# Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 12, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734 "2012-05-12T23:13:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 281
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/281 "2012-06-23T00:44:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I am not understanding what you object to. The clear purpose of that hypo was to ask whether the principle used by the President to nullify the effects of a part of immigration law could be applied elsewhere. > > How is that anything close to trolling? For me, it has something to do with expectations of particular posters. You are well known around here not only as a lawyer, but as someone who is well versed in constitutional issues, who often responds to non-legal arguments with legal answers, and who is perfectly happy to bring the hammer down on people who post opinions about the law without familiarizing themselves with the law in question. For all these reasons, i expect more from you in a law-related hypothetical than i do of many other people. Is that fair? Maybe; maybe not. But tough shit, because that’s how it is. In the thread about Presidential authority, after a bunch of people had responded to the thread, and after **John Mace** had asked you to weigh in with your own opinion, you wrote this: > [@Can the President Eliminate Capital Gains Taxes On His Own?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-president-eliminate-capital-gains-taxes-on-his-own/625971/27): > > I started out thinking that the only difference between my hypo and the immigration business was the very dangerous, “Well, we like these results but don’t like those,” which is, in my view, a really poor baseline principle. > > But then someone pointed out that one law’s text actually mentions discretionary enforcement and the other’s does not. To me, that’s a much more solid base upon which to rest a distinction. To be honest, if you (and _especially_ you) are going to start a thread like this, i expect that you’ve at least taken a look yourself to see what is and is not authorized by the laws relevant to your question. If you haven’t looked, and someone calls you on it, then your hypothetical appears like little more than a politically-motivated gotcha. And if you have looked, and intentionally withheld the information in your OP, then it looks suspiciously like trolling.Either way, as **xenophon41** suggests, it smacks of **december** ’s tactics. As i said, it might not seem fair to hold you up to a higher standard than other people, but i do that with many people on this board. I expect that, in a thread about baseball statistics, **RickJay** and **Munch** (for example) will come better prepared than many other people. In a thread about the coal industry, i would hold **Una Persson** up to higher standards of knowledge than some unnamed schmoe. In tax law, i would expect **Rand Rover** to know what the hells he’s talking about. And in law threads, especially the ones that you actually start, i expect that you’ve done your homework before you start throwing political mudpies. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734)._