Supreme Hypocrisy

    Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has had an adversarial relationship with the Supreme Court.  The most memorable and arguably most egregious display of his disdain for the court came during his 2011 State of the Union address in which he criticized the recent campaign finance ruling in the presence of most of the justices who were attending his address.  Then earlier this year, he made some absurd statements about what it would mean if the court strikes down Obamacare in the ruling that is likely to come on Thursday.  The gist of his remarks and of many on the left is that the court is seriously ideologically divided between reasonable moderates (and possibly a liberal or two) and an extreme right-wing cabal.  This framing of the court and its decisions must be considered when reading his remarks on today's Arizona v. United States illegal immigration ruling:

I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform...    

At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally.

    What the president leaves out is that the part of the ruling that pleases him was decided by a polarized 5-3 vote (Justice Kagan recused herself.)  On the other hand, the sole part of the Arizona law that was upheld and caused the president to "remain concerned" was decided unanimously, 8-0.  So much for peace, harmony and civility.

    As is often the case, the left's call for bi-partisanship and unity is limited to outcomes that fall in its direction.  If the decision on Obamacare's provisions is also split in various ways, look for a similar pattern: lip-service to harmony and consensus, but "deep concern" and "outrage" if the court hands liberals a loss, no matter how the votes tally up.

A Narrow, Easy Victory?

    Tuesday, Democrat Ron Barber won a special Congressional election in Arizona to replace Gabrielle Giffords, who gave up her seat a year after the horrific shooting in Tucson in January 2011 that killed six and critically injured Giffords along with 12 others.  Newsweek's The Daily Beast reports on the outcome of the election:

Former Giffords aide Ron Barber beat his Tea Party opponent in an election that was far less close than predicted...

Barber’s easy victory was a surprise in Arizona, where politicos expected a tight race...

And while the progressive Public Policy Poll had Barber leading Kelly by 12 points, on the ground in Arizona, both sides predicted the race would be a nail biter.

The entire 1300-word article manages to never actually give the final results from the "easy victory." The New York Times reports that the tally was 52% for Democrat Barber and 45% for "Tea Party Republican" Jesse Kelly (a third party candidate received about 2%.)  While "easy victory" is certainly true relatively speaking considering Giffords bested Kelly in 2010 by only about one percentage point, it is not exactly a landslide either.  Fortunately for comparison purposes, there was another recent election reported by The Daily Beast:  the Scott Walker recall-that-wasn't in Wisconsin.  Last week, Howard Kurtz reported Walker's win with the same margin of victory as the Arizona election as follows:

Scott Walker narrowly held on to his job as Wisconsin’s governor on Tuesday, surviving a labor-backed recall drive loudly trumpeted as a national showdown over public-employee unions.

So a Democrat retains the seat of a sitting Democrat who was gunned down by a lunatic and has been universally and justly lauded as a hero ever since and seven points is an "easy victory."  But a sitting Republican governor who implemented serious reforms fends off a fierce recall effort that was nationalized by the opposition and even drew the support (if somewhat tepid) of the sitting president, and seven points is a "narrow" victory of survival.  I'm an accountant, but even I cannot reconcile those statements.  It's almost enough to make one think there's a political agenda afoot at The Daily Beast.