Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
40. It's called selective enforcement
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 08:13 AM
Jan 2014

The Government chooses not to enforce the law, allowing people to violate it at will with no repercussions. Many of those policies we have cheered have been nothing more than selective enforcement, agreements not to prosecute or penalize people for breaking the law. Some we have screamed in frustration about wondering how they could do that.

Examples, the stays on deportations. The law in black and white says that the Government will deport those undocumented workers. The Government says they're not going to do that, and so it's not done. This was the policy a few months ago for teenaged children which the Rethugs called anchor babies if you recall.

Another example is the EPA deciding not to require as much ethanol use. The law in black and white said that there must be X amount of ethanol mixed into the gasoline. The EPA waved the higher standard, by agreeing not to penalize the oil companies for not meeting it.

Banks that were obviously complicit in the meltdown. They were never prosecuted. This is not because they did nothing wrong, but because the Government decided to give them a pass.

All of those were nothing more than selectively deciding not to enforce the law. Is it technically illegal? You bet it is, but who can force the Government to do the right thing? Nobody has that kind of power. If you tried to file a lawsuit to get a judge to order the Government to enforce the law, the judge would rule that you don't have standing to do so, and that the enforcement of the law is at the whim of the Justice Department. This by the way is why poor people are more likely to be penalized for tax errors while the rich get passes for far more egregious violations.

So by delaying enforcement, all the Government is doing is saying that we know you are breaking the law, but we won't mind unless you continue breaking it later when we say it's finally in effect, then we'll penalize you.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

They got the rules laid down for the poor folks, folks what ain't got no voice Fumesucker Jan 2014 #1
it's just inexcusable. and illustrates something very ugly. cali Jan 2014 #2
Mockery works better than anger Fumesucker Jan 2014 #3
So, you agree with Issa that the IRS targeting geek tragedy Jan 2014 #43
mark me down as an apologist then because OKNancy Jan 2014 #4
It just wrong. They've had years to ensure that exactly this kind of inequity NOT be extant. cali Jan 2014 #5
They=IRS. nt geek tragedy Jan 2014 #44
Two honest questions Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #6
I only have guesses. I'm guessing the argument isn't that he's waiving the law cali Jan 2014 #7
Hypothetical scenario -- Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #8
None of the above can be sued for the harm you posit. Romulox Jan 2014 #9
The government gets sued constantly for failing to abide by its own laws/rules. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #12
The government has what is known as "Sovereign Immunity". Romulox Jan 2014 #14
Google, "filed suit against the federal government" and then list each individual story separately. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #16
"the fed. government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity" Romulox Jan 2014 #17
So if some bureaucrat decides to destroy your livelihood Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #19
Knowing something isn't the same thing as being "OK with that". It's not advocacy, it's just fact. Romulox Jan 2014 #31
I didn't say you would advocate. I'm asking if you'd resign yourself without challenge. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #34
Basic administration law. joshcryer Jan 2014 #37
It's called selective enforcement Savannahmann Jan 2014 #40
Thank you for revealing yourself. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #42
Thank you very much. Savannahmann Jan 2014 #46
It was the *individual* mandate$$ that corporate insurers so desired. And that's what they got. Romulox Jan 2014 #10
More ProSense Jan 2014 #11
and your posts are an embarassment and not even tenuously related to reality or cali Jan 2014 #15
Want to ProSense Jan 2014 #18
Your posts deny reality, and really are nothing but cheerleading cali Jan 2014 #20
I really think ProSense Jan 2014 #21
I don't need to expend much energy, sadly. His record speaks for itself cali Jan 2014 #22
Well, ProSense Jan 2014 #23
I thought his legacy was going to be endless war in Syria? JoePhilly Jan 2014 #24
his foreign policy legacy is hardly anything to celebrate. cali Jan 2014 #25
Right, ending two wars, making real progress with Iran ... just awful. JoePhilly Jan 2014 #26
Hey, ProSense Jan 2014 #28
"...anti-Obama drivel based on an MSM report you don't even understand." Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #38
Cali agrees with Darrel Issa that Obama runs the IRS and geek tragedy Jan 2014 #45
There's a new one every day. woo me with science Jan 2014 #13
those who adore the President without any meacure of critical thought cali Jan 2014 #27
"provsion" "meacure" ProSense Jan 2014 #29
Gee, I wonder which way it will go... employees to get better coverage or the executives get worse? gtar100 Jan 2014 #30
Here's how it ProSense Jan 2014 #32
Regulations with actual teeth! That is so different from what we've been seeing in so many other gtar100 Jan 2014 #36
lets see frwrfpos Jan 2014 #33
The SC ruling on the Constitutionality of the ACA was late June 2012. JNinWB Jan 2014 #35
Bush tax cuts for the rich RandiFan1290 Jan 2014 #39
This post reminds me of Republicans bashing geek tragedy Jan 2014 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WH delays implementation ...»Reply #40