Kinda like the conservative groups Lerner targeted? Via Newsbusters: The folks at MSNBC seem to be doing their best to try and minimize the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups. Ever since the initial reports broke in 2013, liberals have characterized conservative outrage as nothing more than a political stunt and one of many “faux scandals […]
Via Conservative Intel Briefing: If Mozilla was hoping to avoid controversy by edging out former CEO Brendan Eich, the company has most certainly failed. The graph below comes from the feedback page on their site. This chart goes back to when the comment system was adopted, and the highest number of “sad” comments is today, […]
Go here to see the original:
Mozilla Sets Company Record For Single Worst Day of Feedback Ever After CEO Forced Out…
Famed legal expert Disgraced ObamaCare shill Michael Hiltzik turns to the pages of a renowned law review medical journal for supposedly competing views on the legality of Obama’s unilateral changes in ObamaCare. Hiltzik is not a legal expert, but he considers himself an expert on any argument that can be made in favor of ObamaCare, and I guess the L.A. Times editors consider that a “business” topic. In other words, they have realized that actual businessmen don’t really read their rag, and so any liberal claptrap that has economic implications can now be considered fair game for the sock-puppeting business columnist. Hiltzik opens the analysis by saying: So let’s strip away the partisan rhetoric and see what the rules say. Indeed. When I want to “strip away the partisan rhetoric” I head for the nearest copy of the Los Angeles Times and turn straight to the Michael Hiltzik column. My eyes are rolling back in my head so hard they just called me an ambulance. Hiltzik’s analysis is based on a look at two supposedly competing viewpoints in that publication that has earned a stellar reputation for its analysis of constitutional law and separation of powers issues: the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguing that Obama can do whatever the hell he wants: Timothy S. Jost of Washington and Lee University Law School and Simon Lazurus of the Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington. Their hackwork arguments are predictable. I want to concentrate on the guy who is supposedly on “the other side” — the guy who, according to Hiltzik, can be counted on to present the most spirited case possible that Obama is acting contrary to the law. That is a guy named Nicholas Bagley from the Michigan Law School. Per Hiltzik, Bagley has some rather tepid conclusions to the effect that maybe not all of what Obama is doing is quite kosher: Bagley concludes that some of the Affordable Care Act delays may in fact step over the line, or at least create a “troubling precedent.” Bagley’s not more dogmatic because, as he wrote, “no crisp line separates routine nonenforcement from blatant disregard.” It’s not unusual, or illegal, for the government to suspend or moderate enforcement of some laws in order to husband its resources for more important duties, Bagley observed. The delay of the employer mandates, moreover, correspond to established practice by the IRS, dating back decades, of granting “transition relief” to taxpayers subject to changes in tax laws, as these are. Congress hasn’t objected in the past. That said, Bagley pointed out that such relief is usually granted for just a few months at a time, and not for major provisions. Bagley was less tolerant of the delays allowing old, canceled policies to remain temporarily in force. That was a political maneuver, he observed, aimed at validating the president’s promise that “if you like your old plan, you can keep it.” That “probably exceeds” the limits of presidential authority, he said. You let ‘em have it, Nicholas Bagley! This fierce opponent of ObamaCare, according to Hiltzik, blames Congress for not helping the law work: Bagley cited the “toxic and highly polarized political environment,” observing that “Congress’s unwillingness to work constructively with the White House to tweak the ACA has increased the pressure on the administration to move assertively.” If you’re starting to get the idea that Bagley is not going to be the guy offering the most forceful case against Obama or ObamaCare, you’re right. I looked into Bagley a little further, after being made suspicious by his attack on Republicans in Congress, and found that he is the co-author of an article titled “Why It’s Called the Affordable Care Act.” (.pdf) Here is a choice quote from that article: By improving quality, controlling costs, and extending coverage to the uninsured, the ACA means to address many of those problems. And it’s about time. Take that , Obama! If Hiltzik were intellectually honest, and wanted to present and confront actual arguments against the constitutionality of Obama’s actions, written by people who have not written law review articles praising ObamaCare, he could look to the Volokh Conspiracy (“The ‘fix’ amounts to new legislation – but enacted without Congress. The President has no constitutional authority to rewrite statutes”) or Nicholas Rosenkranz (Obama’s actions are “a unilateral executive suspension of the law” that “flouted the Constitution”) or Michael McConnell (“While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.”). Instead, Hiltzik takes a figure that is not actually making a conservative argument, pretends that this figure is making a conservative argument, and then says: “Look! Even this conservative says the Republicans are irresponsible!” It reminds me of when Hiltzik sock-puppeted at this blog , attacking my commenter Specter. Hiltzik trumpeted the success of his own sock puppet in attacking Specter, saying: For anyone interested, Specter is getting his head handed to him over at the Patterico blog for trying to sleaze out from under his flat misstatements of fact. And that’s a conservative blog. Follow the link above, and enjoy the carnage. Hiltzik was trying to argue: “Look! Even a commenter at a conservative blog thinks Specter is wrong!” when Hiltzik himself was the commenter at the conservative blog . This is the kind of dishonesty we have come to expect from Michael Hiltzik. And it’s the same move he makes when he sets up Nicholas Bagley as some sort of ObamaCare opponent. P.S. I can’t let this go without comment: Interestingly, Bagley and Jost/Lazarus agree on two major points. One is that even if Obama has stepped over the line of legality, there’s nothing anyone can do about it: No one has standing to sue Obama in court to force the mandates to be observed. If that is truly Bagley’s analysis, it is sophomoric. It is emphatically not the case that, if no party has standing to contest presidential overreaching, “there’s nothing anyone can do about it.” Legal Expert Michael Hiltzik and ObamaCare Opponent Nicholas Bagley might want to take a look at a document called the Constitution, which entitles the legislative branch to address executive overreach in numerous ways that have nothing to do with the courts. Those methods include the Dreaded Ted Cruz Move of exercising control over the purse strings of the federal government. They also include impeachment. Next time, find someone who actually opposes Obama and his totalitarian law, Hiltzik, and they’ll school you on these matters. Maybe you’ll actually learn something. Ah, who am I kidding?
This questionnaire is from the Central Community School System in Louisiana. The parent notes on it that he thinks it’s Common Core. We haven’t been able to verify that, however. HT: Conservative Hideout
[Guest post by Dana] During this year’s CPAC, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul briefly discussed the priority (or lack thereof) of social issues in the upcoming elections. As they are the two potential presidential candidates that generate the most buzz these days, it’s interesting to look at a side-by-side comparison. Right now, there isn’t a lot of daylight between them, however, while acknowledging that messages and platforms will have to be honed and articulated, this is where they currently stand. Social issues and their place of importance in a national election have not only been a consistent source of contention between commenters here at Patterico’s, but stirs heated debate throughout the right at large. While at CPAC, Ted Cruz was asked if he thought the GOP should take social issues out of the conversation in the upcoming elections. The man many consider a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016 said, “I don’t think the politicians get to decide what the people care about.” Cruz said he doesn’t think anything is off the table, but, he cautioned, there are important problems to address first. On the home front, he said it is imperative that the country get back on its feet economically. And looking overseas, Cruz said America must reclaim its standing in the world. In the impromptu press conference, Cruz took only two questions. He criticized President Obama’s handling of the Ukraine crisis and America’s loss of prestige in the world. Cruz also said he was just as concerned about the president’s failed economic agenda. The country is facing such a crisis, he said, it needs to change course both at home and abroad, and soon. Rand Paul addressed similar questions: There was a consensus among young people at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference that the GOP needs to get out of social issues. Do you agree? I think it’s partly that. But I also think young people are very concerned with privacy. I think most young people’s lives revolve around their cellphones. They communicate with their parents by cellphone even when they’re in the house. And I think they are horrified by the idea of the government searching their records and being in possession of their records when they’ve not been suspected of a crime. Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage. I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues. –Dana
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul: 2016 and Social Issues