“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law. The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority, and they are the right thing to do for the country.”
—-White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, relaying the White House’s response to the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to lift the injunction blocking President Obama’s dubious plan to defer deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants, using executive order rather than legislation.
The bottomless pit of miserable White House tactics…
There appear to be no depths of unethical rhetoric to which the Obama White House is not willing to stoop for political gain.
The wording of the White House statement is unethical: despicable, irresponsible, and offensive to the judicial system, as well as beneath the dignity of the Presidency.
Well, of most Presidencies, anyway.
The President is free, of course, to disagree with a court decision, and may say so. To imply, however, that the two judges who formed the majority in this ruling did not make their decision fairly and legitimately, but rather “chose” to misrepresent facts and law—essentially accusing them of dishonesty, is unethical to the bone. There is even an ABA Rule of Professional Conduct prohibiting such a comment as undermining “public confidence in the administration of justice.” The President is not only a lawyer, but a former law professor. He should be ashamed of himself, and we should be ashamed of him. Lawyers have been suspended for making similar statements, and he is President of the United States, whose statements are infinitely more harmful.
The statement is also spectacularly incompetent from a legal standpoint. The issue at hand is whether the President overstepped his Constitutional authority in unilaterally by-passing Congress to allow more than four million illegal immigrants to apply for deferred deportation and work authorizations, among other benefits. Many Constitutional scholars, lawyers and historians believe he did, and are not “choosing” to misinterpret the law to reach those conclusions. If Obama doesn’t have the power to make such a sweeping change in law enforcement, whether or not his intent is “to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe” is irrelevant. He is bound to obey the Constitution. The statement is no less than a dangerous claim that the ends justify the means, and the Constitution be damned.
From the beginning, President Obama has been unwilling to do the hard, grubby work of bargaining, trading, and compromising with Congress, preferring the unethical and undemocratic path of seeing how much he can accomplish ruling like a monarch, while blaming Congress for his own lack of diligence and legislative negotiation skills. Thankfully the system of checks and balances still works, and Obama will have to convince a court that his version of Executive Orders isn’t simply a way to dispense with enabling legislation. In the meantime, it is a new low from this Administration of lows to cast a legitimate dispute in terms that suggest bias, dishonesty and lack of integrity on the part of the Fifth Circuit’s judges. Obviously, the statement is aimed at stirring up resentment in “the base,” and if honest judges are smeared and public respect for the justice system is damaged to win more Hispanic votes in the next election, well, this President thinks that’s an appropriate trade-off.
And that is disgraceful.
Ethics Alarms 
It won’t stop him for long. Obama doesn’t give a spit in the ocean about American tradition, human freedom or the Constitution; all of which he considers as impediments to what really matters- his agenda for power. As with Lenin before him, his watchword is, “What furthers the Revolution is moral. What doesn’t- isn’t.”.
It will stop him until he leaves office, and that’s enough.
We can only hope. It would never have come to this if Congress had shown some backbone in its leadership. It’s just another huge mess that the next president (assuming he or she is one that actually believes in the oath of office) will have to deal with and- likely- in dramatic fashion before the entire framework of America collapses.
It seems that the people we placed so much faith in last year have no interest in being reelected; like it’s all some sort of bizarre ruse or sick joke. Maybe they need a thoroughly demoralized populace for some reason. I don’t know; it’s just hard for me to believe that these people are actually such eunuchs.
If the House had had the gonads to dump Boehner and elect Lou Gohmert to the speakership, things would be a hell of a lot different. No intestinal fortitude.
And yet most democrats think he is better for America than any of the alternates would have been…
Tens of thousands of trees fall every year in the United States, due to lightning strikes, wind, and chainsaws. Is it really too much to ask for just one to fall on him? Jesus must really hate us.
Now, now…
Sorry, Jack. I know better. This one really got under my skin, though. To me, this statement proves that he is just as much a cult leader as he is a President.
A meteor may be in the offing!
Sadly, to paraphrase the emperor himself, he’s a president not an emperor. And he has no clothes.
Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, “The King’s in council,” here they always said. “The Emperor’s in his dressing room.”
Or playing golf.
No one’s come to the White House’s and the President’s defense here in comment land? “What’s up with that?” Or as the President would snark, “I’m just sayin.” Or maybe he’d just drop a “hater’s gotta hate.”
“Snark, snark!”, he snarked, snarkily.
And next there’ll be a “wrong side of history” dropped on the courts and congress or anyone else who hasn’t seen the light. Which makes me wonder, why is “history” always right? Who ginned up that little canard anyway?
Leftists…
As part of a way of vilifying disagreement and doubleplusungood free-thought.
As General Burgoyne allegedly said before his surrender at Saratoga, “History- as usual- will lie”!
History’s victors.
Oh, and liberals.
The silence you are hearing is the sound of Leftists covering their ears and eyes so they don’t have to see the utter depravity and disregard to which their worldview leads inside the microcosm of a nation built around Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances…
Would that were the case.
For this post, that seems to be the case. By now, even our resident knee-jerkers would have typically jumped to the defense of Obama… but they haven’t.
Surprising.
Been a while since I have said “We are doomed.” Bet $5 that SCOTUS will rule for the WH.
You’re on.
FYI, I started out with $20, realized I couldn’t afford to lose $20 and changed it to 5. You’re on. I further predict it’ll be 5-4, with Roberts going with the liberal 4.
If they do, I predict that a number of states will pass nullification bills on the grounds that Ginsberg and Kagan refused to recuse themselves. They’d be right, too.
Don’t you all know that the president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe, and that the bird is the word?
Still crickets from Carlos Verde and Beth.
As I have said about 1,000 times on this site — I am not an Obama fan. So I don’t need to defend anything.