I am a little perplexed by this article. And I am especially confused by this quote from the above article:
As I recall, most liberals think obscenity trials involving consenting adults are a waste of taxpayer money. Even the more moderate Pres. Clinton didn’t feel it was necessary. Also, as I understand it, most (consenting-adult) pornography is protected by the First Amendment under the Miller Test anyways.
I just basically have two questions then: Why is Pres. Obama doing this? And why if he is doing things like this do conservatives still consider him the most liberal president, well, ever?
(Quick side note: while searching for this article a couple of days ago, I found out the charges were eventually dismissed. Still, why did Obama’s DOJ pursue it in the first place?)
He’s not…his Justice Department is. It’s probably simply a hold over from the previous administration that simply hasn’t been rectified yet (he’s had a bit on his plate so far and maybe hasn’t gotten to this yet…that’s just my WAG btw).
Probably because this is merely one rather obscure issue and they are seeing him across a whole spectrum of issues and stances. Just like liberals disliked Bush even on the few occasions that he did something they normally wouldn’t be opposed to, rabid conservatives aren’t likely to give Obama a pass just because he does something they would approve of on a single vertical issue.
I think the generic answer to these questions (why is the DOJ under Obama defending or prosecuting under this or that right-leaning law) is twofold: inertia and the executive’s duty to uphold even those laws with which he or she disagrees.
Certainly, there is a great degree of prosecutorial discretion, but do you really want the President to have the power to tell the DOJ not to enforce a certain law duly passed by Congress?
Remember all those unqualified guys from the Heritage foundation that found themselves with jobs in the Justice Department, well they’re still there and Obama has been too busy firing black women accused of reverse racism on a far right wing talk show.
Can I get a point of clarification on how long this line will be used?
Can we look forward to Obama starting a nuclear war near the end of his 2nd term and say, “Well, he had to because of what he was left by the Bush administration…He had too much on his plate to get around to this particular part of the executive branch…Die Cheney Die!!!”
Until it stops being true. When you spend 8 years fucking the country and staffing the DOJ with cronies and incompetents, it takes a while to fix shit, ya know? Or is it your impression that Liberty law grads were chosen for their merit?
At least as long as Bush is alive. The point is not to accurately explain things, the point is to prevent Obama’s status from being lowered.
Note that if you claim inertia as a defense, that is a general argument against using government to do stuff, including stuff you like. If it takes a decade to change course when underlying realities change, that’s a major weakness in an age where things move…a bit more quickly than that.
I think a lot of liberals just have no idea how prudish Obama really is . This is a real family man, a black version of Ward Cleaver with the corresponding 2 children of the same sex family, and a regular church goer to boot. You won’t find this guy watching porn videos, or engaging with hookers or mistresses. Hell, I’ll bet he doesn’t masturbate either!
Where’s the evidence that it takes a decade to change course? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071605750.html
Justice Department statistics show prosecutors charged 361 defendants with obscenity violations during President George W. Bush’s years in office, nearly twice as many as under President Bill Clinton. In 2009, 20 defendants were charged, compared with 54 the previous year.