Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Isn't it rich that today Democrats are talking about "the rule of law" after years of lauding Obama ruling by decree?

Obama has refused to enforce immigration law, then last year issued a decree (currently held up in litigation) to abrogate it on his own authority. He has unilaterally made dozens of changes to Obamacare without going to Congress. He has unilaterally repealed Congressionally-mandated work requirements for welfare. He has refused to submit the Iran nuclear capitulation ("deal") to the Senate as a treaty. He has thrown the Constitution into a bonfire, all with the Democrats' backing. He has ruled as a Hugo Chavez-style dictator. And now some hapless clerk nobody ever heard of is a "menace to the rule of law"?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

OConnor13

Obama has enforced the amnesty policy put in place by GW Bush, all while deporting nine times more illegal immigrants than 20 years ago.

Obama didn't gut work reform. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

As for changes made in healthcare, Obama has been challenged and found to be working within his parameters. The easiest fix to this, of course, is the Congress getting off their a**es and acting like adults.

Of course the Iran nuclear deal went to the Senate. There is ample information for this.

conceptualclarity · M

"Obama has enforced the amnesty policy put in place by GW Bush, all while deporting nine times more illegal immigrants than 20 years ago."
Bush was not fully enforcing immigration laws, but he did allow ICE to raid many illegal alien workplaces, which Obama halted. With Obama we went from neglecting immigration enforcement by understaffing ICE to Obama actually prohibiting ICE from carrying out its duties mandated by Congress, leading to a lawsuit against the administration by ICE members. The Obama administration has actually vastly decreased deportation and lied in claiming that it increased deportation. Obama's flunkies changed what was measured in the statistic; they added to it people who were deported upon bveing intercepted at the border rather than in the interior. They deceitfully put out their stats without saying they had changed what was being measured, and the incorrigible liberal press acquiesced in this deception, to which you have fallen prey.

"As for changes made in healthcare, Obama has been challenged and found to be working within his parameters."
By whom? With only one exception, those things have not come before the Supreme Court. Obama's unilateral changes to Congress' Obamacare law are currently the subject of a federal lawsuit.

"Of course the Iran nuclear deal went to the Senate. There is ample information for this."
The only reason the Iran treaty/capitulation is going before the Senate is because Bob Corker passed a wimpy law to require that. Obama chose to violate the Constitution by pretending this agreement of monumental importance is not a teaty. It should require two-thirds approval to pass it, not two-thirds disapproval to reject it.

"Obama didn't gut work reform. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/"
Obama did indeed through HHS unilaterally repeal Congressionally-mandated work requirements for welfare. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed this (http://www.examiner.com/article/gao-confirms-obama-changed-welfare-to-work-rules) when they said in bureaucratic language : "whether an Information Memorandum issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July 12, 2012 concerning the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program constitutes a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).[1] The CRA is intended to keep Congress informed of the rulemaking activities of federal agencies and provides that before a rule can take effect, the agency must submit the rule to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.[2] For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the July 12, 2012 Information Memorandum is a rule under the CRA. Therefore, it must be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before taking effect." (http://www.gao.gov/products/B-323772#mt=e-report) For a full articulation of the illegality of the move, see http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived The HHS memorandum at issue was replete with nearly impenetrable bureaucratic language. It notably called for :
"Projects that demonstrate attainment of superior employment outcomes if a state is held accountable for negotiated employment outcomes in lieu of participation rate requirements.
Projects under which a state would count individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no longer receiving TANF assistance toward participation rates for a specified period of time in conjunction with an evaluation of the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy.
Projects that improve collaboration with the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems to test multi-year career pathways models for TANF recipients that combine learning and work.
Projects that demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities, along with an alternative approach to measuring participation and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.
Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements.
Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training period for those pursuing a credential. The purpose of such a waiver would be to determine through evaluation whether a program that allows for longer periods in certain activities improves employment outcomes."
These things went against the very carefully calibrated requirements of Congress' welfare reform legislation.