"There is no longer a rule of law"

[Dan H]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229609

Interesting 180 as Denninger was a big Obama fan back in '08 . . . myself, if we're going to start disregarding Ferderal law without consequence, I think I'm going to stop paying taxes.

[SwingMan]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229609

Interesting 180 as Denninger was a big Obama fan back in '08 . . . myself, if we're going to start disregarding Ferderal law without consequence, I think I'm going to stop paying taxes.

I suggested last year to friends to simply scrawl a rash of "I plead the 5th" all over every form entry.....

[Dan H]

Wow, even SNL gets it . . .

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/snls-obama-s ... tal-steps/

[Mori Chu]

I don't really understand this link. President Obama thinks there should be immigration reform. So what? You can disagree with him, but the fact that he wants immigration reform doesn't mean he should be impeached.

[Cap]

Well, the claim is that he's abusing his prosecutorial discretion to effectively legistlate from the bench. Constitutional law scholars are split on it. Most seem to think his executive action is within his powers, and similar to executive actions on immigration taken by Reagan and Bush43. Others seem to think it's a little iffy. Nobody who knows what he's talking about thinks it's an impeachable offense in a legal sense, but really it's a political decision up to Congress, and they can impeach on any bullshit grounds they want if they have the votes.

Of course, Dan seems to be the kind of guy who thinks it's anti-democratic elitism to actually listen to people who know what they're talking about. Definitely don't listen to qualified climatologists about climate change, economists about the economy, constitutional law scholars or the federal courts about the constitution, etc.

[Dan H]

"Most seem to think his executive action is within his powers, and similar to executive actions on immigration taken by Reagan and Bush43. "

Ehh, no.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obama ... ium=social

So, this is totes okay with you, then, Cap? Good deal. President Walker can delay ObamaCare indefinitely when he's elected in 2017 . . .

[Mori Chu]

Walker? Who dat?

[Indy]

Wisconsin governor

[Mori Chu]

Did a Google dive on him. Doesn't look very electable to me, but I could be wrong. I just assumed it was Jeb Bush vs. Hillary in 2016.

[Indy]

Everyone said he was going to be a front runner after he won his recall election, primarily because it was the first time ever an incumbent won. Although it was only like the 3rd time it had happened in +200 years. I haven't listened to him speak a lot, which is usually the biggest factor in becoming a president, barring incredibly stupid comments that get made public.

[Dan H]

Everyone said he was going to be a front runner after he won his recall election, primarily because it was the first time ever an incumbent won. Although it was only like the 3rd time it had happened in +200 years. I haven't listened to him speak a lot, which is usually the biggest factor in becoming a president, barring incredibly stupid comments that get made public.

He's won election three times in blueish Wisconsin in the span of only a few years so there's something to be said there.

He wouldn't be my first pick, but I wouldn't have to choke back vomit the way I did with McCain and Romney.

[Indy]

I assume Paul is your first pick?

[Indy]

Everyone said he was going to be a front runner after he won his recall election, primarily because it was the first time ever an incumbent won. Although it was only like the 3rd time it had happened in +200 years. I haven't listened to him speak a lot, which is usually the biggest factor in becoming a president, barring incredibly stupid comments that get made public.

He's won election three times in blueish Wisconsin in the span of only a few years so there's something to be said there.

He wouldn't be my first pick, but I wouldn't have to choke back vomit the way I did with McCain and Romney.

Could have said almost the same thing about Napolitano in AZ, but that doesn't mean too much in the national scene.

[Dan H]

They have similar issues in that they don't necessarily have great personality. That's not always a bad thing, of course.

[Dan H]

Addendum:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ants-nope/

[Indy]

Dan, that article was almost useless (no offense to you, it is meant towards The Post). It basically says that we don't know how many people were affected by Bush, because we only have details on how many applications were filed (not how many were available to be filed). But it goes on to say that a month later after doing this, Bush signed a different law that widened amnesty anyway. How could anyone accurately measure the number of people potentially affected by his order when it was only really in strict use for a month?

I completely agree with the summary that there is no hard facts to show it actually affected 1.5 million people (besides Federal Immigration Commissioner McNary actually saying it could affect up to that number in Congressional testimony).

[Dan H]

I think that's why they're saying the comment is baseless, there's no hard data to back up if it was an accurate statement.

[Indy]

I guess that is true, but there is no way to determine how much it could have been used besides assuming 100%, right? Isn't that what McNary did?

Again, either way, I am not sure it matters much. For some reason the admin is trying to show parallels to what RR and GWHB did on immigration. From my perspective, it would make more sense to show some of the presidential orders that have been signed by every president going back this century. It isn't party thing; the only thing that makes it a party thing is the issue (Right is not in favor of increasing "non-americans" in America, while Left promotes "Melting Pot" argument). If this was an order that was party-agnostic, nobody would be complaining.

[Dan H]

(Right is not in favor of increasing "non-americans" in America, while Left promotes "Melting Pot" argument). If this was an order that was party-agnostic, nobody would be complaining.

I think that's simplistic. Personally speaking I have no problem with legal immigration. If you think we need to revamp our system to make it easier for people who want to come and make a life here to do so, I'm all for it, let's have that discussion. Giving amnesty to people who've already shown blatant disrespect for our laws, and in effect rewarding that bad behavior is ridiculous, and illegal, if you believe Obama until he changed his mind (http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times ... ration-law).

[Indy]

It may be simplistic, and may not completely represent you, it represents the Right in a blanket way.

And it isn't like the days when my ancestors or your ancestors showed up and all you had to do was give them your name and you were a citizen. There is a great political cartoon from over a 100 years ago that shows all of the German immigrants that were now 2nd generation Americans trying to keep out the new Irish immigrants saying they were foreigners. It is the same thing played out again, but it makes a big difference in America when the new crop isn't white skinned.