© Photo: AFP
Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey
Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey
Rebutting the Republican talk show host, Mukasey said that President Barack Obama's executive orders so far have been legal, as much as he finds them distasteful. He even expressed agreement with the Supreme Court's finding that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, leaving Hannity looking perplexed.
Speaking about the president's most significant executive actions thus far, Hannity exclaimed: "It seems me to be, by definition, abuse of power. A power grab if you will... Is it then unconstitutional in some instances?"
"I don't think it's unconstitutional in the sense that I don't think it's something you could get a court to find unconstitutional," Mukasey replied. "We could have a debate about whether it's consistent with the constitution or not, but there is a limited number of things that will get you into court to have that decided, and I don't think any of the things you've enumerated are among them."
Asked about the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act, Mukasey said he agreed with Chief Justice John Robert's decision that the law is constitutional.
"I'm surprised," Hannity replied. "Because I... In that case... So... Through use of the commerce clause we can now mandate that people buy things?"
Mukasey paused, seemingly acknowledging that Hannity just got Roberts' decision dead wrong. "No, he didn't say you could use the commerce clause," the former attorney general answered. "He said you could not use the commerce clause."
"Right," Hannity muttered.
Mukasey added later in the interview that while he is bothered by the president's politics and agrees that his executive orders are a "power grab" of sorts, "it doesn't bother me in the sense that I think you can make a court case out of it. Not everything that bothers me is a subject of litigation. If they were, the courts would be very busy."
Hannity looked disappointed.
The video below is from the Fox News Channel, aired Wednesday, January 16, 2013. Embed courtesy of Media Matters.
Again, I'm confused as this site appears to be supporting Obama. A man who has the blood of many innocents on his hands from wars, assassinations to drone bombings. What is the point in dumbing us down with the conversation between 2 bush era bottom feeders? To show us that what the current war criminal in chief does is legal? Legal to whose standards?
Again...what is the point?