« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Republicans in Danger of Falling Prey to Unintended Consequences

Two things may happen this week:

A contempt-of-congress order against Attorney General Eric Holder may be issued by the full House.

The U.S. Supreme Court may find that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

Both of these are big news. Really big news. Only one of them, however, is of a nature that will be almost 100% favorable to the Republican Party, and that’s the Court decision, even if only the “mandate” is struck down. In fact, even if the law is upheld as constitutional. No matter how the decision goes, it falls mostly to the benefit of Republicans, either in fact or for strategic purposes. Yet while waiting for that to be announced, the House may fall all over itself in an attempt to affix responsibility for the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry (and incidentally to make Eric Holder look bad), and in doing so give the Obama Administration a chance to have their friends in the MSM deflect the “big” story from the court decision to the House’s action.

IMO, that will be a mistake on two levels, even though AG Holder richly deserves the C-of-C finding. On the first level, as I noted, it’s a distraction Republicans shouldn’t want. The Obamacare law is one the public in general doesn’t agree with, and the more it’s in the public’s mind the more it benefits Republicans. Yes, they have to be able to do something with it, but at least it’s something they can do something with. The C-of-C charge is another matter.

No matter that the underlying outrage, Operation Fast and Furious, is 100% a product of the Obama justice department, despite their obfuscations about Operation Wide Receiver. No matter that it’s pretty obvious that a coverup of some kind has been going on for some time, and that the documents requested by the House committee are legitimate objects of investigation on that basis alone, it can still be spun by the Democrats and their MSM allies that the inquiry is a political witch hunt, a fishing expedition designed to find, not the truth, but simply something with which to attack the Obama administration during the election campaign. It’s neither the legal nor political big winner that some Republicans think it to be. Why let it get in the way of the real winner, the defeat of Obamacare?

On the next level, it’s a mistake to go ahead with the contempt citation from the full House anyway, based on the expected sequence of events to follow. The Contempt-of-Congress citation is issued. President Obama stonewalls the request for documents, continuing to cite executive privilege. This puts the issue in limbo until one party or the other appeals to the courts, the Supreme Court, which will be in recess by the end of this week. Little more will happen until the court reconvenes in October, because there will now be no reason for the executive branch to pretend to be cooperative, and there is no way the House committee can compel testimony regarding anything of significance–executive privilege goes far enough to stop them if the President wants to, and he will want to. Meanwhile, the MSM will portray the House Oversight Committee as a bully and the AG and the President as the aggrieved victims.  All of that works to the advantage of the Democrats.

What should be done instead? Leave things as they are today. Invent a reason to delay the C-of-C vote. Let the House Oversight Committee continue to hold hearings and call witnesses, point out more specifically what AG Holder is not complying with and why that’s important, and basically keep the issue in the pubic eye, not as an attempt to harm Holder, but as an attempt to find out “who knew what, and when.” Quote Senator Sam Ervin whenever possible.  Hammer on the discrepancies within the various stories told by the Justice Department, on the coverup, and on the non-transparency of the administration’s positions; in October, if necessary, then issue a C-of-C finding from the full House.

I may be wrong about all of this, but I hope the Republican leadership has at least considered it before they vote to find the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress.  If I’m right, it could be a distraction that will dislodge the country’s economic problems from the front pages for a significant part of the campaign, and that will be to the President’s benefit.

COMMENTS

  • audax

    …..at least, according to Da Tagliari at God Father Politics. Here is an article I recently read re “inherent contempt” Link below:

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/5798/house-could-send-holder-jail-without-approval-senate-us-attorney/

    • Flagstaff

      Below.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    First, the House isn’t sending Holder to jail.

    Second, with respect to SCOTUS, the AZ decision came down today and and pretty much gave the government a pass. I did uphold a portion of the AZ law but left it open to more litigation.

    The reason I find this interesting is that the court appears to have taken a very narrow opinion on the AZ case with respect to states rights and I wonder how this will translate into their decision on ObamaCare.

    I’m not getting a good feeling but at least we don’t have to wait long.

    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      The key issue in ObamaCare won’t come down to state’s rights for the main judge deciding the case. That judge isn’t a big states rights guy, but individual rights on the other hand is another story. The same reason that particular judge will drive you crazy on abortion and gay marriage and drove the dems nuts on Citizens United is the reason the Obama Reign shouldn’t be too comfortable. It is the same guy that said that Obama Care changed the relationship between the Federal Government and the consumer in a “fundamental” way. There is no way Kennedy’s ego would have taken a pass on giving the decision on health care. That he gave the decision on Arizona is indicative that he is not the Senior Justice in the majority on health care. The only justices senior to Kennedy are Roberts and Scalia. The solicitor general may have won today but I am betting that the Obama Reign sees it as a Pyrric victory at best.

      • acat

        Like I said elsewhere, leaving the requirement for checking immigration status of everyone arrested (i.e. post- “book ‘em, Danno”) is a de-facto protection for departments that were already doing so, as well as a nice end run around “sanctuary cities”.

        The issue of immigration and border control is wrapped up with a pretty bow, set on fire, and thrown at Congress’s front porch.

        Mew

        • Flagstaff

          The right interpretation–it is a protection for law enforcement agencies.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            States can’t punish illegals and even though much of what was struck down was consistent with 40+ years of Supreme Court precedent on the upper limits of what the police can do re stop and frisk law, when it comes to this area of the law that is the business of the federal government, if the Executive wants to allow less than is allowed, the states must adhere to federal policy as enunciated by the executive law enforcement.

            What is going to be interesting is how the courts and/or Congress are going to reconcile the federal laws against hiring illegals with Holder’s action in Florida suing a company for race discrimination as they try and avoid violating state and federal laws.

            more later

          • Common_Cents

            It’s a move that will make these idiot sanctuary cities walk their talk. They’ll look real bad if they don’t live up to their pledge, if they do, they’ll be overrun and will spend themselves into oblivion. point. set. match.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            just ruled sanctuary cities unconstitutional. It is all a part, “immigration” is federal.

          • Common_Cents

            Drop off a few thousand illegals at San Fran city hall. Watch the bleeding heart liberals squirm!

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            There is no immigration law and so, let’s all have a discussion and go thru the motions and never deport anyone unless they murder someone on video.

      • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

        While that does relate to the AZ decision it doesn’t relate to OCare. And, because I wasn’t even started on my first coffee, I didn’t note that.

        My point is that the AZ decision was “narrow”, as is CJ Roberts wont. If the OCare decision is also “narrow” that creates huge problems because the left will simply substitute “single payer” and we’re off to the races.

        FWIW, I personally hate SB1070. It does all the wrong things for the right reasons.

        Had the legislature simply required an e-Verify form for EVERY employee and made it an affirmative defense in charges related to employing illegals the furor would have been minor. I would have preferred to make it a non-negotiable Class 6 felony to hire or rent to an illegal. Very small mandatory jail time per illegal for the business owner, or senior local executive in the case of public companies, and a $20,000 fine per head.

        The felony is important because in AZ you can’t get a business license, liquor license or be a realtor with a felony. Big fines so the state will have big incentive to go after them.

        When there are no jobs and no available housing for illegals, you don’t have to worry about arresting them.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          Didnt Holder sue a Florida corp last week that was trying to comply with federal and state law by using e-verify, yet is nor charged with race and ethnicity discrimination?

        • aesthete

          It’s much more humane, feasible, and effective to use E-Verify than to throw millions of immigrants in jail or hunt them down.

          That said, I would like to see immigration reform somewhere down the line, as well: else, I think we’ll see businesses get very effective at circumventing the current system. The demand for low-cost labor from Mexico is very, very high (much like another illegal product that makes its way up from the south, come to think of it).

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Nt

          • westcoastpatriette

            all laws are subject to his interpretation, opinion, whims of the moment and especially to be manipulated in conjunction with elections.

        • Common_Cents

          How can anyone understand baraka’s immigration policy? Especially business.

          he says he won’t enforce deportation, ignoring the written law and duty of executive branch. He’ll then go after a business that hires illegals, then his govt will go after business for discrimination who lets illegals go if they don’t produce good paperwork. Then he goes after states that are trying to fill the gap made by federal govt not doing their border protection duty.

          No matter what you do, you are in jeopardy of running afoul of the choom gang. Maybe that’s what he wants. He selectively goes after who he wants.

          • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

            Pandering to minority groups buys him votes and we pay for them.

            I don’t know what’s so hard about that…

    • lineholder

      Right now, the left is in an uproar over Justice Scalia’s statements (I haven’t gotten that far in the opinion statement of the court yet). IMO, Justice Kennedy’s opinion statement is far more damning to the Obama admin, and it displays more sympathy towards the situation in AZ than it might seem on the surface of the vote outcome alone.

      Justice Kennedy discusses “field preemption” in great detail. He explains how through the previous legal precedents, Congress has put itself in a position of accepting primary responsibility for immigration laws, leaving very little leeway for state’s to implement any course of action on their own to support a position of state sovereignty when necessary.

      Kennedy draws significant attention to the massive number of laws that we have pertaining to illegal immigration and the associated criminal/civil recourse associated with each violation of the law.

      But in a very subtle, understated way, he also draws attention to the fact that it is Congress who should be addressing enforcement of current laws, not the Executive branch.

      And from what I’ve heard so far, Scalia’s statements on the conduct of the Obama admin as it pertains to executive branch actions in failing to enforce the law is scathing to the point of being ruthless.

      Between the two…it’s quite a punch.

      I got the impression from reading Kennedy’s response, although I could be wrong, that the court might be open-minded to states taking a different approach.

      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

      • acat

        (I apologize for this threadjack, may the moderators have mercy upon my account)

        To AceInTx – this is exactly what I mean when I say “Romney doesn’t have to throw every punch”.

        Scalia just decked the Obama administration, Romney needn’t lift a finger except to point and say “I agree with the Supreme Court findings”.

        (I am not a lawyer, nor did I read the entire finding nor the dissent .. I read a partial summary on the highly praiseworthy SCOTUSblog earlier today…)

        The point is, Scalia took the somewhat unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, and it included both a swipe at Obama’s extra-legal amnesty-by-fiat, as well as a blueprint for what Arizona (and presumably Florida) must do to keep in the courts’ good graces re. racial profiling.

        I say again, to AceInTx – Romney needs to stay on message on the economy, not get into the weeds on the current Obama flailing distraction.

        (end threadjack)

        Mew

        • gekster

          (I could be wrong, I often am)
          I think it morphs in with the thread ahead of you.
          And as I tried to explain to someone before,
          Romney doesn’t have to say anything about it,
          that others would get dirty for him,
          just never thought it would be the SC.

          • acat

            review and summary of Scalia’s dissent.

            I’m making a larger but *tangential* point.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            What rights does a state have in enforcing a federal law when the federal government fails to enforce the law?

            It’s one of the key points to the entire argument of why states have been attempting to exercise discretion at a state level to address this. The concept of field preemption relays on federal enforcement of federal law. In a case where failure to enforce the law exists, does the concept of field preemption still hold true?

            Justice Thomas agrees with Justice Scalia that field preemption should not be placed as the highest priority in defining how illegal immigration should or should not be addressed.

            And that is all I will say..hopefully someone will post a diary or something where this can be discussed without it being a threadjack.

          • lineholder

            ,

  • Common_Cents

    Holder has had plenty of time otherwise and has stonewalled.

    I’d give Holder an Obama a week to meet with Brian Terry’s family as well, with the full meeting on camera.

    We need to hold these idiots accountable. I think America will get it if he’s held in contempt, despite what the left wing media says about bullying etc…

    • Flagstaff

      I don’t see that we gain that much by finding him in contempt, at least not until he can be forced to do something.

      It can wait until fall, or even until after the election. We can keep the pot boiling without the full House finding of contempt.

      • acat

        for the GOP, that is.

        There is a tremendous advantage to the Dems…. as the saying goes, the “optics would be bad”…. and would energize Obama’s base at no benefit.

        Jail him the day after Thanksgiving.

        Mew

        • PowerToThePeople

          and while I am thankful that Issa has taken a stand, I think this has turned more into political grandstanding than it is a quest for justice. Problem is, going to backfire.

          When Obama issued executive privilege, he did damage to himself and his campaign, bunches of permanent damage. If we take this much further, it turns into a witch hunt and will be viewed as the grey haired party getting racist.

          The best thing that can be done at this point is allow the damage Obama did to himself fester, and when we send him packing, then go after all the players.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        Congrats ‘staff. They were the superior team. God bless.

  • tnguy

    The OP is way off base. You can’t obsess over the timing of doing the right thing. This thread is a prescription for business as usual that has rendered the republican party toothless for most of my adult life.

    Do any of you look back and say, “well, the Republicans screwed that up. If they’d only compromised and not stood against the left so strongly…..”??? Or do you generally lament the distinct lack of testicular fortitude from those on our side? Issa shows some spine and gets criticized.

    The left is going to portray Obama in a victimized fashion no matter the issue. Fighting the war in the media is fighting something we absolutely can’t win. If it isn’t Holder’s contempt of congress, it will be something else. Walking on eggshells will not win us thing one. Do the right thing, in the long run, you win.

    • Flagstaff

      “You can?t obsess over the timing of doing the right thing.”

      While I don’t recommend obsession, I do think that in some cases timing is everything. There is really no great benefit to us from a full House C-of-C ruling, and in fact it sort of ties our hands. And whether it’s “right” or not is open to interpretation. As with John Edwards, we know he “did it,” but just what “it” is is the key. This isn’t a question of standing strongly against the left, it’s a question of perception. People have to care about it, and as yet I don’t think most of them do. I say that the entire C-of-C business is entirely PR, and as you say, it’s a losing battle. It needs to be fought with brains, not brawn.

      Anyway, the timing of THIS week is awful, and with time I could argue that the whole gesture is symbolic and counter-productive, at least until it’s possible to get the SC to rule against him.

      • checkmate2012

        indeed. Your post sounds like a CNN talking head in that you are very squishy on holding truth above of politics. That is the wrong answer for Americans. Call it like you see it but my vision is different. The Rule of Law matters. Why was Roger Clements held to the standard of it’s a crime to lie to Congress and Holder isn’t?

        We just need the gumption to voice the truth about F&F regardless of the Left’s talking points. It’s a matter of principles and to me, that is not up for debate regardless of an election year.

        • Flagstaff

          This is a political fight. IF we can make it bipartisan (and one source says there are at least 16 Democrats ready to vote for contempt), it might be helpful, but it would be just as helpful next week or next month. More helpful to keep it in the news by holding hearings, asking questions, revealing information, from now to the election. I believe that as soon as the contempt vote is passed, the Obamatonic answer will always be, “Executive privilege, no comment, it’s in litigation, we can’t answer like we would have if Holder wasn’t Holding in contempt.”

          *There is no penalty associated with contempt of Congress–it’s purely a function of how it is perceived by the public. If it’s perceived as a vindictive attempt by racist Republicans to harm a Back administration, it hurts us, not them. If it’s perceived as what I think it is, an attempt to find out “who knew what, and when, and who gave the final approval, and who engineered the coverup, and what is being covered up?” then it helps us. But it hasn’t reached that point in the general public as yet. We still have groundwork to lay. Maybe those 16 votes are enough, but the contempt finding without them makes it look more political rather than less.

  • Viet71

    If Obama wants to go into the election standing on Executive Privilege as against a contempt of congress vote, he’ll have some explaining to do. Which will be a big distraction for him.