Success in politics, as in war and chess, requires the ability to plan several moves ahead. As Obama awaits court decisions on several of his key policy initiatives, it’s surprising that there has been little or no speculation as to just what exactly was he thinking?
22 times previously Obama, that noted constitutional layer, said that he lacked the authority to take the very actions on illegals that he has now done so unilaterally.
Surely at some point in the process, the 23rd Obama might have thought that there’s at least a chance that the courts would agree with the first 22 Obamas.
And if so, then what? What’s the Plan B?
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just denied a request to remove a lower court’s ruling that puts on hold Obama’s move to allow some 5 million illegals to obtain work permits and other federal benefits.
On its present course, the matter will end up before the Supreme Court, and likely after the Court has ruled against the administration in the Obamacare case.
This is the baseball equivalent of a batter taking a pitch with a two-strike count.
Or is there perchance something else afoot?
Democrats, while sharply split with Obama over the trade initiative,are just about universal in support of his amnesty initiatives. [mc_name name=’Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’P000197′ ], commenting on the court’s decision yesterday, called it a “disappointing delay of a clear outcome.”
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee, has come out strongly in support of Obama’s executive actions, even saying that as president she would “go further, and do more.”
It’s like the debate on global warming…Democrats believe the case is closed. They are in the right.
So, what then would happen if tomorrow Obama announces that “as he believes the court decision is wrong, and because it is crucial that we act now”, he instructs all departments of the Executive Branch to ignore the court injunction and proceed to implement his executive orders.
And why wouldn’t Obama want to take this action? Does he even have a downside here?
Democrats have a long history of running against the courts when they didn’t like the decisions. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. Democrats have successfully filibustered against conservative nominees to the courts, and viciously slandered those that managed to get confirmed. Democrats profess fealty to the “rule of law” only when it furthers their objectives.
But facing a totally failed middle east policy, the likelihood of Iran getting a nuclear device, a China and Russia that are aggressively expanding…in short, the total collapse of his presidency; there is one option open to Obama.
Deflect attention. That’s what magicians do. Create another crisis, and take advantage of it.
If tomorrow Obama announced that he was ignoring the court’s injunction; well, Tehran could drop a nuke on Tel Aviv, ISIS could capture Bagdad, and turn the US Embassy into their world headquarters, and these cataclysmic events might make page A19 in the NY Times and WaPo.
I am NOT a lawyer, so I’m not sure what the immediate sequence of events would be in that case, except that it would exceed the import of 2000’s Bush v.Gore by a magnitude of 1000.
I assume the House would almost immediately move to impeach, and the Senate would fail to convict. The Democrat caucus would hold.
Then what happens? I have no idea where we would go from there. I’ll leave it to others, far more learned that I, to weigh in. But I would suggest that the mere fact that we can even contemplate such a series of events is in and of itself frightening.
The United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The key word here being “The Constitution.”
And if that is shredded, eviscerated, then what do we have?
One thing for sure. Obama’s legacy will be of achieving a 100% success in “fundamentally transforming” America.