The New York Times Has Tied Itself Into Knots With This One

[mcar]

The New York Times Has Tied Itself Into Knots With This One
The Paper of Record suggests President Joe Biden keep one foot in reality and the other on a banana peel.

By Charles P. Pierce
Jan 28, 2021

I've been in training because I knew this was coming. For all the griping about the interviews with people in midwest diners, there was a lot of tough reporting on the previous administration*. You have to admit that it was a target-rich environment. So, when the election came, and the various thieves and mountebanks were turfed out, I had a pretty good idea what would happen. The people who run and edit and program major news outlets were going to look at all the great, meaty coverage and, instead of feeling proud of their part in running the worst presidency* in American history out of town, and acting out of the insecurity that has been bred into the news biz ever since Spiro Agnew ran amok in the early 1970s, they would go out of their way to show that they hadn't been acting out of partisan malice. So I have worked at being alert for evidence of this phenomenon. That ridiculous New York Times story about Joe Biden's watch was Exhibit A. Now comes the NYT with an even more obvious example.

You can read newspapers for 50 years and not see a newspaper tie itself in knots the way the Times does in this editorial. It acknowledges throughout that the new administration is facing rigid, if completely predictable, obstruction from Republican congressional majorities as it tries to do those things it was elected to do. But it insists that the most obvious solution to this completely man-made problem is just as much a problem as the obstruction itself.

A polarized, narrowly divided Congress may offer Mr. Biden little choice but to employ executive actions or see his entire agenda held hostage. These directives, however, are a flawed substitute for legislation. They are intended to provide guidance to the government and need to work within the discretion granted the executive by existing law or the Constitution. They do not create new law — though executive orders carry the force of law — and they are not meant to serve as an end run around the will of Congress. By design, such actions are more limited in what they can achieve than legislation, and presidents who overreach invite intervention by the courts.

Now, I read the NYT nearly every day, so I know that its editors have not been comatose since 2008, when Mitch McConnell first vowed that Barack Obama would not be permitted to do what he'd promised he'd do. It is obvious to the wide world that there is no good-faith partner for bipartisan action in the Congress, and there hasn't been for more than a decade. It is obvious to the wide world that the general welfare of the country is a secondary consideration to the Republican congressional minorities. The new Senate hasn't even been allowed to organize itself yet; as of Thursday, Republicans were still chairing all the Senate committees. The Times doesn't present any solutions, except to note that Biden ran for president as a legislative dealmaker—which was nice, but also was the functional equivalent of running for president as an aardvark. The obvious solution—burning down the filibuster and then legislating like wildfire—is not mentioned, and not even all the Democrats are onboard with it anyway. The Times suggests that the new president keep one foot in political reality and the other on a banana peel. This is no way to run a democratic republic. Tell me something I don't know.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a35352859/new-york-times-joe-biden-executive-orders/

[Chainfire]

1. Four things can happen:

* Nothing positive gets done with legislation and the Republican's try to tread water for two years.
* The Republicans learn to share power and work together for the common good.
* Biden rolls over and lets McConnel continue to rule
* Or Biden shoves Executive Orders down their throats.

If Biden has to go with the fourth option to accomplish his goals, so be it, and the NYT can KMA.

[mcar]

2. I agree

[dutch777]

4. Your points taken but Exec Orders have severe limitations...real change takes legislation...

..not just EOs. The Dem agenda will be woefully hamstrung and incompletely delivered if they can't legislate.

[TheRickles]

5. What are those limitations?

I'm not clear on the difference between an EO and a law, as it seems like a lot can be accomplished via EOs. Any tips would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Fla Dem]

7. As I understand it, the next president can overturn all the preceding presidents EO's.

Just like Trump did to Obama's EO's and Biden is doing to Trump's EO's.

[wryter2000]

15. That's what Biden is doing right now

Overturning the orange asshole's executive orders.

I don't even have to type that man's name any longer.

[malthaussen]

13. It's fairly simple, really.

An XO (which is the acronym I prefer) applies only to the Federal government under the Executive branch. So, for instance, Mr Biden can mandate that the Federal government no longer do business with private prison firms, but cannot say anything about State contracts with same. Mr Biden can mandate a $15.00 minimum wage for contractors in Federal programs, but cannot mandate a nationwide minimum for all businesses. The limitations are quite stringent. Congress is the only organization that can mandate nationwide laws (and their scope is still limited by State governments; criminal law and civil law can be very different from State to State).
Now, in the specifically Federal realm, what's the difference between a law and an XO? That's not as simple, but the differences are real. For example, Mr Biden cannot, via XO, proclaim that such-and-such an act is treason against the US, only Congress could do that via legislation. In an XO, Mr Biden can determine how a Federal law is enforced, eg he could set the children free from their cages, if he ever gets around to it. But he cannot determine what the law is for legal immigration. Sometimes the line is very fine (and arguably a distinction and not a difference), but it is there.

I'll also note that Mr Trump (as well as other Presidents) often exceeded his authority with his XOs. And this is where the rubber meets the road, for ultimately, what makes any XO "legitimate" is whether or not the issuer gets away with it. If no one challenges it in court, a President can pretty much declare any damn thing he wants.

-- Mal

[TheRickles]

16. Got it (I think). Thanks!

[machoneman]

6. True, but! Perhaps we will slay them in the 2022 House elections as per a lot of media, a number....

...of former R voters have already switched allegiance. Then, independents who did vote for R's and/or Trump, aghast at what happened AFTER they voted in November, may also repudiate the R's next time around. Finally, I do suspect the impeachment trial, one they are desperate to foil, may prove to break their backs once we call witnesses, show tons of video and cell phone footage and have the FBI testify,

Now we just learned of the night before meeting between Trump and his co-conspirators, also learned more about R representatives and their recon tours of the Chambers, the Proud Boy's head being a long-time FBI informant and more.

Now, getting all the charges to stick, proving beyond a shadow of a wide-spread conspiracy including House R-scums and maybe two R-weaselsenators and perhaps getting a few of those House members jailed for sedition is a stretch. Yet, not all these efforts are doomed to failure. Not by a long shot!

[judesedit]

19. That's exactly what I'm thinking. In 2022 we make the xo's law

If we show up like we did in 2020, we will win in 22. We are the majority. Stacey's working on Texas now. Go Stacey!

[Chainfire]

21. "Working with Republicans" translates to they get their way and we are to sit back and take it.

If we hold the House, the Presidency, and a one vote control in the Senate, and we can not get the legislation we need, then all is lost already. It is all about the exercise of power; Republicans get it, I don't think we do.

[dutch777]

27. Sadly, you may be all too correct. I do think Dems learned from what happened to Obama...

...but we have less wiggle room now. At least based on what I heard Schumer say in his interview with Rachel Maddox a couple days ago, he's ready to play hardball. The Repubs are now even more slimy than they were in the Obama years so it will be necessary. And even the one vote advantage in the Senate assumes that independent minded folks like Manchin will stick with the rest of the Dems, not assured in some issues. We could get lucky and get Romney or some Repub to join some Dem initiatives, but doubt that will be a regular occurrence.

[Hortensis]

3. It's a measure of the grave need for a great deal of executive action that

the NYT doesn't flat denounce and attack Biden's almost 8-day-old administration as an "imperial presidency." From the NYT this reads like a mushy, cowardly endorsement, hardly unusual waffling for them when forced to support Democratic action.

[Fla Dem]

8. What's keeping the Senate from organizing and placing Dems in the Committee Chairs.

What is blocking Chuck Schumer from taking control?

[mcar]

10. ???

[wryter2000]

17. It's been fixed now

Pierce must have written this a few days ago.

What happened was when the Senate convened, Ossof and Warnock hadn't been elected yet, so the Rs were still the majority. When that changed, the Senate had to be reorganized. McConnell refused to do it until the Dems promised not to get rid of the filibuster. There was a stand-off for at least a week. Then, McConnell caved.

It's fixed now.

[LTG]

22. Have they approved the power sharing agreement?

McConnell’s demand held up the power sharing agreement between the parties. Any time there is not a majority of senators on one side, as now, they enter into an agreement how some powers will be shared.

I think probably the biggest agreement is on committees. The Democrats hold thee chairmanships, but committee membership is evenly split. If a committee vote is tied, as in getting a bill out of committee the tie is broken by a vote of the entire chamber.

There a few other elements. Last time the Senate operated under power sharing was 2001.

[wryter2000]

28. All I know

is McConnell backed down on his filibuster filibuster. Perhaps the process is still on-going. I didn't hear there were any more hang-ups.

[Lonestarblue]

9. I read this opinion piece and called the writers idiots.

Biden is issuing EOs to undo Trump’s EO’s to stop the carnage faster. That doesn’t mean he plans to govern only with EO’s, but I guess the NYT just couldn’t wait to chastise a Democratic president for not achieving miracles in eight days. Most of the comments on this article agreed. I still subscribe to Times for a few writers, especially Linda Greenhouse. Her explanations of Supreme Court cases are always enlightening. I sometimes read David Brooks, but most of their conservative writers aren’t worth my time, though I do read them occasionally to get a different point of view. Mostly I don’t find that different point of view but rather excuses and efforts to make conservatism look like it’s still alive and hasn’t been replaced by Trumpism and white supremacy.

Today, Eddie Glaude (on Nicole Wallace show) called the Republican Party the New Redeemers, a group started after the Civil War to promote white supremacy. Something I need to go read about now because I had never heard of them.

[mcar]

11. I will never understand the NYT's devotion

to people who will never buy their paper. And are idiots

[Auggie]

12. Executive Orders serve another purpose: they let voters know what is possible

Is there a better way to keep independents and even complacent Democrats engaged for 2022? Show them what is possible and how any apathy towards voting puts it all in jeopardy.

[wryter2000]

14. Only Charlie Pierce

Could put "mountebank" and "aardvark" into an opinion column.

[TheRickles]

18. Yes! That's why he's so great.

[mcar]

25. Right?

[Paladin]

20. Thank you, Charlie Pierce.

Dead-bang correct, as usual.

[Dem4Life1102]

23. The times has destroyed whatever credibility it had left this week

First Biden’s peloton, then his Rolex, then firing a long time editor because right wingers didn’t like her tweet. Now this. They are done.

[mcar]

26. So disappointing

[maxsolomon]

24. Meh, it's a Centrist take.

The norm, of using EOs sparingly, was fucking shattered by The Worst President in History. Biden is unconstrained by precedent, and recognizes EOs are needed to govern functionally.

Ignore it.