I mean, when you hold all the levers of government, and the leader of your party has actually endorsed a “good shutdown”, it takes some chutzpah to blame the other side.
That’s how little they think of the intelligence of their base voters. And sadly it works pretty well usually.
Luckily this time they seem to be having very little success.
No, that’s just repeating the assertion. How about telling us *your *reasons, preferably in a way that does not resort to DemonCRats Bad?
In one model of democracy, a single party (or coalition) controls the legislative body, and gets to bear full blame if they pass extremely unpopular laws, such as a DACA repeal. Our model does not work like that. In our system, Republicans can ‘control’ both houses of congress and the executive, and still not be able to pass a budget because of the Senate’s filibuster. This blurs the lines of accountability. This is why you see immigration activists (who are on the side of angels here) targeting Democrats, insisting that they use the only lever they have to secure DACA funding. It’s why Republicans can even attempt to craft an argument that a shutdown would be the fault of Democrats.
But because accountability is blurred, neither side is 100% to blame for a potential shutdown. Ditka’s logic about blaming whoever votes against cloture is so obviously self-serving as to not really deserve response, but so are the claims that ‘Republicans own all three branches - they can’t possibly blame Democrats!’ The truth is that in this system there is no objective, algorithmic way to assign blame. So the American people do what they would do anyway: they use their values, combined with their imperfect knowledge of events, to mete out blame. And right now, the Republican party looks like the one that is refusing to be reasonable: they won’t offer clean votes on popular programs, like DACA and CHIP, and they seem unwilling to budge at all. Their president blew up a plan after saying he would sign what Congress agreed to. Unless their noise machine can sufficiently blur the facts of the case, they’re going to take the blame here.
That one as well as the previous ones. The intent was to discriminate based on religion. Adding non-Muslim countries as a fig leave doesn’t hide the hateful policy.
I don’t believe I’ve ever used the phrase “DemonCRats Bad”, so why did you feel the need to inject it into your response to me in a way that seems to suggest I have ‘resort[ed] to’ it in the past?
Because of your overall posting record.
I’m glad Dick Durbin is one of my senators. It’s immoral to use DREAMers as a ping pong ball, leaving them twisting in the wind.
If you can answer the question without resorting to mere partisan cheerleading, please do so. Or you can evade it like you just did.
The courts haven’t been fooled either.
Article I of the Constitution says:
Article II says:
My understanding (and I think it’s a commonly-held one) is that this means that Congress is supposed to write the laws and the President is supposed to execute / enforce them.
In quite a lot of cases these days, Congress has ceded some of their decision-making authority to various portions of the executive branch, but I don’t think they ever authorized the President to do something like establishing DACA. I think it was a few good steps beyond what he’s authorized to do. AFAICT, Obama used to think that too, until he went out and did it anyways:
The immigration orders are somewhere in the realm of terrible policy/arguable overreach/obviously racist; but in terms of pure overreach, I would say the efforts to cut off funding to sanctuary cities is clearly not justified by any statute or the Constitution.
Yes, and there’s quite a bit of leeway as to what each consists of, isn’t there?
The executive has the power to enforce laws as it sees fit.
You mean, until the Republicans said, in effect, “Anything Obama wants must be bad and must be opposed”, right? That’s still their governing philosophy, in case you hadn’t noticed. It isn’t as if Obama didn’t ask them to pass a better law, and it isn’t as if they didn’t and don’t have the opportunity to do the right thing themselves. When one part of a system fails, the rest of the system has to work around it - and that’s what he did.
“Tyrant”, though? Dude.
I put this one squarely on the lap of Trump himself. His regular hissy-fits have poisoned the well, each one making it politically harder for either side in Congress to reach a deal, despite what seems like good faith from the Congressional leadership of both sides of the aisle. (I was going to give more detail, but this WaPo opinion piece sums it up perfectly for me).
In 2013, I think a very specific group of R hardliners were the well-poisoners. (If I saw this on the D side, I’d call it out - I’m a big fan of the bipartisan compromises generally).
You should pay more attention. I didn’t use the word “tyrant” to describe Obama.
What you are describing as “one part of a system fails” is what I see as democracy in action. Obama and the Dems wanted something (the DREAM Act). Congress chose not to approve it. You call that a failure. I don’t agree.
Not sure if you’re talking about me. I said they would likely be able to pass a DACA-like bill if it came to the floor.
I can only point to what the Senate is trying to do and where things broke down. Flake asked leadership to bring a bipartisan DACA bill to the floor by the end of January. McConnell agreed. Flake, Graham, and Durbin worked up a bipartisan deal. Trump said he’d sign it. Then came Shithole Armageddon, then McConnell said they just had to wait for the WH to take a side. Hill staffers said the proposal had the votes and, again, it was a bipartisan deal.
Yeah, I went back and saw it was you who said it :). After reading back over it, I’m not sure whether Republicans would be likely to vote on DACA if it weren’t linked to other things they want: what I’d like to see is what they’ve said about Dreamers unlinked to compromise.
Because the way a compromise should work–as nearly everyone knows–is that each side says what they need, says what they’ll absolutely refuse, and says what they want and don’t want but will negotiate on. The ideal is that both sides get what they absolutely need and not what they will refuse, and some of the things they want and some of the things they don’t want.
If all Republican Senators (or at least 40 of them, enough to support a filibuster) want to deport all the Dreamers, or leave them in limbo, then sure: they’re compromising by talking about enshrining DACA into law. But if a clean DACA bill would pass, then no compromise is necessary: that bill should pass. Compromise should happen in areas where there’s no supermajority on either side.
Well I don’t have one, and it’s a rather complex matter. My impression is that - much as is the case with the Republican voters - many Republican Senators support various elements of DACA and would be willing to make some sort of deal. But my impression is that there is very little support for DACA as a whole - which is what the Democrats appear to be insisting on - on the Republican side.
When you say “Unlinked to compromise” are you talking about being unlinked to anything else in immigration or are you talking about it being unlinked to anything else outside of immigration? Because sure, I agree that the DREAMers alone probably wouldn’t pass. The bipartisan agreement I was talking about dealt with some other immigration issues. That’s what I’m talking about as passable.