Monday, July 14, 2014

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 7/11/2014

"Shields and Brooks on suing the president, LeBron’s hometown bounce" PBS NewsHour 7/11/2014

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including legal action by the U.S. House against President Obama, dwindling funds for the federal highway system, how to cope with the influx of unaccompanied children crossing the border and the announcement that LeBron James is returning to the Cleveland Cavaliers.
----
JUDY WOODRUFF:  And I guess the biggest one, though, David, is the speaker, John Boehner, saying he’s going to sue the president of the United States because the president’s overstepped his line as president.

Is there merit in this suit?  Is it a good idea?  What do you think?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  There’s some merit, but I, of course, have sympathy for both sides.

So, basically, you normally pass a big piece of legislation like the ACA, the health care bill, and then you go back and fix it and the Congress and everybody cooperates to fix it.  But because we’re so dysfunctional, we can’t do that.

And so the president is left saying, well, we have got to really change the law to drop some things in the employer mandate to make it work, or at least delay it.  And so he goes ahead and does that, for probably some defensible reasons, some political reasons, but it is a pretty bold step for the president to do it just off the top of his head.

It does really delay and probably wipe out a pretty significant part of the law.  So when Boehner says I’m suing because the president just can’t change the law without congressional approval, technically, he’s right.  The president should not be allowed to do some of that stuff.

But it does grow out of the general dysfunction, where you don’t have two parties working together to make an already passed law function.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Is that what the president is doing?  Is he changing the law?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  Yes, he is, did change the Affordable Care Act.
----
JUDY WOODRUFF:  The lawsuit.

MARK SHIELDS:  The lawsuit.  It’s a base sweetener for the election of 2014.

It’s John Boehner being able to say — and I’m not arguing on the merits — but being able to say, look, we’re going after him.  We’re bringing it to court.  And, all of a sudden, John Boehner looks semi-moderate because John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, former Governor Palin, is leading an impeachment charge, supported by such esteemed groups as Sean Hannity and The Drudge Report.

So, the lawsuit, if anything, looks quite civil and grown-up.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, is that what this is?  It’s the speaker throwing a bone or a — whether it’s a bone that’s going to develop or not?

DAVID BROOKS:  Well, the impeachment is obviously cloud cuckoo land.

But there’s a natural tussle between the legislature and the White House, and presidents, especially when everything is dysfunctional, want to expand their power.  The president has been quite unshy about that.  And the legislature’s job is to push back.

And so you’re going to — it’s a gray area.  The president is charged with executing the laws.  Congress passed it.  The president’s got it make it work, whatever party.  And so how much do you allow him to change the law to make it function?

And so that’s sort of a gray area.  I think the president and on some occasions has gone quite aggressively to changing laws to make them work.  But how do you draw that line?  We will see.

I agree with Mark, though.  The lawsuit is not going anywhere.  But I do think it’s a substantive matter that’s built into our Constitution.
----
MARK SHIELDS:  But it’s one more problem (immigration) for, quite frankly — and I say this as a liberal.  It’s one more problem for Democrats, I mean, because it erodes further the confidence of government to act effectively and to execute the law and to control the borders of the country.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Why do you say that’s a problem for Democrats?  Why isn’t that a problem…

MARK SHIELDS:  Well, because Democrats are the party of government.

I mean, the president can rail against Washington and all the rest of it, and I’m happy to be out of Washington.  The Democrats believe that government is an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress.  Republicans don’t.  Republicans are the anti-government party.  And for that reason, it doesn’t erode confidence in them the same way.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  But, David, you think there’s a way to find out — that enough of these children can be sent back and have a secure place to go?

DAVID BROOKS:  That’s why governing is hard.  This is why it’s boring through hard boards, because how do you investigate where these kids — they can’t tell you.

It’s just this problem from hell.  How do you find out who can go back safely, who you can’t?  How do you set up a process for that?  And yet somehow we just can’t continue the way we’re going, because the horror that the kids are going through to try to get here is horrible enough.

MARK SHIELDS:  Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Right.

DAVID BROOKS:  And so it’s typical governance.  And that’s why it’s so easy to be a pundit.  You’re faced with cruelty on either side of this issue.

No comments: