PostScript is pleased to begin today’s installment with a particularly apt quote from the comments to Eugene Robinson’s column. Robinson criticized Mitt Romney’s obfuscatory response to President Obama’s decision last week to go easy on people who were brought to America illegally as children.

packard1 says a lot:

Yet one more in a long list of articles where the main topic is: “Yeah, my guy s*cks, but their guy s*cks more.” Predictable and boring.

While Robinson’s column did not enumerate the s*ckings of Obama, we nevertheless concede that a whole lot of the Opinions section, columns and comments, can be summarized that way. People take sides, and then argue that the other side’s flaws are worse. It’s sort of what we do here, and we’re sort of great at it — so much so that PostScript decided today to highlight everything that could NOT be summarized as a relative comparison of s*ckitude!

Conceding no error on his side, Hitpoints snarkily quotes a statement from Obama, many news cycles ago, in which the president denied he could do what he’s just done:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

MojoMan713 rises above partisanship:

I think Obama is right that, as a matter of policy, the United States should make special provision for those brought to the United States as children by illegal-immigrant parents. But it is wrong, and possibly unconstitutional, for a president to arrogate to himself the power to pick and choose which laws his administration is going to enforce.

This inspired a spirited hermeneutic discussion of precedent, separation of powers and executive fiat that we are pretty sure could blossom in the comments section of only this particular newspaper:

Jameschirico defends the process with a pretty awesome precedent:

Nonsense, the Emancipation Proclamation absolved all runaway slaves before the constitutional amendment was passed that made them citizens.

Justmyvoice answers that that occurred under different circumstances:

The Emancipation Proclamation was an act of the War Powers of the president during a war. Care to explain how this fits?

Naksuthin has some principles he wants his guy to stick to, even if it loses votes:

There is only one correct response to the question of what to do with illegal aliens: deportation.

Romney sounding more and more like a lefty than the “severe conservative” and opponent of illegal immigration that he portrayed during the debates. Just because a huge voting bloc is Latino doesn’t mean the Mitt Romney should change his positions on those issues. Just the opposite.

Let’s all savor that one a moment. Not likely to happen again.

Hipshot doesn’t like amnesty but advises libs who do favor it to support Republicans, who loudly hate amnesty too but sometimes make it happen.

If liberals really want to legalize millions of illegal aliens, their best bet is to back Republican plans to get the economy rolling along again. Once that happens Americans will go back to partying and ignoring the realities around them. You can then sneak in a bunch of mini-amnesties, maybe one per year for a dozen years.

Being lamestream media here, we are contractually obliged to lean left, of course, and we think Hipshot is trying to use our biases against us. HAH!  We might s*ck, but not as much as...
Oh, wait.