Which - just so we’re clear about this - would not be Democratic obstructionism.
To be fair, it might not be Faux News, it could be hate radio or even the NY Post.
Well, by that logic, should the Obama administration have defended DOMA?
Not flushing everything down the toilet is not the same as not flushing anything, and DOMA was a turd.
I’m not smart on these matters, but might it also have been the case that DOMA was a turd that might have been upheld?
Let’s say you’re a new president defending a case that you personally disagree with. You could drop the case altogether and declare a moral victory, but what if you were 99% confident that your side was going to lose the case. Wouldn’t it make sense to allow the case to continue its way through the court system so that you’d lose and the precedent would then be set?
(This may be a fanwank, I’m just throwing it out there.)
In that particular case, no - the government had already lost at the trial and intermediate appellate levels so its decision to withdraw the appeal to SCOTUS would have created precedent. Of course, in the end Congress decided to pursue the appeal itself so we ended up with a ruling on the merits anyway.
OK.
Would you say that the Obama administration was somehow unique in this regard, then, or unusual in the number of unanimous Supreme Court decisions that cut against the position taken as a party or as amicus?
See, from my point of view, what you did was mirror a favorite tactic of the idiot Left: they post some screed about Republicans, it’s pointed out that Democrats do the same thing, and then they either shriek “Tu quoque,” like a retarded parrot – inasmuch as they seldom understand exactly what a tu quoque argument is – or they piously invite the starting of another thread, because THAT one is only about the Republican sin.
When these idiot leftists do that, they either don’t know, or conveniently ignore, that the clear implication of phrasing the criticism that way is that the sin is alleged to be uniquely or unusually concentrated with Republicans – the implication is that by naming Republicans, it is they, and not so much Democrats, responsible for whatever ill is being criticized. And then they react with baffled anger when this assumption is questioned.
Now, as I say, because the SDMB is a generally lefty community, I see this most often as a leftist tactic, and I sometimes delude myself into the belief that the tactic itself somehow arises from leftist belief or practice, or from some moral flaw that places in a leftist the need for intellectual honesty lower than it does for people on the right.
But “delude,” is the correct word. That’s obviously completely false, and while I admit I comfort myself with that illusion from time to time, it’s quite simply a stupid illusion to hold. So I suppose some thanks are due you for reminding me that it’s not a flaw of ideology, but of foolishness.
Your point was misplaced. Called on it, you have doubled down on the foolishness instead of doing the right thing.
You were wrong: the Obama administration has suffered no unusually significant number of rebukes by a unanimous Supreme Court.
If you’ve come to your idiotic conclusions on your own then that’s even worse.
Swing and a miss. Twice.
No, but the blogs and websites that feed you your talking points are.
I would genuinely like to know- what is the source of your information? Where do you get your news? What are your favorite news sites and which do you think most trustworthy? Which sites do you read, if any, that you disagree with and/or think are untrustworthy?
I hope no resolution can be found. Fuck the DHS. Shut the fucker down forever.
With any luck Harry Reed and Mitch McConnell kill each other over it. How much better could it get?
Gridlock is a wonderful thing.
I know everyone hates the DHS, but it does serve some pretty important functions. Like, I dunno, controlling all points of entry to the country.
DHS gets a bad rap because everyone hates the TSA and the current implementation of the Border Patrol. The Secret Service may have proven themselves inept lately but I don’t think they need to get shut down. The US Coast Guard seems like a stand up organization, and the various immigration and customs offices are probably necessary.
Unfortunately, I heard that something like 80% of all DHS employees are considered essential, so even if they’re shut down the TSA and Border Patrol will continue to operate. So will ICE, the Secret Service, and the Coast Guard. All of those folks will have to work without pay, even the ones we like, and the shutdown will only affect poor office schlubs who we probably have no beef with.
They suck at that job.
I don’t know what poison pills you are talking about but I’m going to take a wild guess that its either repealing Obamacare, tax cuts or abortion (they kind of gave up on gay marriage a while ago).
So, open borders are better?
Um. Yeah, that’s what we have now.
Um. No.
Oh, so there aren’t millions of people here illegally. Good, then I suppose this whole amnesty business isn’t important. The Democrats can stop blocking passage of the bill then. DHS has done its job. There are no open borders. There is nobody to give amnesty to.