Some More Distortion from the Mass Media:
Heartbreaking was how President Obama described the Supreme Court decision that keeps his immigration executive orders blocked. It is indeed a heartbreaking outcome but politically it was the best possible outcome for undocumented immigrants and supporters of immigration reform. . . .
Those opposed to immigration reform and Trump supporters more specifically aren’t going to get amped up by the stalemate. If anything they see it as a win. However, the true silver lining of the decision is that it will mobilize the Latino community. The heartbreak can be harnessed and used to get Latinos to the polls to support the immigration reform friendly candidate—Clinton. – Opinion Why Supreme Court Decision Is Best Possible Outcome, Victoria Defrancesco Soto, NBC Nightly News 6/27/16
Fact Check: The Court’s four-to-four decision, at least for the time-being, does block Obama’s amnesty edicts—almost certainly for the rest of his term. The case will now proceed at a lower court level, and possibly appear again before the Supreme Court. What was heartbreaking is that there wasn’t another justice to stop the edicts with a majority vote, and thus make it a legal precedent. The late Justice Anton Scalia no doubt would have voted to defeat the edicts, but his untimely passing prevented that from happening.
What is most disturbing about Soto’s article is that it makes no reference at all to the key constitutional issue in the case, namely the fact that Obama’s actions were in blatant violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It stipulates that Congress, the representative body of the people, is the law-making branch of government. The task of the president is to enforce those laws. A president who tries to make laws—as Obama did—is acting as a dictator.
But an action which undermines our liberties doesn’t seem to bother Soto. Her focus is what will “mobilize the Latino community.” The intention is clear—ignore the Constitution for the sake of promoting ethnic/racial politics and power. This formulation assumes that all or nearly all Latinos are mindless supemacists who care more about their group interests than about our Constitution and our freedoms. It’s hard to think of a more insulting racial stereotype. Many Latinos, just like citizens of other backgrounds, do care about our country’s rule of law and the benefits it provides everyone.
Also grating is Soto reference to amnesty for illegal aliens as “immigration reform.” This Orwellian phrase suggests that rewarding people who break our laws is some kind of beneficial step, which the word “reform” generally suggests. Rewarding lawlessness invites more lawlessness—and there is no benefit in that.