Actually, this has surely been in the works for a while, but was just announced this last hour on CNN. House Speaker John Boehner says that House Republicans have filed a lawsuit against Obamacare, in particular faulting Obama’s “unilateral actions” in pushing it. I know nothing about the allegations that would lead to a real lawsuit, but presumably they’re claiming that the President somehow violated the law.
The rest of the short report:
“Time after time, the president has chosen to ignore the will of the American people and re-write federal law on his own without a vote of Congress. That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work. If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution, and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action,” Boehner said in a statement.
The news came just minutes after Boehner spoke at press conference in Washington on Obama’s executive orders on immigration.
Boehner said he “will not stand idle as the President undermines the rule of law, ” but gave no specifics on how congressional Republicans would respond to the president’s executive action on immigration.
Let me rewrite Boehner’s last words. “Boehner said he ‘will not stand idle as the President allows brown people into this country and tries to get medical care for everyone, including the poor.'”
Lord, what a blight on this land Republicans are.
Reblogged this on Shashank Patel.
They will clearly overplay their hand and the mood of the country will shift back to the Democrats.
I am no fan of either party, but the Republicans just seem mean to me, whereas the Democrats are mostly inept.
Will? I think filing a lawsuit *is* overplaying their hand. The courts are going to smack it down, no question. Moreover, filing a lawsuit to try and get the law changed makes them look impotent as legislators.
Sure, they will get some mileage with their base out of it. But I think they’re going to lose more support from the middle than they gain from the far right. IMO this move will ultimately backfire on them the same way shutting down the government and impeaching Clinton backfired on them.
If it wasn’t for all the oxygen it sucks out of doing anything useful, I’d actually kind of enjoy it as a clown show.
Then I suggest you enjoy the clown show, because the odds of this congress ‘doing anything useful’ (such as passing a budget or other meaningful legislation) were near-zero to begin with.
Losing support? Overplaying their hand? Which reality is this?
I keep hearing this a lot on these nice web sites like WEIT, these predictions about the demise of the Republicans. But the Republicans are not losing support. They keep winning every damn election in the US, apart from the presidency, which is about the popularity of one person. But whenever actual policy counts, the US keeps taking a step towards the ultra-right.
I’m not sure what to think about this white-washing of the American political sentiments, which in reality seem to be chillingly dark and shockingly selfish.
Maybe this wishful thinking a cultural thing, but it doesn’t seem to be the truth. Clearly the majority of Americans don’t give a damn about the poor, the immigrants, the environment, the future generations, gun violence, equality, social fairness, scientific facts or foreign relations.
A mere two years ago people were saying that the loss of 10 GOP seats to Dems was a watershed moment, that the GOP could never regain a majority so long as they ignored women and minority (esp. immigrant) voters. In this election, the result was somethnig like 20 seats the other way senate and house combined. You know what? It probably means about as much in terms of historical trends.
To reiterate: there was a swing of 20 out of 535 seats. That’s hardly any sort of revolutionary change in thinking, either way. And it is a swing in the opposite direction from 2 years ago, so your trend line doesn’t even survive a second point.
No, the GOP does not “keep winning every damn election.” Neither do the Dems. And neither appears to be on any sort of long-term upward or downward trend.
There will be a swing in the opposite direction in 2016 in congressional seats, if only because the number of republicans who are at risk of losing their seats is larger than the number of democrats who will be running (exactly the opposite of this year’s midterm elections). Especially if the voter’s philosophy this year was a response to the dissatisfaction with the current congress.
Demographically the Democrats are winning which is why the Republicans are so active in suppressing the vote.
I do not claim to be an expert in the US politics. Interested, certainly, since it affects the rest of the world. So, correct me if I’m mistaken, but according to Wikipedia, the GOP has mostly controlled the House for the past two decades (18 out of the past 22 years, counting this last election). And they are now controlling the Senate, too, whatever the importance.
Futhermore, at least to me as a European, also the Democrats seem very far right. Regardless of the party, the US politicians seem to distance themselves from Obama’s “leftist” politics — which are hardly leftist at all, merely basic human decency. In most self-evident social issues like public health care, gun control or environmental protection, a great number of Democrats appear to be voting extremely right wing, along with the GOP line.
I don’t wish to move the original goal posts, but it’s not just about the number of seats. The Republicans are also winning big by pressuring the Democrats to keep moving towards the right, as well as the whole nation. And in my observation, the US politics are more right wing now than ever in my adulthood.
So I don’t share the sentiment of the GOP losing ground at all.
The Republicans have two big advantages, first, they have more money in the game thanks to Citizens United, and second, they appeal to voters’ baser and more selfish instincts, which lets them have a simpler message. It’s easier, for example, to demonize all immigrants than to discuss the complexity and contradictions of current immigration policies.
Since they also control most State Houses, they also control redistricting to their advantage, which is why they’re so hard to run against.
On individual issues, Americans are, according to polls, fairly progressive. They favor gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, raising the minimum wage and reasonable gun control. But the Democrats have been too afraid to run on these issues, to their detriment. Perhaps now they’ll become more assertive.
“Futhermore, at least to me as a European, also the Democrats seem very far right.”
A major part of the problem!
Democrats like corporate money too.
Something similar is happening in British politics. Since Blair, the Labour Party has been more concerned about being seen as ‘business friendly’ than with anything that could really be called socialism. Meanwhile the rise of UKIP (UK Independence Party) with its anti European Union, anti immigration, ‘bring back the 1950s’ outlook has pushed all the other parties into being more insular in outlook, more anti-immigration and generally more right wing. It’s all hugely dispiriting.
In what sense did shutting down the government or impeaching Clinton backfire on them? I certainly don’t see the evidence in subsequent election results.
The 2013 government shutdown coincided with a sharp 10% drop in the “favorable rating” of the Republican Party that took them a full year to slowly recover from.
Graph here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/176093/democratic-republican-party-favorable-ratings-similar.aspx
Ah, but there was no election during that time. Call me cynical, but I suspect these people may know what they are doing.
Extremely interesting article.
But, the question is, is it realistic? Or just wishful thinking?
I wish I had “faith” in the American voter to fix our political mess. Sadly, I don’t.
Indeed. When JAC said, “what a blight on this land Republicans are”, I thought “you mean, what a blight their voters are”, because they are just reflecting the people who vote for them.
Even worse, they are reflecting the apathy of those who don’t bother to vote.
Voter suppression works.
It does. But it only happens because apathy enabled the politicians who enact and enable suppression.
No, it happened because the Republicans won slim majorities in a great many districts and then used those majorities to gerrymander the fuck out of everywhere so they could keep and expand those majorities.
Low voter turnout is embarrassing, but the election results still generally track whole-population (not just likely voter) polling results.
And, of course, the real problem is our first-past-the-post voting system. Preferential voting would reduce the Republicans and Democrats at best to plurality parties guaranteed never to achieve an outright majority, and one or both likely would soon be supplanted by some other party able to gain a larger plurality. But, of course, the Democrats and Republicans know that very well, and so will do everything in their considerable power to ensure that never even reaches the public radar.
b&
And how do Republicans win slim majorities in a great many districts? 2010, the year in which this happened, would not have resulted in slim majorities for Republicans if Democratic voters had turned out in anything remotely resembling respectable numbers.
Republicans are very good at motivating their frightened and angry base into turning out in off-year elections. Democrats, not so much. (Living in Wisconsin I have a front row seat for exactly this process.)
The measure of the effectiveness of voter suppression and gerrymandering will be the 2016 presidential election year.
“… but the election results still generally track whole-population (not just likely voter) polling results.”
But aren’t the polls themselves biased toward the R’s? Relying on landlines, & such?
I meant much more loosely…roughly a third each identify as Democrat, Republican, and neither, and that’s roughly how the election results play out. The shifting around plays about those general distributions. I didn’t mean to ascribe more precision to the statement than that…things like landline v cellphone are going to sway things by single-digit points at most, which is much more precision than I was waving at.
b&
Gotcha.
For clarity–I get what you mean.
With our telepatheticicity, how could you not?
…I suppose I should also clarify that, in that third that’s neither Democrat nor Republican, I’m lumping together the independents, the swing voters, the undecideds, the “vote for the candidate” frequent party line crossers, and the non-voters along with all the third-party supporters. Superficially, they might seem to not count…but they’re actually the ones who decide the elections, since the diehard Democrat and Republican party membership is pretty constant.
(And, of course, with the really big caveat that it’s more commonly campaign money and Diebold that decide the elections….)
b&
“Money & Diebold.” Someone needs to right a blues song named that.
I suppose neither of us should be surprised that somebody already has….
b&
Cool.
Did you watch that all the way through? Some pretty disturbing images there. Also, one for Diana.
I loved (presumed Diebold motto), “you don’t count because we don’t count.”
Didn’t watch…just listened. Now I guess I have to watch, too….
b&
I couldn’t tell which way the empty TP rolls were oriented.
Ha, ha, me neither; so I couldn’t come up with any good Diana Quip.
In space, nobody can hear you scream….
b&
Agreed. Ultimately, you have to blame the voters for swallowing the GOP BS. I’m embarrassed to be an American after this last election.
For what it’s worth, saying that makes you earn my respect. (And to be fair, I’m embarrassed to be a Finn after the equal marriage rights just got turned down again by our idiot conservative politicians. Medieval thinking is not an American priviledge.)
And I was really surprised at the hostility to gay marriage in France. I certainly didn’t suspect religion was still virulent enough to muster such protests here. Over *there*, yes; but surely not *here*.
Laughing at American lunatics is good fun (they *do* make some of the best brands there, and they are heavily promoted), but Europe is more competitive in that respect than one might believe at first glance. Certainly more so than *I* used to believe.
If the Congress passed the bill, how is it against the will of the people?
535 < 309,700,000
Seriously, though, it's not hard to see how Congress could pass something while at the same time a majority of Americans could disapprove. Hell, in 2012, Democrats receives more votes than Republicans nationwide, yet Republicans kept control of the House. One should therefore assume that anything that the Republicans only passed was against the will of the people, if you want to assume Congress perfectly represents the wishes of its constituents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/
Additionally, in 2014, turnout was 36.4%, making it extremely difficult to predict the will of the people based solely on elected representatives, as studies show that non-voters are more liberal than voters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/why-turning-out-the-vote-_b_6056028.html
http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/01/nonvoters-who-they-are-what-they-think/
So basically, Congress is an imperfect method for predicting the will of the people, although it could be greatly improved if more people voted.
Yes, but the same logic applies to the congresscritters bringing the lawsuit. Congresscritter 1 is saying law passed by Congresscritter 2 does not represent the American people, Congresscritter 1’s preferred law does instead. 1’s claim of representation is not on any better grounds than 2’s.
I’ll say Obama’s election campaign centered on the ACA and he won won 2 elections with fairly large turnouts. I base my will of the people comment on that. The paltry turnout that brought the republicans to power is less the will of the majority and more of a anger at government in general.Throw em all out, baby, bathwater & the damn bath tub. But both reply s to my will of the people comment are correct, only 30% of eligible voters turn out.The data is insufficient to conclude what the will is for Boehner or my comment
It’s a shame to realize how just some simple changes in the voting process could change the entire outcome. Making voting day a holiday. Making it more than one day. Offering vote-by-mail to everyone. Making registration easier. I know I’ve heard plenty more proposals that I’m forgetting now.
It’s not easy to get out of work late, go pick up your kids, somehow get them fed quickly, and go stand in line in the snow & cold with them, waiting as much as an hour to get into the polling place. And all before 8 pm.
I am sure that gerrymandering figures in there somewhere as well.
It doesn’t just figure in, it is the overriding component.
Irony strikes again.
This is still about race. The Republicans cannot stand to see a black man in the ‘White’ House.
Yes it is, and has been since before he was elected.
Every time there is a Democrat for President in the US, the Republicans act like babies & try to block things. Granted, I have only lived through a couple of Democrat Presidents but come on – there is a definite pattern of childish behaviour.
I’ve noticed that, too. The GOP feels it owns the White House. Whatever else happens in Congress, the White House apparently must be theirs.
The true troglodytes have emerged and are befouling the earth. Hopefully their anti health care and anti Latino activities will help elect a Democratic president in 2016 and swing congess back to the Demcrats as Mark P suggests.
Both parties like to stir up their base in order to stimulate donations. There are several hot-button issues that will always get both sides riled up: Abortion, LGBT rights and immigration are some of these. Neither side wants to solve any of these or to compromise on them. If they did, they’d lose their golden geese.
The Republicans, as much as they say they want to close the border, actually want those “brown people” so that businesses have a continual supply of cheap labor. Democrats support a liberal immigration policy because the Latino vote is important for them to get elected. Both sides are happy with the status quo, regardless of their posturing.
An xkcd just for you:
http://xkcd.com/774/
…this is about race alright…we don’r need them in this country
sub
Go to say that from this side of the Atlantic that (and Lordy knows we have a bunch of lunatics and schoolboys governing us) the current Republican movement in the states is utterly repugnant.
They just seem to drift free of any desire for human progression – or shame.
Current Republicans have a desire for human progression, but only if you have the $millions$ to gain their support. Everyone else is fodder: quite simple and quite sad.
Lord, what a blight on this land Republicans are.
Too right. It’s like the rest of the world is moving ahead, leaving behind the US Republican Party, the government of North Korea, and a few others.
Unfortuantley, whole the world leaves the republican party behind it also leaves the US behind.
can’t we file notice in international news papers: “The United Sates is not responsible for the stupidity of the republican party.”
Boehner said he “will not stand idle as the President undermines the rule of law, ”
Yawn.
Yes he will. With no legal grounds for court actin and with him in charge of about half of a court system waht does he think a federal judge can do that he and the Seanate cannot do?
Like Boehner did not stand idle by sitting on a Senate-passed immigration bill for 500-plus days and not putting it before the House of Representatives for a vote (if I correctly understood E.J. Dionne on NPR’s “All Things Considered” today)?
Also, “Rule of Law” is not a totally unlaughable notion. What becomes law way too much depends on who is capable of greasing the political (re-election) skids with $$.
Republican Policy summarized briefly by Groucho Marx
There is an entry in this week’s ‘Rolling Stone’ that alleges to show representative polling numbers on a number of issues that Americans consider important. The polling showed things where there was at least 60+ % support for the agenda (gun regulation, environmental regulation). The Republicans are the ones who are ignoring the will of the people.
Yeah, the Republicans have gerrymandered up the states to the point that they’re able to get themselves into power against the will of the people.
Of course they are. The odds are always decisively in your favor if you simply assume that any claim the Republican party makes is exactly opposite of the truth of the matter.
They are committed to maskirovka as a means to their ends, and a very effective mean it is if history is any guide. Though this tactic is far from new Karl Rove made it an explicit major tactic of the Republican party.
You hear the blatant lie that is so obvious you are momentarily dumbfounded, and wonder how they have the gumption to stand up there in clear view and say it with a straight face. They do it because they have learned that a significan percentage of people will believe the lies no matter how obvious they are.
The two things that are the most demoralizing to me about all this are . . .
1) How obviously unethical the Republican parties actions and statements are, as in really nasty. Almost no one, not even among their constituents, actually behaves as nasty as that to other people in real life, or would endorse such nastiness if they witnessed it occuring at an immediate personal level. And yet their constituents, and many other people, are either blind to this or give it a pass for some unknown reason. Maybe it has something to do with my number 2.
2) So many people, apparently of all types of political persuasion, seem to believe that in politics being an asshole is not just acceptable but necessary. And worthy of respect. The ancient “you need a tough minded asshole to make the hard decisions” trope.
I think your #2 is spot on. When polled about issues, the largest plurality of Americans are liberal on domestic social issues: they are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-expanded health care. Yet when it comes to electing executive leaders (mayors, governors, president), enough of these same people will vote for republicans so that the GOP holds a significant majority of governorships. What gives?
Well, you can pan the American public as stupid sheep who fell for ‘stealth’ candidates. But honestly I think most Americans have a good sense of what it means – in a broad sense – for a candidate to have a (D) vs. (R) next to their name. Its not like they don’t know what that (R) means on issues like abortion. So I think the better explanation is your #2: given a choice between a perceived “softy, agrees with me on the issues” or “hardass, doesn’t agree with me on issues,” many Americans prefer the latter. They aren’t “falling for” some false promise that some GOP candidate will act like a liberal on social issues: they know they won’t, and elect him/her anyway, because they want the ‘tough-minded asshole’ in office.
I wrote about this the day after the election. Only around one-third voted as johnkutensky mentioned above, which is hardly a mandate. Further, that third was dominated by older white men way out of proportion to their population numbers, who statistically are the Republican constituency. If Americans weren’t so bad at voting in mid-terms, the result would likely have been different.
Also, all polls show that the things the GOP calls “conservative values” like “traditional” marriage, anti-marijuana, pro-gun etc are losing traction. There are more guns than ever in private hands they like to say. What they don’t tell you is that less people own them. More states are legalizing same-sex marriage and adult and/or medical marijuana use. More and more states are mandating minimum wages above the federal minimum – I think it’s up to 30. Five or six more did this in this election, all in states won by Republicans.
There’s more besides, but I don’t want to re-write my article on Jerry’s site. Suffice to say, as long as the vote is actually representative, the GOP won’t win the next election.
They should have learned in 2008 and 2012 (with Obama’s numbers and the economic numbers?!) that they can’t win nationally by appealing to white men.
But they seem not to have.
Don’t forget who the tea baggers are: They can’t stand Obama because of the excess concentration of melanin in his skin.
Which helps explain why they will lap up any lie the GOP feels like dishing out.
“You hear the blatant lie that is so obvious you are momentarily dumbfounded, and wonder how they have the gumption to stand up there in clear view and say it with a straight face.”
Very like the clergy.
For a party that is predominantly christian they sure do lack compassion.
This is retaliation for going ahead with the immigration thing but is is specifically about the health care law that the republicans have tried to kill something like 50 times in the house.
So now, like the 5 year old kid who is mad and did not want to play anymore they want to go to war. So, with who’s money are they going to sue the president? These are the guys who are so worried about the debt.
Our country here is not breaking bad, it is broken. Only one thing that will begin to fix it and the people simply are not there yet. We must start with a constitutional amendment to remove all money from our elections. If we do not do this we are done.
“This is retaliation for going ahead with the immigration thing…”
Despite the fact that Reagan and George H.W. Bush did the exact same thing.
I think there may be the beginnings of a groundswell developing for the repeal of Citizens United.
That’s a loverly dream…but I just don’t see it happening. The Supremes are clearly already bought else they wouldn’t have let it through in the first place…and, if it once was possible to pretend that Congress wasn’t bought, there’s no question but that they’re entirely owned by now.
I just don’t see how we’re going to get rid of that one short of an entirely new government…and none of the pathways to a new government are likely to result in anything less odious to what we have today.
b&
Oh my god, are they ever! Glad we moved to Canada.
the really bad news is that because of democratic incompetence/cowardice in general (throwing their base under the bus, running away from obama’s many positive accomplishments, refusing to attack republican obstructions as viciously as republicans attack obama ) and failing to get out the vote at midterms, republicans have been taking control of most of the state governments.
this has allowed the GOP to gerrymander after the census so that the us house and many state legislatures will be in republican control for a very long time to come.
this has also enabled them to pass the voter suppression laws and now they are working on changing the electoral college rules in crucial states like michigan so that it is no longer a winner-take-all system. this will make it harder for democrats to hold on to the white house.
howard dean warned them of this and what did they do? they threw him under the bus.
the irony is that americans generally approve of democratic policy more than republican ones. but the dnc is unable to get its message out and so the right-wing religionists continue to hold much more power than their lack of popularity warrants.
if indeed the dems can’t hold the white house in 2016, the supreme court will be in play. just one more religious right justice and at least 30 years of theocratic rule will be in our country’s future.
That’s why Warren is so cool…she’s about the only outspoken advocate of progressivism.
However, I think it’s extremely unlikely Warren could win a presidential contest. Thankfully, nor could any Tea Party backed candidate, despite the fantasies of conservatives.
That is certainly something to be taken seriously. Eddie Tabash has been trying to raise awareness of this problem since Bush Junior’s reign.
” . . . the dnc is unable to get its message out . . . .”
Wonder why that is? Are their most talented communicators unable to communicate to the American people?
Of course, the reverse is no less true – one has to be capable of and interested in receiving a communication, whether “spun” or plainly-stated (a sterling example of the latter being the communicative pearls our host casts before us ;)).
A big part of the problem is that the Dem constituents are far more diverse than the Repubs’. It’s too easy to “offend” some group if your platform is too literal.
I am unfamiliar with the legal issues. However, as I understand it both Reagan and Bush the elder used executive authority on immigration matters and there were no consequences.
There are two possibilities. One is that the current executive order is clearly an executive overreach while the prior ones weren’t and so the challenge. The other is that when Reagan and Bush undertook similar actions there was no faction in Congress willing to challenge them. Republicans weren’t going to challenge Republican presidents and Democrats weren’t going to challenge because they were satisfied with the outcome. Now, it may very well be that the stars are aligned for a legal challenge. Democratic president that Republicans hate and immigrants that Republicans hate.
I think you’re forgetting the third possibility: that what Reagan, Bush, and Obama did is all perfectly legal, and this suit is a political stunt.
This reminds me: what is the U.S. constitutional warrant for so-called “signing statements”?
However, as I understand it both Reagan and Bush the elder used executive authority on immigration matters and there were no consequences.
You need to remember for Republicans by definition, Saint Ronnie could do no wrong.
However I am beginning to suspect that for some, the tea party types especially, that even Reagan was too liberal.
George
That would only be an issue if supporters of Saint Ronnie actually remember what he did when he was in office instead of writing fanfic about how perfect he was.
According to Chomsky, the GOP is merely implementing the will of our corporate masters.
But, according to Chomsky, so is Obama.
Thus, according to Chomsky, our corporate masters are conflicted on this issue.
It’s nice when a theory has no possible evidence against it.
We have corporate masters, private corporate tyrants, the evidence for that being that they refer to us as “human resources” and “human capital.” I guess “personnel” sounded too much like “persons” and “people,” flesh-and-blood human beings.
There’re lots of reasons to sue and impeach and convict Obama, but this ain’t one of them.
Top of the list would be the murder of Osama bin Laden. This isn’t the Wild West; you can’t just kill people like that, even if they’ve bragged about heinous crimes. The SEALs might as well have given the man a nigger necktie as a bullet in the brain; legally and morally, there’s no difference.
If the President can not only order the murder of wanted suspects, but brag about the desecration of the body to loud huzzahs from Congress, what we’re living in has no bearing whatsoever to the Constitutional Republic founded a couple centuries ago.
…and as to why Republicans are upset at Obama’s baby steps towards immigration reform? Simple: the immigrants in question are as brown as bin Laden and talk just as funny, even if it’s a different kind of funny.
b&
“you can’t just kill people like that,”
Says who?
Says who?
Where was the due process?
Due process, by the way, looks like this:
Where was the trial?
I wouldn’t be surprised if you argued that this was a military action and thus somehow exempt; however, Congress never did get around to declaring war on Afghanistan nor Iraq, and, even if these wars are somehow legitimate, soldiers still aren’t permitted to execute unarmed captives.
b&
I must have missed the part where constitutional restrictions regarding due process applied outside the jurisdiction of the US to non-citizen combatants in times of war*.
(*Please let’s not get into a disputes over defining “war”.)
Re-read the Amendments I quoted. The Constitution is plain as day indicating when it applies only to citizens or to persons (not necessarily citizens), and these Amendments are examples of the latter. Not only that, it discusses wartime yet makes no distinction about borders; couldn’t be more clear.
Guantanamo Bay is one giant Constitutional clusterfuck. It’s exactly and explicitly what the Bill of Rights forbade. I don’t give a damn that Congress doesn’t want to pay the airfare to ship the inmates to prisons Stateside where they can go through the criminal justice system; at that point, Obama’s only remaining option was to immediately release them. And, no, the fact that some of them are “bad people” is irrelevant.
Same thing with bin Laden. The SEALs could and should have arrested him and brought him back for trial; that would have been fantastic.
But the good old-fashioned lynching they instead gave him was murder most foul.
b&
Frankly, Ben, your interpretation of the constitution is funky. It would make all combatants in war subject to US legal juris prudence.
And please, don’t translate that into support for GITMO. It isn’t. Nor is it support for invading countries that pose no threat. So please don’t go straw-manning into la-la land.
If you want to argue that going after Al Qaeda was not war, fine. But assuming war conditions, killing enemy combatants isn’t automatically off the table.
Thing is, bin Laden was unarmed and put up no resistance. There isn’t any way you can even pretend he was a combatant.
If our war against al Qaeda is legal, he was the head of state of the nation we are at war against. That makes his assassination all the more damning in every way imaginable.
And, if he wasn’t, he was an unarmed captive whom we murdered in cold blood.
By your logic, we can just go kill any old man in a turban in Afghanistan because “al Qaeda OMG combatants in war OMG terrorism.” But, if we are to even be able to claim to be civilized people, we can’t go shooting old men in turbans in Afghanistan because we think they might be somebody who claims to have done something bad. If those old men pick up guns and start shooting at us, fine, they’re fair game; but that wasn’t the situation with bin Laden.
b&
No, by my logic you can’t just go kill any old man with a turban.
If I might use the vernacular… Christ, Ben, you sure do have a way with the straw men.
Then how, pray tell, do you know that it actually was Osama bin Laden whom the SEALs killed…and, most critically, how do you know that he really was responsible for 9/11?
Note: I’m not for a moment suggesting that I think there’s some sort of conspiracy by which it’s reasonable to think that he wasn’t the mastermind of the attacks.
But I am absolutely adamant that, lacking a fair and public trail, what was done to him was murder. After all, it’s not at all unreasonable to suggest that a jury may well have convicted him but sentenced him to consecutive life terms rather than execution — and there’s still the possibility that some other more important evidence could have come to light during the trial. (Was he, for example, an agent of some other foreign country? Were there other conspirators? For that matter, did we kill a body double?)
Object to any of this, and your logic really does reduce down to, “just go kill any old man with a turban.”
That’s what due process means: even when you’re overwhelmingly certain of the guilt of the person in question, that person still gets a fair and public trial. Leave out that one teensy tiny minor little negligible detail, and you’re now a murderer yourself.
b&
Sorry, Ben. Not playing.
Glad to know you reject the principle of due process. At least you’ve made that much perfectly clear.
b&
I am not interested chasing straw men.
If I correctly recall from a NY Times review of Leon Panetta’s memoir, while Panetta was head of the CIA, he approved of an assassination which he knew in advance would result in the loss of innocent life, which it of course did.
Just congenially curious, as a matter of principle, why ought we “exceptional” Americans, with our “exceptional” government, not take the position that we ought to give foreign innocents (subordinate women and children) the consideration we would give any criminal or jerk American citizen?
In congenial response, why not extend American juris prudence universally to all humanity? Perhaps because they may not favor the imposition. In any case, the question isn’t about the world we’d like to live in, it’s about the world we actually live in.
As long as we’re dreaming…. Why not establish universal global government? I don’t think it is a bad idea, assuming I get to approve its form. Do I think it a realistic goal? Not in my lifetime or that of my kids. But who knows?
That’s not what we’re suggesting — that America should be the world’s police force and that we should go out and impose our laws on everybody else. Indeed, that’s another huge problem I have with the whole bin Laden murder bit.
What I’m at least suggesting is that, once somebody is under our control (whether or not we have any legal or moral authority to place said person under our control), the same rules should apply whether that happens in Afghanistan or Albuquerque. Local cops who killed somebody in a SWAT raid in the same manner as bin Laden was killed, and who then went on to brag about how they disposed of the body in a manner such that nobody could ever confirm their story…well, riots have started over that sort of thing, and understandably so.
Nothing in the case of bin Laden even remotely excuses the brutally unconscionable actions of the Americans involved. That’s the kind of shit we hanged Nazis for at Nuremberg.
(And, again: the question isn’t whether or not bin Laden was a “bad man.” The question is whether or not we are a nation of laws or a gang of thugs.)
b&
I’m still not interested in chasing your straw critters, Ben. My response was to Filippo’s hypothetical, nothing more. And definitely not a request for additional explication of your personal political framework.
If the rule of law is what you think of as a straw man, that’s your problem, not mine.
…save, of course, for the lawlessness that you and your spiritual kin create for the rest of us….
b&
More straw. You must have access to a very inexpensive supply of the stuff.
Re Ben Goren
Thing is, bin Laden was unarmed and put up no resistance.
It is my information that when challenged in the hallway, bin Laden stepped back into the room and went for a gun which was found there. But of course, Goren will claim that the gun was a throw down.
If the assertion is that the most elite of the most elite military in the history of humanity can’t subdue an unarmed man in the hallway before he can run out the hallway inside an across a room and grab an hidden-away gun and turn it on the soldiers and start killing them…well, excuse me if I find that more than a bit hard to swallow.
It may be good for the myth-making to turn bin Laden into Rambo on steroids, but it doesn’t even begin to pass the sniff test.
b&
For sure, Romney would have been better.
No, he likely would have been much worse.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
b&
… and the perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Just for the record, that was sarcasm, right?
I just can’t imagine, regarding most conceivable executive actions, that Romney would be better.
“The SEALs might as well have given the man a nigger necktie as a bullet in the brain; legally and morally, there’s no difference.”
So – just congenially curious, of course – would you say that the SEAL who recently, publicly, claimed to have pulled the trigger dispatching bin Laden ought to have disobeyed his superiors’ orders?
Absolutely.
Indeed, if their orders were as described, none of them should even have gone on the mission in the first place.
That they didn’t, and, indeed, are coming forward to brag about their participation, all but guarantees that bin Laden isn’t the only person they’ve so murdered. And how many of them are we as confident really were “bad men” as we might be about bin Laden? Why did none of them deserve a trial, either?
And what’s to stop either Obama or some future president from declaring his political enemies terrorist un-persons who should be similarly murdered without even pretense of a trial? Certainly not the consciences of his henchmen, as they’ve so amply demonstrated.
b&
Were the choice possible, I would have preferred that the SEALS bring back Obama to U.S. soil for trial.
Of course – do I correctly recall? – there was great concern among Movers and Shakers that he would be(come) a martyr – an attraction to nut bag terrorists seeking to enter the U.S. to somehow rescue him or create mayhem.
On the other hand, to have given him the consideration U.S. law gives a U.S. citizen, would have given more credibility to this (generally fatuous) notion of “American Exceptionalism”). To have brought him back would have that much more waved under the nose of the Capitol Hill conservative types that Obama had accomplished that which Dubya had not accomplished and later dismissed as not all that important. (Re: the moral of Aesop’s “The Fox and the Grapes.”)
Of course, if we’re going to give foreigners the consideration we give American citizens, then perhaps we ought to do away with the Uniform Code of MILITARY Justice. Why have a separate (more punitive) legal code for those who (especially in this era of VOLUNTEER – versus conscription – military service) are going in harm’s way, putatively on our behalf, to possibly (probably?) be killed or maimed for life?
Interesting Freudian slip, there.
This and all the rest of your objections amount to an assertion that we should ignore the rule of law when politically expedient to do so. I know that’s what America has evolved into, but it’s also what America was explicitly founded in opposition of, and something I and many others still find abhorrent.
Those in the military are still — most especially — under the bounds of the Constitution. The military can make up its own regulations for those under its jurisdiction, just as the different States can make up their own laws. But in neither case can any of that go contrary to the Constitution — at least, not if we wish to consider ourselves a nation of laws.
b&
” ‘Were the choice possible, I would have preferred that the SEALS bring back Obama to U.S. soil for trial.’
Interesting Freudian slip, there.”
Sorry, but not so. It’s being in a bit of a rush due to an impending engagement, and not satisfactorily proofreading. Of course, I meant Osama bin Laden. I voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
If you’re instead mentioning it as a bit of humor then, well, of course, I get that, ha-heh.
“Those in the military are still — most especially — under the bounds of the Constitution. The military can make up its own regulations for those under its jurisdiction, just as the different States can make up their own laws. But in neither case can any of that go contrary to the Constitution — at least, not if we wish to consider ourselves a nation of laws.”
I did a little research on the Uniform code of Military Justice.
(http://www.johngrassolaw.com/media/retiring.pdf)
As regards going ” . . . contrary to the Constitution . . . .”: if I understand correctly, a regular (full-time non-reservist) retired military member drawing retirement pay is subject to the UCMJ should s/he commit any violation(s) of the (rule of) civilian law after retiring.
I’m inclined to think that the average citizen, contemplating joining and possibly making a career of the military, would not reasonably anticipate such an onerous, post-retirement, continued imposition of the UCMJ, especially if s/he has been grievously wounded. Smells like a constitutional violation to me. (However, reasonableness and the military are perhaps not perfectly synonymous, and perhaps oxymoronic, as in “military intelligence.” It may be that the all-encompassing idea of “military necessity” trumps all other considerations, eh?)
Looking back into the mists of time, I do not recall the recruiter inviting my attention to this little nuanced caveat. No doubt to do so is not prudent, as it is otherwise definitely not a “carrot” to prompt one to make a career of the military. Somehow it was not covered during the quick and dirty coverage of the UCMJ during 19 weeks of Officer Candidate School. As I didn’t make a career of it, I suppose that I’m none the worse off for it. However, had I made a career of it, I very likely would have been quite unpleasantly surprised.
If you happen to know of one or more young persons contemplating (career) military service, you might wish to pass this on to them.
“If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well.”
. . . and if the goodly speaker is upset by this then he can thank the previous administration for consolidating so much power in the executive branch.
Nice point!
“Boehner said he ‘will not stand idle as the President allows brown people into this country and tries to get medical care for everyone, including the poor.’”
Did this man think before he said that?
juvenile and clearly from a man with no vision for the US and the rest of us who can only watch. For your sake I hope it is, ‘his famous last words’
That wasn’t an actual quote from Boehner, but rather JC’s interpretation.
Ah! that explains why at first I wanted to laugh…
Around this house they are known as “fucking-Republicans”.
So basically Obama should have been more combative from 2008. The Republicans were never going to cooperate. Mainly because their base could not stand to see them cooperate with a black president.
That being the case, why not push a hard liberal agenda from the start? And sell it to the American people!
$15 minimum wage and a federally supported living wage. And higher taxes on the rich pay for it. Remove the control of the electoral process from political control. Too name a few.
There are lots of good ideas out there.
i agree. but i think there were several factors restraining obama. first is the dependence on wall street money to win elections in our corrupt political system. dems feel they can go only so far in their populist anti-big-money rhetoric. second involves the abiding plague of racism– obama’s reluctance to come across as the stereotypical angry black man and play into the teabaggers’ hands even more. finally obama lacks the temperament for the mud-slinging and hand-to-hand combat that this level of politics requires. how nice it would have been if he could have been like fdr delivering withering attack after withering attack against the republicans who were trying to obstruct his policy. unfortunately we got none of that. even now he seems like it hurts him to have to aggressively confront the obstructionism.
So we need Joe Biden for president?
Or Elizabeth Warren.
I’d have no problem with either Biden or Warren as President. They’re both extremely intelligent and competent people who’re concerned to improve the lot of those who elected them.
I must say that today I am not a fan of Obama. I’m trying to leave Vegas and he’s here causing flight delays.
What (whoever) happens (to be) in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Apologies if this has already been posted:
In an interview with National Journal magazine published October 23, 2010, Mitch McConnell [who will become Senate Majority Leader in January 2015] explained that
Asked whether this meant “endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president,” McConnell clarified that
Yeah, those Republicans really want to cooperate with Obama to do worthwhile things. The GOP version of “halfway” is: They get everything they want.
Go ahead and shut down the government, GOP. That has worked so well for you in the past. Do you guys remember 2012?
Fox News have been going on about this happening for days. Even watching them I’ve come to the conclusion Obama does have the legal authority to do what he’s doing.
Most countries consider quality health care a basic human right. Those of us in countries that have health care for all shake our heads at the way it (doesn’t) work in America. Insurance companies have ratcheted up the cost so something like a hip replacement costs triple in America compared to the rest of the developed world. There are countries in Africa that have better neo-natal survival rates than the US.
Americans are told they’re better than everybody at everything, and that it’s unpatriotic to think otherwise. As a result, change and improvement is always slow and difficult. The US health system sucks. There are many countries that could provide a great model for improvement, and healthcare would be both better and cheaper. However, because adopting one would slash the profits and power of the health insurance companies, it’s not likely to happen. In America, money controls politics.
Well, I agree with almost everything you said; but the costs aren’t as simple as insurance companies raising the prices.
In fact, they try to suppress prices (since they have to pay out those costs).
What they do do (do be do be do) is raise their premiums pretty freely when their investments don’t work out the way they want and thereby immunize themselves from the economic cycles — at all of our expense.
I think the rapidly rising health care costs are driven by a number of factors:
– Defensive medicine, which is driven by our absurdly litigious society (bad luck cannot happen to me — it’s some one else’s fault, and they are going to pay) and doctors, understandably, fear being sued.
– The corporatization of health care. This puts it on the stock markets, which demand absurd return rates.
– End of life care that is crazy and wasteful (everyone should have an advanced directive: See La Crosse Wisconsin). This is where the bulk of the cost is spent.
– The uninsured getting treatment though ERs
– (It’s NOT malpractice suits or premiums: These are less than 2%)
We should follow the European model. They spend far less for better outcomes and health security for all.
What seems to be the case is that insurance companies say to health care providers, we will only pay X% of your price for item Z, and that health care providers respond by raising the price of their services to account for the discount imposed on them by the insurance companies. This causes prices to the “consumer” to go up. Just one of several factors that contribute to silly high medical costs. More money goes to “burden” and “overhead” than to actual costs.
The litigious thing is certainly a big problem in the US too, and needs to be fixed.
The problem of the uninsured rocking up to the hospital when they’re basically about to die that you mentioned is also a big problem. It’s demonstrably considerably cheaper to at least provide free primary health care to all, particularly the poor. It also keeps people working and contributing to society and paying their taxes, which for the rest of the developed world, means paying for the health care system.
I just heard Boehner say “We are going to fight the President tooth and nail if he continues going down this road.”
How is that any different from the last 6 years?
I just read an article, it had an interview between some GOP lawyers meeting to discuss and strategize. They said there is no basis for a lawsuit.
My goodness the Mozilla Firefox spellchecker sure does suck. It can’t understand many plural words and I have to add a lot of words I would have thought it should know.
You stated early this week:
The lack of comments on science posts, leads me to wonder if people even read them, or read them but have nothing to say, or just skip them as seeming “too hard” (I, as well as Matthew and Greg) strive to make them comprehensible to science-interested readers).
If it’s the latter, what’s the point of writing about science? But if I couldn’t do that, I wouldn’t want to run this website. I could turn it into the Daily Mail of atheist sites, but there’s already an entire blog network devoted to drama, rage, and recrimination.
All I can say is that this is dispiriting.
There is no lack of responses to political posts! Even political responses to science posts (e.g. Climate Science). That sure is spiriting.
The following site is one of a number of sources on the internet giving details of executive orders per president: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
I don’t remember the details now but, as I recall, George W Bush pushed through a large number of executive orders in his last days as president, some of which loaded the courts with Republican judges who are still making decisions affecting us all.
Executive orders have been used more or less by all presidents. Obviously,only presidents from Boehner’s party can and should use executive orders.
Obama did not single-handedly shove through so-called Obamacare. It took a village.
[Boehner] “will not stand idle as the President undermines the rule of law. ”
Oh but John, you’re so fucking good at being idle!!! That’s how you’ve already approached immigration you nitwit; not to mention minimum wage/income inequality, gun control and any help to healthcare. He’s such an inept asshole.
Yep, I guess if this is the only way to stop Boehner from being idle we need to petition Obama to start undermining the rule of law.
CORRECTION: The above should read “proselytizers” and “…Carefully Taught”. Sorry for the typos — feeling acutely this appalled and operating a 7″ touchscreen don’t mix so well.
Jerry’s rewrite of Boehner’s words is spot on. Of course, Boehner would never be caught speaking the truth, not even by accident.
The Republicans aren’t just punishing Obama, they’re punishing the whole country for electing him. The clear message is, that if Americans don’t elect a Republican to the Whitehouse, they can forget about having a functioning government for the next four years. It’s just extortion.
Sub