The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Politics]

As they say, "oops"....

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new plan to ease the threat of deportation for 4.7 million undocumented immigrants violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge found on Tuesday, handing down the first legal ruling against the plan.

The ruling has no immediate impact, with the government saying there was no reason for Judge Arthur Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania to address the issue in the case, which concerns 42-year-old Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar.

Well that (whether the Judge had a reason to address the issue) is not up to the government, you see.  Apparently, he thought there was.  Of course the government will appeal and at the district level this ruling has no immediate impact, but....

As I've pointed out a few times there are a number of issues with Obama's actions in this regard, not the least of which is that they're executive actions rather than orders.  That is, they have no force of law at all, and the predicate is the claim that as the head of the Executive Obama can choose how to prioritize (always) limited resource.  It's an argument of "prosecutorial discretion", basically.

There's a problem with it however -- such discretion is generally lawful when exercised specific to circumstances of a particular case.  For example, a prosecutor can decline to bring a charge (or dismiss one, or enter into an agreement to not enter a judgment, having the effect of making a charge "disappear") because of the specifics of the case.  This is why it's legal for a prosecutor to do those sorts of things in exchange for some key piece of information he or she needs, if (in his or her judgment) it serves the public interest to do so.

But the law does not permit the same prosecutor to issue a blanket refusal to bring charges.

We know this happens all the time, however -- Eric (place) Holder has so-admitted with his "too big to jail" statements.  That was grounds for his immediate impeachment, as he has no such power under the law to make that decision.  That choice rests with the legislature, not with the Executive.

Of course neither political party had the stones to bring this up at the time.

It's a good thing "stare decisis" only has merit in the context of actual decisions by real courts or we'd be terminally screwed as a nation.  As it stands we're not quite there.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

In the back door, I will add -- which makes this entirely non-gender specific.

Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House is set to pass a $1.1 trillion spending bill that includes a banking provision opposed by many Democrats as a giveaway to large institutions.

That "provision" has nothing to do with government spending; it un-does the Dodd-Frank prohibition on federally-insured institutions trading derivatives without any capital behind them.

In other words, any institution that wants to do that has to trade them in non-insured subsidiaries, which means in turn that they can fail without government consequence.  That makes them more-expensive, since the counterparty will (correctly) perceive them as more-risky since there is no means to go back to the government and force them to cough up the deficiency.

“I expect this bill will receive bipartisan support and pass,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters today in Washington. 

Of course he does.  It is bipartisan to screw the taxpayer, of course, and you, dear citizen, keep trying to insist that if you just vote the right way things will get better for you.

Uh, no, they will not.  They will get worse because irrespective of which party you vote for you're going to get this sort of crap rammed up your chute.  There is no reason for the banks to want this sort of provision other than to force you to cover their bad gambling debts exactly as they did in 2008 and 2009.

It doesn't end there either; among other provisions are a rollback in trucking safety regulations that will permit drivers to work 82 hours a week and exempts agricultural refuse from clean-water standards.  Yep, you read that right; Congress is voting to both allow big corporate farms to poison the water and big trucking companies to run you over with drivers that are asleep at the wheel.

Pelosuckonitpeon, for her part, has refused to urge her caucus to vote against the bill en-masse.  

Were she to do so she could kill the bill quite effectively.

But she won't.  Instead, she will line up with Boehner and take her turn at abusing you under the rubric of "keeping the government open."  And Obama, for his part, has said he'll sign it -- so he'll line up with Congress in both poisoning you and then running you over.

This is what you sit for America.  

Remember well that you sat silently for these abuses and did nothing to stop them when your life savings evaporate as derivative obligations are superior to your deposits at the bank, you are poisoned by agricultural waste in the water or run over by a truck driven by a sleeping driver who is right at his legal 82 hours behind the wheel that week and, but for this change, would be parked instead.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

The twin towers and Pentagon weren't enough, were they?

Now we have a born-in-Saudi guy who we were dumb enough to let into the country (mistake #1) and work on one of our carriers (big mistake #2.)  He tried to sell the plans, including how to sink it, to what he thought was an Egyptian agent.

In fact it was an FBI agent.

We should have declared war (for real) when we discovered that Saudi Arabia's consulates appeared to be involved in the funding and logistics for 9/11, and we damn sure should not have let anyone suspected to be connected out of the country on an "expedited" basis (as we did) after 9/11.

That was really, really dumb but letting this guy in and allowing him access to this technical data is even more stupid.

Political correctness is eventually going to get huge numbers of Americans killed folks.  It is only a matter of time.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.