“In this case, Tom’s using the old, conservative logic of looking at the Constitution, reading it, and applying it dispassionately. “
How does deliberately ignoring a Cabinet Officer who opens the border in violation of his oath of office to a massive foreign invasion, consistent with “The Constitution” ?
How does deliberately ignoring a Cabinet Officer who opens the border in violation of his oath of office to a massive foreign invasion, consistent with “The Constitution” ?
You've cut to the quick of the question.
My view is that under the old rules, which were far superior to the rules that the Democrat machine has put into effect, the reasoning would go something like this.
First, the claim at the root of the complaint, the massive foreign invasion, isn't controversial on the right, but it has been a hotly contested matter for decades. The present situation is in fact a central issue in the 2024 campaign and election, and is definitially political.
Second, Mayorkas' culpability is predicated both on the underlying view of the state of the border, and one's view of his duties as a cabinet officer under the constitution, which certainly would include implementing the policies of the elected President, at whose pleasure he serves.
Thirdly, the charge against McClintock is that he's "ignoring" Mayorkas actions. He's not. He's well aware of them, and opposes the open borders polices of this, and past administrations. No need to go into his record on the subject, but he's always been a staunch defender of US border integrity.
All of which is to say that in his view, which he has clearly articulated, none of the charges against Mayorkas are criminal in nature. He's hasn't even been accused of an articulable crime or violation of any statute, and all of the complaints are partisan in nature.
Under the old rules, he's right.
Under the new rules, none of that matters, which is what you seem to be taking issue with. The Democrats broke the back of logic and reason, and have committed fully to power being the only criterion for action. In that analysis, the Democrat machine should get exactly the same treatment that they were willing to give to everyone else when they held the whip hand, a sentiment which I have, with sorrow, come to agree. That, in my view, is where Tom goes wrong on this. He's a victim of normalcy bias, and hates the new rules so much that he thinks that it might still be possible to return to them simply by acting as if the Democrats hadn't decided to ignore them. In that, he's wrong in my opinion. Now is the time to meet the Democrat aparat on the field it has chosen, and fight there.
Attempting to take the high road as he is will likely lead to much darker choices in the not too distant future, but to be fair, we're probably headed there anyway.
“How does deliberately ignoring a Cabinet Officer who opens the border in violation of his oath of office to a massive foreign invasion, consistent with “The Constitution” ?
That cabinet officer is carrying out the political and law enforcement objectives of his POTUS boss. That “selective enforcement” has been upheld by the USSC, Alito writing the majority opinion.
If there is a case for impeachment in this matter, it’s against POTUS.