouse (312124)

  81. “To the maximum extent possible, consistent with its other obligations to the common good, governments should accommodate immigrants seeking security or a livelihood they can’t find in their countries of origin.”

    There we go. DREAM. Take a look at JP’s encyclical on work. You’re not going to wave that off as “liberation theology” are you?

    “sheldon, your comments remain incoherent. Employment Division vs. Smith predates Religious Freedom Restoration Act which still applies to Federal government.”

    But any bar raised by the “religious freedom restoration act” isn’t a “constitutional” bar. RFRA is a law passed by Congress. Which the PPACA can override, per the Constitution. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the Bishops are wrong, and I and Justice Scalia are right. So it seems, like before, that your claim of “incoherence” is more about your lack of understanding.

    “Employment Division v. Smith which dealt with individuals and their consumption of illegal drugs rather than the federal government mandating religious institutions providing goods and services contrary to its faith is not on point to Obama’s contraception mandate.”

    Maybe you should read what Scalia wrote:

    “They assert, in other words, that “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.”

    “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

    “Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

    Did you read the opinion?

    sheldon (77ac66)

  82. “Did you read the opinion?”

    sheldon and Milhouse – The state demonstrated an interest in prohibiting the consumption of peyoting. In the case of Obamacare it is not prohibiting or encouraging the consumption of any good or service, merely shifting who is supplying and paying for it.

    Requiring a religious institution to supply contraceptives and abortifacients free of charge to its employees in conflict with the institution’s doctrine. That is fundamentally a different decision than whether individual members of a Native American church can consume peyote and claim unemployment compensation or workers’ comp. Just consider Michelle Obama may convince regulators of the valid need for the nation to consume ham sandwiches for lunch three days a week and ignore religious objections to such a mandate.

    I misspoke in my earlier comment. The language that was proposed to be inserted in the contraceptive mandate came from the original Hillarycare, not the RRFA.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  83. It’s a simple question. Did you read the opinion, including the parts I quoted?

    It’s hard to leave the plantation, isn’t it?

    sheldon (77ac66)

  84. “Did you read the opinion, including the parts I quoted?”

    sheldon – I forgot to put in Yes. Sorry. I’m curious why you forgot to note the more recent SC cases which have sided with religious institutions against generally applicable law, then again, that is your nature.

    Keep hope alive!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  85. “Care to cite an opinion?”

    sheldon (77ac66)

  86. “To the maximum extent possible, consistent with its other obligations to the common good, governments should accommodate immigrants seeking security or a livelihood they can’t find in their countries of origin.”

    There we go. DREAM. Take a look at JP’s encyclical on work. You’re not going to wave that off as “liberation theology” are you?

    No. Not DREAM. Get it through your thick head. JP’s encyclical does not dictate a specific policy choice.

    The idea that it does is the heresy of liberation theology. “If you are Catholic, you must support this legislation.” No, that’s heresy.

    Literally.

    And we only are discussing DREAM because, as the UCSSB puts it, the government didn’t have the “political will” to enforce our immigration laws.

    They played a role in that. Precisely because they’ve been encouraging a policy of non-enforcement, as the did the other day when they applauded when the President announced his explicit policy of non-enforcement. They’ve been applauding the unstated policy of non-enforcement for decades, and ignoring Catholic Catechism while they pursued their left-wing political agenda.

    We now have, to pick one example, the city of Tombstone threatened with extinction because of campfires set by the flood of illegal immigrants. Which the RCC encouraged, contrary to Catholic Catechism that teaches that immigration is a qualified right that must be controlled by civil authorities to a level consistent with the common good, security, and the rule of law.

    The RCC has been advocating a level of illegal immigration inconsistent with those goals, and consequently inconsistent with their own teachings on the subject.

    I will note with wry humor that the USCCB has consistently stated that the federal government must take the lead on immigration control, that the states can’t play a role lest we end up with a hodgepodge of immigration laws, and that AZ’s law is “draconian.”

    It is amusing precisely because the UCSSB has been awfully fastidious about our Constitutional system of separation of powers. Up until now, when it suited them. Then, it was illegitimate for the states to usurp the federal role. Now? It’s GREAT that the President is usurping Congress’. And of course, the states are only responding to the vacuum the RCC leadership in this country helped create. And by taking the stance that it has, the USCCB is continuing to stand against the rule of law and the common good.

    Hence my repeated accusations that they sanction lawlessness.

    And John Paul II’s encyclical on work is so off point on this subject you’ve got to just be throwing crap at the wall now in the hope that something sticks. You can read it a thousand times, and only a socialist would say, “there we go. DREAM.” There is nothing particularly Catholic or even Christian about the DREAM act when we are seeing an outflow of illegal immigrants as they seek a better life back in the countries they abandoned (which is why John Paul called immigration for the purpose of seeking work an evil, but sometimes a necessary evil, as the immigrant deprives his home country of the benefit of his labor) and our own real unemployment rate is in the double digits.

    The fact of the matter is that Catholics can base their decisions on the Catechism and come up with widely divergent policies in good faith. But I fail to see the good faith in the USCCB’s position on either immigration or respect for Constitutional principles.

    They’ve been forceful about advocating exactly half of what the Catechism teaches about immigration and civil society. As a matter of fact, while paying muted lip service to the other half, they’ve been advocating policies in opposition to it.

    Then there are their repeated misstatements of fact. They play the sort of word games I expect of politicians, not clergy. If that’s what they want to be, fine, but I have no time to listen to them whine when they lose at the game they chose to play.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  87. sheldon – Bad news, Sister Carol Keehan and the Catholic Health Association have now come out against the contraceptive mandate. Darn those rebellious nuns!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  88. “Care to cite an opinion?”

    sheldon – Try Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012).

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  89. Iamadimwit is just doing its performance art routine. Again.

    JD (9f41b2)

  90. “Iamadimwit is just doing its performance art routine. Again.”

    JD – Yes. Did you see Teh One took time off from campaigning yesterday to play the 100th round of golf of his Presidency at Beverly CC here in Chicago?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. “JP’s encyclical does not dictate a specific policy choice.”

    No, and I recommend not taking anything from the Pope as a dictate. The point is that DREAM fits within it, not that it mandates DREAM.

    “sheldon – Try Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012).”

    The ministerial exception? Yes the contraception mandate complies with that. Do you really think Scalia’s words have been overturned?

    sheldon (77ac66)

  92. “The ministerial exception? Yes the contraception mandate complies with that. Do you really think Scalia’s words have been overturned?”

    sheldon – No, you idjit. Government interference in internal affairs of religious institutions.

    Your mistake is assuming that Obamacare is a law of general applicability. It is not. There are religious exemptions and secular exemptions which void that concept. The RRFA was also written directly in response to Employment Division v. Smith.

    Unless the federal government can demonstrate it has a compelling interest in forcing religious employers to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for its employees and that the current scheme is the least burdensome way to achieve that goal and it does not violate the Takings provision of the Fifth Amendment, expect the government to lose.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  93. “The RRFA was also written directly in response to Employment Division v. Smith. ”

    The RRFA doesn’t change what is constitutional, as has been explained to you, my dear plantation dweller.

    Employment Division v Smith tells us that, just like other employers, religious people have to comply with generally applicable laws. Now, there are things like the ministerial exception, which the PPACA takes into account

    sheldon (77ac66)

  94. It’s hard to leave the plantation, isn’t it?
    Comment by sheldon — 6/18/2012 @ 10:14 am

    – Don’t they call it a “collective” out where you reside?

    Icy (8c3c36)

  95. “Employment Division v Smith tells us that, just like other employers, religious people have to comply with generally applicable laws.”

    sheldon – As has been explained to you above my progtard dimwit, generally applicable laws do not have built-in secular and religious exemptions to their applicability. Digest that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  96. sheldon – Are you not aware that Obamacare does not apply to everybody? Seriously?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  97. So your logic is that, because the law is tailored to fit the ministerial exception, and contains other policies — which you still haven’t specified — unrelated to religious expression, it becomes constitutionally offensive to religious expression?

    Logically, you’re going to have a hard time staying on the plantation. But I see you have lots of practice.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  98. “sheldon – Are you not aware that Obamacare does not apply to everybody? Seriously?”

    “Obamacare” does lots of things. Here we’re discussing the mandate that employer-sponsored insurance plans offer contraceptive coverage. Yes I’m aware that this does not apply to “everybody.” It applies to employer-sponsored insurance plans.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  99. Imdw is going with Sheldon, for now.

    JD (9f41b2)

  100. sheldon, since PPACA does not override the RFRA, HHS regulations violate it and your arguments are incoherent.

    SPQR (d71828)

  101. Yes I’m aware that this does not apply to “everybody.”

    sheldon – So you admit that it is not a generally applicable law and that all this BS about Employment Division v. Smith is worthless.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  102. sheldon, you also seem ignorant of the fact that even the controversial HHS regulations exclude some religious entities. making your arguments even more incoherent.

    SPQR (d71828)

  103. Comment by Steve57 — 6/16/2012 @ 11:33 pm

    And, by the way, I did correct them that this was not a case by case policy that the president announced. It was a blanket policy,

    They decided that legally, it was case by case.

    The difference between this and a blanket policy is that it creates lots of paperwork. At least this is what this seems to be saying. I couldn’t quite figure this out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/us/politics/deportation-policy-change-came-after-protests.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    A big concern for Mr. Obama, White House officials said, was whether he had legal authority to offer relief to so many immigrants. In recent weeks, the White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, and Homeland Security lawyers pored over the law and concluded they were on firm ground. The main point, the officials said, was that the policy would have to be carried out case by case — meaning the workload for the immigration bureaucracy would be huge.

    So they decided that, never mind, they would increase their workload? But they have to handle every case individually anyway! But maybe it means here there is no prior deferred action. A case has to be opened and it has to be asked for.

    I suppose this means they have to do the same thing in every individual case that fits criteria outlined by Barack Obama. Previously, the beraucracy had got some detailed instructions on how they were to exercise discretion, but they weren’t listening to him. Now it is much more explicit and with fewer counterexamples?

    a rewrite of federal law in which the executive branch unconstitutionally usurped the powers of the legislative, that the President announced.

    I told them I found their rhetorical sleight of hand no more convincing than they found the President’s compromise in which he proclaimed they wouldn’t have to pay for birth control directly.

    Both cases were fictions. I don’t need a church to tell me fictions about legislation. I have a government for that.

    In the final analysis I will support the First Amendment. Just not on behalf of the Catholic Church. As far as I’m concerned if they’re going to celebrate getting the right result and they don’t care if they get it by fair means or foul, they’re on they’re own.

    But I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and I lived by that oath for 20 years. So unlike the Catholic Church I’m going to have to demand that government officials abide by the entire document at all times.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  104. “sheldon, since PPACA does not override the RFRA, HHS regulations violate it and your arguments are incoherent.”

    As I said before, the RFRA issue would not be a constitutional issue, and the question of whether the PPACA, passed after the RFRA is dispositive is not so certain.

    “sheldon – So you admit that it is not a generally applicable law and that all this BS about Employment Division v. Smith is worthless.”

    I think it’s more that you don’t quite get what “generally applicable law” means. A law regulating employment relationships, with certain exceptions for religious ministers, and say, small businesses, is still a “generally applicable law.”

    sheldon (77ac66)

  105. Comment by Steve57 — 6/17/2012 @ 6:56 pm

    They aren’t true economic refugees, they came here because they could get richer here than they could in their own countries. (Which is not at all the same thing as not being able to make a livelihood.)

    The motive in most cases is not that they would starve to death or die of disease or persecution if they didn’t come. It’s quality of life. Often family, too.

    Now that’s no longer the case, they are leaving.

    The reason why I called them liberation theologians is because they’ve strayed from the Catholic Catechism because they see the world through an ideological prism. Liberation theology is a heresy (read Preliminary Notes on Liberation Theology by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI). Which would explain why the Catholic Church in the US was so enamored of the Community Organizer from Chicago. The heresy of liberation theology is that it reduces Christ the Redeemer down to the Radical Social Reformer from Nazareth. Who teaches you must support a particular policy on rent control, socialized medicine, and now the DREAM act.

    Uh, uh. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. If it’s working that way, it’s not a church but a political machine masquerading as a church. It’s evidence of rot, that they’ve abandoned their mission.

    If the USCCB wants to advocate unconstitutional actions in order to pretend we’ve got some moral obligation to provide benefits to people whose sole reason they are associating with us is because the committed the crime of breaking and entering against us all, then I hope the USCCB enjoys its new role as the nice, tame, state authorized church of leviathan.

    And they can start doing the bidding of the new master with whom they’ve made their faustian bargain.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  106. Sorry I quoted the whole thing. My comment stops at:

    “It’s quality of life. Often family, too.”

    I guess this shows you the poor quality of thinking that goes into their ethical philosophy.

    The Catholic Churhc does tend to support the status quo.

    They want bost the persecutors and the persecutees to belong.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  107. * They want both the persecutors…

    In this case even if their official position is a lot less than the Dream Act, they don’t want anything that harms their members. And they have a lot of Hispanics, and don’t see any harm the otehr way.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  108. “A law regulating employment relationships, with certain exceptions for religious ministers, and say, small businesses, is still a “generally applicable law.””

    sheldon – I think as usual, you have your head up your butt.

    Pro-tip, come back when you have an argument that makes sense and holds water.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  109. The other item that can help you stay in the plantation is that Scalia could always just change his mind!

    sheldon (77ac66)

  110. Comment by Gazzer — 6/15/2012 @ 10:30 pm

    What surprises me is that Hispanics are actually taken in by this. He will issue the edict, it will be overturned in a court of law

    Who is going to sue? A state government on the grounds it should not be required to issue a dirver’s license. Members of Congress?? Where’s the political gain to this?

    Now Romney’s position, at the moment is: You don’t need to ask whetehr or not he will overturn this because it will all be taken care of by legislation before the two years are up.

    Brooklyn bridge stock is almost a better bet.

    And furthermore, says Romney, this (the same thing?) should all be done legislatively, and that Obama could have done it in his first two years when Democrats controlled both Houses of Coongress (not quite true but maybe if he had cared about this as much as he did getting Obamacare through but Romney doesn’t say that)

    Obvama has set this up now taht it is very existential for a good number of people taht he be re-elected, unless Romney makes it clear otherwise, and he’ss trying to finesse it by implying saying it won’t make a difference who is elected without at the same time endorsing it either.

    If Obama was not afraid of backlash on the other side of thw issue, he’d simply challenge Congress to pass this into law this year and ask Romney to lobby Reoublicans for it. But I think he likes it more the other way.

    and he will blame evil Republicans. Again. Yet they will still be asked to vote for him again. Their question should be, “How come you didn’t take care of this when you had both houses?”
    Because shut up, that’s why

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  111. sheldon – I’ve got a used car. Can you double its value for me please?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  112. Sammy Finkelman #112 “and that Obama could have done it in his first two years when Democrats controlled both Houses of Coongress” – meseemeth yer slip is showing … and not yer Jungian one …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  113. “Obvama has set this up now taht it is very existential for a good number of people taht he be re-elected, unless Romney makes it clear otherwise, and he’ss trying to finesse it by implying saying it won’t make a difference who is elected without at the same time endorsing it either.”

    Sammy – Obama likes push Republicans into taking positions on issues, whether it is budgets, taxes, entitlement reform or immigration so that he can take free shots at those positions without risking anything himself since he has nothing on the table. If you have not noticed this strategy you are pretty dim. There is no incentive for Republican candidates to put red meat on the table for it to be torn apart before Obama puts some skin in the game by talking about plans of his own.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  114. “Obama likes push Republicans into taking positions on issues, whether it is budgets, taxes, entitlement reform or immigration so that he can take free shots at those positions without risking anything himself since he has nothing on the table.”

    In this case, it seems he’s more just taking the republican position.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  115. The Republican position is to select, for political purposes, certain groups that they will not enforce the laws against?

    JD (9f41b2)

  116. Marco Rubio is taking his bill and going home.

    sheldon (77ac66)

  117. Good Allah. Choosing to not enforce an existing law is the exact same thing as trying to pass a law.

    Folks, so you don’t forget, Sheldon/imdw posted pics of Patterico’s house here.

    JD (9f41b2)

  118. “In this case, it seems he’s more just taking the republican position.”

    sheldon/imdw – Is he taking the republican position in suing Arizona over its immigration law, South Carolina over its Voter ID law, Florida over its attempts to clean up its voter rolls, and stonewalling Congress over investigating Fast and Furious?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  119. Marco Rubio is taking his bill and going home.

    As well he should. No Republican should be in a hurry to give this guy cover for his illegal action. His illegal action needs to be the focus.

    This is no longer about the substance of the policy. This is about the imperial over-reach of King Putt, the Plastic Chicago Jesus for the dashboard of your Prius.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  120. Point and laugh. Mock and scorn.

    JD (318f81)

  121. 122- another classic post… quite the contributor Biff

    tye (03add3)

  122. sheldon’s posts are certainly incoherent enough to be imdw, but otherwise I don’t see the evidence.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  123. Spqr- there is no reasoning with jd. You can’t disprove anything when the person you’re reasoning with is allergic to facts and logic. Come to think of it you are too. Ding! I want to read this! Discuss the imdw/Sheldon possibility.

    tye (03add3)

  124. “122- another classic post… quite the contributor Biff”

    We need better trolls.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  125. I agree. Ban jd.

    tye (03add3)

  126. sheldon’s posts are certainly incoherent enough to be imdw, but otherwise I don’t see the evidence.

    Comment by SPQR — 6/18/2012 @ 3:43 pm

    I especially enjoyed the part where he contended that John Paul II’s encyclical, “On Human Work,” says that recognizing the legitimate but limited right of the immigrant to seek a livelihood elsewhere when he’s denied that in his country of origin means that when they can go back to their home country and make a livelihood (a better livelihood due to our economic downturn) we should start offering them incentives not to.

    There we go. DREAM.

    DREAM on, sheldon.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  127. tye, your comments continue to be fact-free, logic-free trolling.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  128. And, by the way, I did correct them that this was not a case by case policy that the president announced. It was a blanket policy,

    They decided that legally, it was case by case.

    The difference between this and a blanket policy is that it creates lots of paperwork. At least this is what this seems to be saying. I couldn’t quite figure this out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/us/politics/deportation-policy-change-came-after-protests.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    A big concern for Mr. Obama, White House officials said, was whether he had legal authority to offer relief to so many immigrants. In recent weeks, the White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, and Homeland Security lawyers pored over the law and concluded they were on firm ground. The main point, the officials said, was that the policy would have to be carried out case by case — meaning the workload for the immigration bureaucracy would be huge.

    So they decided that, never mind, they would increase their workload? But they have to handle every case individually anyway! But maybe it means here there is no prior deferred action. A case has to be opened and it has to be asked for.

    Yes, Sammy, it makes perfect sense. DHS will decide on a case-by-case basis that they must apply the new blanket policy to a certain category of people who now can’t be deported if they meet the new criteria contained in that blanket policy. Since President Obama has eliminated the immigration officers’ individual ability to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis concerning people in a particular category of illegal immigrant that they formerly had the authority to deport, now the immigration officer will be determining on a case-by-case basis that the President’s new blanket policy, or rather rewrite of immigration law, that their hands are tied and the new law, err, blanket policy, uhh, case-by-case guidance that must be applied universally to everyone with no exceptions (Yes, that’s it!) bars them from doing anything except giving them a hug and an EBT card.

    See! Clear, isn’t it.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  129. “says that recognizing the legitimate but limited right of the immigrant to seek a livelihood elsewhere when he’s denied that in his country of origin means that when they can go back to their home country and make a livelihood (a better livelihood due to our economic downturn) we should start offering them incentives not to.”

    Clever, but the problem is that’s not what the encyclical, nor I, for that matter, say. But keep fighting the evil that is liberation theology!

    sheldon (77ac66)

  130. RFRA is a law passed by Congress. Which the PPACA can override, per the Constitution.

    PPACA can override it; regulations written under PPACA cannot. As far as I know this mandate isn’t in the act, so the bishops are right.

    Milhouse (312124)

  131. Your mistake is assuming that Obamacare is a law of general applicability. It is not. There are religious exemptions and secular exemptions which void that concept.

    Good point. As I understand it, the moment there is any exception at all to a law, first amendment exceptions must also be granted. That’s why NYC has to allow unlicensed street vendors of printed matter, art, and religious items; they made an exception for veterans, and the courts said in that case you must also make these exceptions.

    Milhouse (312124)

  132. The RRFA was also written directly in response to Employment Division v. Smith.

    How is that relevant?

    Milhouse (312124)

  133. I think it’s more that you don’t quite get what “generally applicable law” means. A law regulating employment relationships, with certain exceptions for religious ministers, and say, small businesses, is still a “generally applicable law.”

    I don’t think so. How is it generally applicable if there are exceptions? Is that some special legal usage? As far as I know you’re wrong on this, and once you make any exceptions you have to justify not making more exceptions for anything protected by the first amendment.

    Milhouse (312124)

  134. Obvama has set this up now taht it is very existential for a good number of people taht he be re-elected

    But none of those people can vote. Some of them do anyway, but enough to make a difference?

    Milhouse (312124)

  135. The Republican position is to select, for political purposes, certain groups that they will not enforce the laws against?Comment by JD — 6/18/2012 @ 2:10 pm

    – Here, let me fix that for you:

    The Republican DOJ position is to select, for political purposes, certain groups that they will not enforce the laws against.

    Icy (85cd5d)

  136. Clever, but the problem is that’s not what the encyclical, nor I, for that matter, say. But keep fighting the evil that is liberation theology!

    Anybody is free, dogbreath, to examine the language you referred to but I linked to and argue who is closer to the truth.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  137. I apologize to dogs for my previous statement.

    Steve57 (c441a6)

  138. Best of the Web says this amounts to nothing:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303836404577476710494328558.html#printMode

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6118 secs.