The NY Times Editorial Board opined on the Federal Judge that halted Obama’s Amnesty. In its attempt to paint the Judge as an opponent of President Obama, the hit piece does little more than run cover for the President by repeating the same arguments that the Judge made in his ruling as if somehow, the Judge did not understand the issue.
Constitutionally speaking, the President’s program IS unconstitutional, and while the Judge demonstrated that the case for that declaration is clear, this is just to stop the President from implementing the program until the broader ruling takes place. This was not unexpected considering the issues at play. And in an interesting twist, the President has chosen not to make an emergency filing to overturn it.
To provide cover, the Editorial Board makes this statement:
On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform. They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own.
What they are trying to tell you is that President is a good guy, he knows what he is doing, what it really means is “Why are you guys always picking on Obama??”