Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire

[mhendo]

@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:

@Bricker

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.

[Typo_Negative]

@ElvisL1ves

Whoosh. Unless you don’t think that posting something solely in the hopes of getting a reaction, or springing a gotcha, not in the interest of actually discussing a topic, counts as trolling.

I’m just not seeing that (in that particular thread, anyway). Looks like he was starting a conversation. Does he have to say 'here is my initial position that I am not married to and may be in a state of flux and may well abandon in the light of new information" at the start?

If you see a ‘gotcha’ in there, I think you have to want to see it.

[VarlosZ]

**mhendo **raises some valid points – **Bricker **probably should, simply out of self-interest, try to spell out exactly where he’s going and what he’s thinking instead of being coy in GD – but, in a vacuum, the reaction to the executive authority OP is some kind of board psychosis. The purpose of (and inspiration for) the thread was patently obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, and it would have required about one week’s worth of experience on the forums to be able to divine which way **Bricker **was leaning. I could sort of understand being nervous about some legal-expertise based “gotcha” in the wings, but in this particular case it wouldn’t be all that difficult to look up the basics of the relevant laws if one was so concerned (which isn’t a bad idea in it’s own right for someone considering debating the topic), or one could even just ask **Bricker **if he had some relevant legal knowledge in mind. Ok, maybe he should’ve spelled out his thoughts precisely, but (1) that kind of style can be a little boring, and (2) at worst it’s a venial sin.

And, of course, it’s actually an interesting and relevant question he raised: what are the legal limits of the President’s non-enforcement discretion, and, the law aside, what constitutes appropriate use of said discretion? I’m sure I’m not, like, helping anything by bitching here, but we’d probably all have a much better time in GD we could just let the smaller personal stuff slide, grant the benefit of the doubt, and focus on debate.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

How dare he make us think?

[mhendo]

@VarlosZ

And, of course, it’s actually an interesting and relevant question he raised: what are the legal limits of the President’s non-enforcement discretion, and, the law aside, what constitutes appropriate use of said discretion? I’m sure I’m not, like, helping anything by bitching here, but we’d probably all have a much better time in GD we could just let the smaller personal stuff slide, grant the benefit of the doubt, and focus on debate.

Despite what i said above, i agree with all of this.

I disagree with Bricker politically on plenty of thing, and i’ve disagreed with him plenty about legal issues as well, but he does seem to draw a sort of Pavlovian response from some people around here, sometimes for the most innocuous stuff.

[Bricker]

@VarlosZ

**mhendo **raises some valid points – **Bricker **probably should, simply out of self-interest, try to spell out exactly where he’s going and what he’s thinking instead of being coy in GD – but, in a vacuum, the reaction to the executive authority OP is some kind of board psychosis. The purpose of (and inspiration for) the thread was patently obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, and it would have required about one week’s worth of experience on the forums to be able to divine which way **Bricker **was leaning. I could sort of understand being nervous about some legal-expertise based “gotcha” in the wings, but in this particular case it wouldn’t be all that difficult to look up the basics of the relevant laws if one was so concerned (which isn’t a bad idea in it’s own right for someone considering debating the topic), or one could even just ask **Bricker **if he had some relevant legal knowledge in mind. Ok, maybe he should’ve spelled out his thoughts precisely, but (1) that kind of style can be a little boring, and (2) at worst it’s a venial sin.

And, of course, it’s actually an interesting and relevant question he raised: what are the legal limits of the President’s non-enforcement discretion, and, the law aside, what constitutes appropriate use of said discretion? I’m sure I’m not, like, helping anything by bitching here, but we’d probably all have a much better time in GD we could just let the smaller personal stuff slide, grant the benefit of the doubt, and focus on debate.

Thanks. I had not done any research on this issue, except reading a second- hand account of a similar hypothetical. I had an initial reaction but not solid detail.

I am utterly baffled at John Mace’s reaction.

[Bricker]

@mhendo

Despite what i said above, i agree with all of this.

I disagree with Bricker politically on plenty of thing, and i’ve disagreed with him plenty about legal issues as well, but he does seem to draw a sort of Pavlovian response from some people around here, sometimes for the most innocuous stuff.

But you first reaction is to chide me, saying you hold me to some higher standard? Where and how did I breach that standard? I’m not allowed to post a GD topic unless I have done a hour’s worth of research on it?

Immigration law is not my area. I can research, of course, but it’s not something I am an expert on without research. I really don’t get your first post.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

I’m not allowed to post a GD topic unless I have done a hour’s worth of research on it?

I don’t think you are. I do, however, think it’s poor form to post an analogy without saying what it’s an analogy to.

You know that Pit rule that parody threads must include a link, so that folks aren’t confused? Something similar is good form in GD: if you’re going to say, “If X is okay, why isn’t Y okay?”, you need to spell out what X is, instead of just saying, “Is Y okay?”

That was confusing. Lemme try again.

Your OP proposed (roughly), “If it’s okay for the president not to enforce immigration law, is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?” Except it didn’t: it just said, “Is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?”

In this instance, yeah, anyone who read Krauthammer’s piece in WaPo today already saw that analogy and knew what you were talking about. But you’ve done a lot of these OPs, I think, in which you elide the first part of the analogy, only springing it on people after they’ve discussed the second part of the analogy.

For myself, it makes me automatically suspicious of any thread you start: if there’s some hypothetical, instead of being an interesting hypothetical, I feel like I need to figure out what the real discussion is, in case you make a fool of me.

And maybe it’d be okay for you to make a fool of me, sure. But the thing is, the analogies aren’t always 100% perfect, and so I have to worry you’ll call me a hypocrite due to some flaw in the analogy, and then the inevitable conversation about whether it’s a good analogy must happen with me starting in a defensive, irritated mood.

Analogies are great. I just wish you’d always put both parts of them in the OP.

Edit: it is, of course, ridiculous to call your posts in that thread “trolling.”

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I don’t think you are. I do, however, think it’s poor form to post an analogy without saying what it’s an analogy to.

You know that Pit rule that parody threads must include a link, so that folks aren’t confused? Something similar is good form in GD: if you’re going to say, “If X is okay, why isn’t Y okay?”, you need to spell out what X is, instead of just saying, “Is Y okay?”

That was confusing. Lemme try again.

Your OP proposed (roughly), “If it’s okay for the president not to enforce immigration law, is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?” Except it didn’t: it just said, “Is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?”

Frankly, I thought using the phrase, “It’s the right thing to do,” in my OP, communicated to an audience of politically aware people, was sufficient linkage to the President’s immigration plan.

Edit: it is, of course, ridiculous to call your posts in that thread “trolling.”

Thank you.

[Oakminster]

@Bricker

I am utterly baffled at John Mace’s reaction.

I think it’s the same issue that has come up before…those types of threads amount to you playing “Gotcha”. People find that annoying. What might be a perfectly valid tactic in cross examination just pisses people off in casual conversation. Also think I recall you agreeing to stop doing this kind of thing last time we had a similar discussion…

[mhendo]

@Bricker

Immigration law is not my area. I can research, of course, but it’s not something I am an expert on without research. I really don’t get your first post.

Well, if you don’t get it, i probably can’t help with further explanation. I thought my point was reasonably clear. We’re not talking about something that would have taken hours on Westlaw here. A legal amateur apparently found the relevant law without much trouble.

I like having you around, i appreciate your legal knowledge, and i also enjoy crossing swords with you on those occasions where we disagree. You just occasionally infuriate me and other people with (what we feel are) somewhat snide and patronizing OP’s like the one in question. That’s all.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Frankly, I thought using the phrase, “It’s the right thing to do,” in my OP, communicated to an audience of politically aware people, was sufficient linkage to the President’s immigration plan.

Saying “It’s the right thing to do” links your OP about capital gains to immigration?

Bullshit. I simply do not believe that you honesttlly felt that was sufficient connection.

Bat your eyelashes harder, Counselor Gotchaya.

[Bricker]

@Oakminster

I think it’s the same issue that has come up before…those types of threads amount to you playing “Gotcha”. People find that annoying. What might be a perfectly valid tactic in cross examination just pisses people off in casual conversation. Also think I recall you agreeing to stop doing this kind of thing last time we had a similar discussion…

Can you explain the possible gotcha here? I simply don’t see it.

[Oakminster]

@Bricker

Can you explain the possible gotcha here? I simply don’t see it.

Ray Charles could see it a mile away. Can POTUS suspend collection of capital gains taxes? No? Then how can he suspend immigration enforcement? GOTCHA.

Put another way, the real intent of your thread is to argue against Obama’s recent immigration announcement, but you don’t mention that in the OP. You attempt to get people to agree with a different argument, and then spring the “surprise”…you are really arguing about something else.

[Oakminster]

For what it’s worth, here is a link to a similar discussion from 2011. Granted, this time there is no undisclosed court opinion involved, but it’s still the same type of debate tactic.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Saying “It’s the right thing to do” links your OP about capital gains to immigration?

Bullshit. I simply do not believe that you honesttlly felt that was sufficient connection.

Bat your eyelashes harder, Counselor Gotchaya.

Come on.

Obama NALEO Speech: Immigration Decision ‘Right Thing To Do’

Deportation move is right thing to do

Obama’s Immigration Policy: ‘Right Thing To Do’

Obama: Immigration policy change is ‘right thing to do’

Obama: ‘It is the right thing to do’

Obama: ‘It’s the right thing to do’

Obama Says Immigration Change is ‘Right Thing To Do’

Obama: Halting DREAMers’ Deportations the ‘Right Thing to Do’

Immigration Reprieve ‘Right Thing to Do, Period’
PRESIDENT OBAMA EXPLAINS HIS DECISION TO LET YOUNG ILLEGALS STAY

And:

@John_Mace

This is smart, politically. Bad news for Romney. It really is an amazing coincidence that it suddenly became the “right thing to do” a few months before the election!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Frankly, I thought using the phrase, “It’s the right thing to do,” in my OP, communicated to an audience of politically aware people, was sufficient linkage to the President’s immigration plan.

What would communicate the analogy sufficiently to an audience of politically aware people would be explaining the analogy in the OP. After all, your argument lives or dies based on whether it’s a good analogy; not mentioning the analogy is a weird argumentative structure.

Make the OP clear, in other words.

[Bricker]

@Oakminster

Ray Charles could see it a mile away. Can POTUS suspend collection of capital gains taxes? No? Then how can he suspend immigration enforcement? GOTCHA.

Put another way, the real intent of your thread is to argue against Obama’s recent immigration announcement, but you don’t mention that in the OP. You attempt to get people to agree with a different argument, and then spring the “surprise”…you are really arguing about something else.

Except that the underlying immigration issue was obvious. In my hypothetical, Fake Romney calls his capital gains idea “The right thing to do.” the audience for this posting is a group of very politically aware people. Obama’s emphasis on “The right thing to do” was the way almost every headline reported the issue.

I refuse to believe that anyone at all read my post and didn’t immediately think of the immigration issue. Didn’t you? Didn’t everyone?

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

What would communicate the analogy sufficiently to an audience of politically aware people would be explaining the analogy in the OP. After all, your argument lives or dies based on whether it’s a good analogy; not mentioning the analogy is a weird argumentative structure.

Make the OP clear, in other words.

What did you think the analogy was when you read the OP?

[Oakminster]

@Bricker

I refuse to believe that anyone at all read my post and didn’t immediately think of the immigration issue. Didn’t you? Didn’t everyone?

Frankly I took the “it’s the right thing to do” bit as you being smarmy. It did not immediately trigger the Obama/immigration connection for me.