Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty and then claims the power to make compromises on that issue?
He doesn’t have the power to do anything that he did today. He doesn’t have the power to dictate that anybody, anywhere, provide taxpayer-funded abortion or abortion services, or contraception. He doesn’t have the power. And particularly with the separation of church and state and the Bill of Rights. The government just can’t get in religion in any way, shape, manner, or form. But when it’s religion and it’s the Catholic Church and it’s Obama telling them, “Hey, we know you don’t like abortion, but guess what? You’re gonna have to start paying for ’em! Ha-ha-ha-ha.”
He can’t do that. Then he comes along and offers a compromise. “Okay, we’ll shift my demand that this be done to the insurance companies,” and everybody says, “Good, we beat him back!” No, you didn’t. Nobody beat Obama back on this. He’s just now telling another group he has no legal authority over what they’re gonna have to do. He can’t any more tell the Catholic Church what they have to do than he can tell insurance companies what they have to do. Not by fiat. The president does not have the kind of power Obama is wielding. But he’ll get a with it as long as nobody tries to stop him. Recess appointments when there aren’t any recesses?
Fine, he’ll do it! If the Senate is not gonna stop him, if he’s gonna make recess appointments when we’re not even in recess and the Senate accepts it? Why stop, if you’re him? Just because it’s unconstitutional doesn’t mean that that alone is going to disallow him from doing it. People rob banks even though it’s against the law. And if we stop trying to catch bank robbers, a lot more people would be robbing banks. If we stop trying to catch murderers, a lot more people would commit murder. By the same token, the law doesn’t stop people from doing things. It’s the enforcement that does.