Another example of no consequences when Obama adm did something wrong. Does John Brennan staying on as CIA Director mean that Obama approved of CIA spying on Senate?

This appears to be yet another example where the Obama administration did something outrageously bad and there were no consequences.  Senators are angry that Brennan first denied that the spying was occurring and then refused to acknowledge any real wrongdoing.  If Obama really believed that Brennan didn't understand or appreciate the seriousness of the spying, isn't it likely that he would have removed Brennan?  If Obama really believed that such spying was wrong, wouldn't removing Brennan have been a good signal of that disagreement?  If only to placate angry senators who view the executive branch spying on their overseers in congress as an outrage, you should think that Obama would remove Brennan.   From The Hill newspaper:

. . . "The CIA's spying on its overseers in Congress and Brennan's failure to acknowledge any serious wrongdoing by the agency demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership,” he added.  

“There are still significant unanswered questions about the search of the Senate Intelligence Committee's computers — and Director Brennan and CIA leadership must be accountable to Congress on this matter," said Udall. 

The CIA’s inspector general caused a shockwave on Capitol Hill a month ago, when it concluded that five agency officials had “improperly accessed” Senate Intelligence Committee computers to review staffers’ files and emails. 

The snooping was conducted through a network to share files for the Senate committee’s report on the CIA’s history of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, such as waterboarding. 

The admission set off a whirlwind of criticism for the agency and validated charges from committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who accused the CIA of unconstitutionally violating the separation of powers during a March floor speech. 

It was especially bad news for Brennan, who had flatly denied Feinstein’s allegation as groundless and “beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we’d do.” . . .

Obama ready to go it alone on UN climate change treaty, ignoring the US Senate and ratification

With one title in the New York Times pointing out "Democrats see winning issue in Carbon Plan," it isn't too surprised the Obama administration is just going to ignore the Democrat controlled Senate.  Apparently a UN agreement is being planned for next year (a non-election year) from the Obama administration.  From the New York Times:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress. . . . 

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path. 

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy. . . .

“Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration’s tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like — and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree,” Senator Mitch McConnell . . . . 

There is a little irony in the NY Times piece:

The Obama administration’s climate change negotiators are desperate to avoid repeating the failure of Kyoto, the United Nations’ first effort at a legally binding global climate change treaty. Nations around the world signed on to the deal, which would have required the world’s richest economies to cut their carbon emissions, but the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, ensuring that the world’s largest historic carbon polluter was not bound by the agreement. . . .

What isn't mentioned is that even without the Kyoto agreement the US is one country that has actually seen a significant drop in carbon emissions.

Even some Democrats are having a tough time with Obama push:

"Whether it’s the regulatory overreaches that would shut coal out of our energy mix, or this latest end-run around Congress on climate change, these actions cannot stand, and I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do everything we can to stop them."

Jimmy Fallon makes a joke about Obama abusing executive actions

FALLON: "Here is some news out of Washington.  House Speaker John Boehner is threatening to sue President Obama for using executive actions to create laws instead of going through Congress first.  And Obama just shrugged and made a new law saying you can't sue the president.  [Fallon pretending to be Obama] I can do this all day Boehner."

More Obama lawlessness: using executive action to unilaterally rewrite student loan legislation

Who needs congress when the president can just rewrite the laws himself?  From the Boston Globe:

. . . The dual strategy — taking executive action while urging Congress to finish the job — has become Obama’s signature playbook this year. Stymied by gridlock as Congress marches toward the midterm elections, he has repeatedly sought ways to go around Congress with modest steps.
Under an income-based repayment plan created by Congress, the maximum monthly payment is already set to drop from 15 percent of income to 10 percent in July 2014. But that plan only affects new borrowers. Obama’s ‘‘Pay as You Earn’’ plan uses another part of existing law to offer similar benefits to people who already borrowed to finance their education.
In previous Obama budgets, the White House has predicted that making the plan retroactive would cost the federal government billions of dollars in the early years. Asked about the costs Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the administration won’t know how much it will cost until they go through the rule-making process to put the expansion in place.
‘‘We actually don’t know the costs yet,’’ Duncan said. ‘‘We'll figure that out on the back end.’’
Republican leaders in Congress have faulted Obama’s steps on loan repayments for failing to address the root cause: college costs that are too high. . . .

In 2013, Obama administration released 36,000 illegal alien criminals awaiting deportation

From the Washington Times article:

Among the 36,000 immigrants whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released from custody last year there were 116 with convictions for homicide, 43 for negligent manslaughter, 14 for voluntary manslaughter and one with a conviction classified by ICE as “homicide-willful kill-public official-gun.” . . .

Releasing murderers? Rapists? Those committing aggravated assaults and drunk drivers? 

The illogic of the Obama administration stopping the importation of Russian surplus 5.45×39 type ammo

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announces Russian surplus 5.45×39 type ammo is “armor piercing." From the Daily Caller:

According to information BATFE provided to NRA, these actions are based on BATFE’s determination that the availability of a handgun in this caliber triggers so-called “armor piercing” ammunition provisions of federal law, which generally prohibit manufacture and importation. . . .

The 5.45x39 is slightly narrower and a little longer than a .22 magnum.  If you want to see the illogic of banning the importation of the 5.45x39 compare it to the .44 magnum or the 38 special.

In inches 5.45 is about .21 inches, so that is less than half the diameter of the .44 inches magnum shell.  The 38 special is .359 inches in diameter.
The 39 millimeter length is 1.535 inches, while the .44 magnum is 1.61 inches (41 millimeters).  The .38 special is also slightly longer than the 5.45x39 -- it is 1.55 inches long.

Even Democrats are referring to Obama as "Nixonian"

From Politico:

“What strikes me as ironic is that this administration is picking up the cudgels of all these tired old shibboleths about executive privilege,” former House Counsel Stan Brand said. “It pains me to say this, but it’s Nixonian in its reach.” . . .

House Counsel Stan Brand "served as General Counsel to the US House of Representatives under Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, Jr.."

Will Obama's Justice Department prosecute Obama's CIA?: Is this the Obama administration's Watergate?

Politicians are starting to talk about this in Watergate type terms.  From Politico:

. . . “Heads will roll,” Graham said if an investigation confirms Feinstein’s allegations. “If what they’re saying is true about the CIA, this is Richard Nixon stuff. This is dangerous to a democracy, heads should roll, people should go to jail, if it’s true,” Graham said. “The legislative branch should declare war on the CIA — if it’s true.”“There needs to be an investigation of this whole situation,” McCain said. “It’s very disturbing.”
“This raises a very troubling set of questions,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a frequent critic of the vast domestic surveillance. “We are right at the heart of the issue of how Congress goes about effectively doing oversight.” . . .

If the CIA really secretly removed documents from computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee panel to investigate a controversial interrogation program, it would seem that Obama's Department of Justice would have no problem prosecuting those responsible.  Even if the Obama administration secretly approved of this operation, they still might want to prosecute those involved.  But if the Obama administration doesn't prosecute those involved, it would indicate that Obama's CIA was doing what the Obama administration really wanted done.  From the Washington Post:

The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday sharply accused the CIA of violating federal law and undermining the constitutional principle of congressional oversight as she detailed publicly for the first time how the agency secretly removed documents from computers used by her panel to investigate a controversial interrogation program. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that the situation amounted to attempted intimidation of congressional investigators, adding: “I am not taking it lightly.”

She confirmed that an internal agency investigation of the action has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance. 

She has sought an apology and recognition that the CIA search of the committee’s computers was inappropriate, she said. “I have received neither,” she added. 

The comments by Feinstein, traditionally a strong advocate for the intelligence community, blow wide open a dispute that has simmered in recent weeks. . .  . 

More lawlessness: Obama delays another part of Obamacare for a year, Online SHOP

No discussion about going back to congress to rewrite the law.  Just make up the rules as you go along.  From Politico:

The Obama administration today announced a year-long delay of online enrollment for small businesses looking to purchase health coverage through federal-run exchanges, another setback for HealthCare.gov. 

The delay, first reported by POLITICO, comes just weeks after Obama administration officials said the online enrollment for small businesses would be ready by the end of November. The announcement also comes just three days before the White House promises HealthCare.gov will provide a smoother enrollment experience for most users trying to purchase individual and family coverage. Fixing the problems with the individual market has been the White House priority. 

Small businesses, which have been able to apply for exchange coverage by paper application since Oct. 1, will have alternative sign-up methods, HHS announced Wednesday. Those looking to enroll through small business exchanges, known as SHOP, can sign up through an agent or broker or directly through an insurer. . . .

Obama's lawless push back of the sign up date for Obamacare until after Nov election said to be "good news," hides insurance prices in other ways

Add another rewriting of the Obamacare law without going through congress, President Obama has delayed the sign up for Obamacare in 2015 from October 15th to November 15th this coming year.  From a few weeks before the election to just after the election.  Very clearly this is an attempt to push back the sticker shock people are going to feel from the higher premiums next year until after the election.  This in addition to pushing back by a year the limit of out of pocket payments and the employer mandate.  From Fox News:

. . . The administration will allow consumers to start signing up on Nov. 15, 2014, as opposed to Oct. 15. Enrollment will last until Jan. 15, 2015, instead of Dec. 7.  

An HHS official told Fox News the move will give insurers "the benefit of more time to evaluate their experiences during the 2014 plan year" and let them take into account late-filing customers when setting their 2015 rates.  

The official added: "This change is good news for consumers, who will have more time to learn about plans before enrolling and an open enrollment period that's a week longer." . . .

George Will's comments on this delay being "too clever" are available here. This is only one of many things that the Obama administration is trying to hide.  The whole point of the Obamacare marketplace was to allow comparisons between plans, but that ability to make comparisons is part of the website that isn't functioning.  Some have argued that if people saw how high the premiums were to begin with they wouldn't go through the long process of signing up, but that since they only find that out at the end people will feel that they have already made that big investment in time so that they might as well still sign up.  From NewsMax:

A key feature of the Obamacare website that would let people window-shop for plans and pricing data was one of the few functions that actually worked — yet administration officials told Congress it "failed miserably" before the Oct. 1 launch, CNN reported Friday.
CNN reported that documents show the "Anonymous Shopper" function passed a key test almost two weeks before the HealthCare.gov launch, yet was turned off and is still unavailable to users. . . .
House Republicans suspect the function was turned off to hide the sticker shock of insurance plans' costs and force Americans to jump through hoops before they could shop, CNN reported.
"Anonymous Shopper" was supposed to let people compare health insurance plans without opening an account, verifying their identity, or determining whether they qualified for a federal subsidy, CNN noted.
Ironically, that's exactly the feature matching President Barack Obama's stated vision for the federal website: to operate just like retail sites that Americans browse and buy from every day, CNN reported. . . .

The notion that this one month delay is "good news for consumers" is pretty funny.  It is surprising that the media seems to take this claim seriously.  Take the way CNN discusses this.  They barely give any serious coverage to the claim that there is a political motivation for the change, providing much, much more time to the White House view.  From CNN:

White House spokesman Jay Carney denied Friday that next year's midterm elections are the reason behind the administration's decision to postpone the 2014 opening date for 2015 enrollment in Obamacare -- from October 15 to November 15. 

Pushing back the start date, Carney said, will give insurers more time to get an idea of their new pool of customers before they set their 2015 rates. 

Some critics, including Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that the move was simply a political ploy and that any changes to health care plans, such as premium increases, for example, should be public before the election. 

But Carney said the administration expects more people to sign up for health care insurance at the end of the current, initial open enrollment period -- which ends March 31, 2014 -- in part because of the website problems, so starting the next enrollment window later in the year would buy insurers more time to assess the situation. . . .

More trouble for Obama in not following the Obamacare law?

From the UK Daily Mail:

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to dismiss a case that could fatally cripple the Obamacare health insurance law. 

The Affordable Care Act forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own health care exchange, according to a group of small businesses whose lawsuit got a key hearing Monday in federal court. 

The Obama administration, according to their lawsuit, has ignored that language in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued Healthcare.gov website. 

Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance. 

But the IRS overstepped its authority by paying subsidies in those states anyway, say the businesses and their lawyers. . . .

Obama dishonestly gets around legislation eliminating a controversial program by quietly renaming it

In an ordinary administration, this lawless behavior would get a lot of attention.  From Fox News:

The Obama administration is being accused of trying to pull a fast one on lawmakers by re-branding a controversial immigration job -- a "public advocate" for both legal and illegal immigrants -- after Congress explicitly voted to defund it. 

The administration over the summer quietly changed the name of the position, first created in February 2012, from "public advocate" to deputy assistant director of "Custody Programs and Community Outreach." It was a change in name only. The administration kept the person in charge and the job description the same.  . . . 

“It’s simply part of the president’s well-established pattern of abusing his authority to blow off Congress, especially when it comes to immigration,” the conservative government watchdog group said. . . . 

The position was created to serve almost like an ombudsman, to help both legal immigrants and illegal immigrants facing removal proceedings. . . .

Obama administration unilaterally delays another part of Obamacare law

Yet more evidence that the law doesn't matter to the Obama administration.  From Reuters:

The Obama administration has delayed a step crucial to the launch of the new healthcare law, the signing of final agreements with insurance plans to be sold on federal health insurance exchanges starting October 1.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notified insurance companies on Tuesday that it would not sign final agreements with the plans between September 5 and 9, as originally anticipated, but would wait until mid-September instead, according to insurance industry sources.
Nevertheless, Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for HHS, said the department remains "on track to open" the marketplaces on time on October 1.
The reason for the hold-up was unclear. Sources attributed it to technology problems involving the display of insurance products within the federal information technology system. . . .

And the implications:

But the October 1 deadline has already begun to falter at the state level, with Oregon announcing plans to scale back the launch of its own marketplace and California saying it would consider a similar move.
Tuesday's notification by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the HHS agency spearheading marketplace development, affects insurance plans that would be sold in federal exchanges that the administration is setting up in 34 of the 50 U.S. states. The remaining 16 states, including Oregon and California, are setting up their own marketplaces.
"It makes me wonder if open enrollment can start on October 1," said a former administration official who worked to implement Obama's healthcare reform. . . . 

Fox News has a story on the delay available here.

George Will has another example of Obama's lawlessness

From the Washington Post:

Nowadays the federal government leavens its usual quotient of incompetence with large dollops of illegality. This is eliciting robust judicial rebukes, as when, last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia instructed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to stop “flouting the law.” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said: “It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case.” . . . 

This episode is a snapshot of contemporary Washington — small, devious people putting their lawlessness in the service of their parochialism and recklessly sacrificing public safety and constitutional propriety. One can only marvel at the measured patience with which the court has tried to teach the obvious to the willfully obtuse.

Another list of Obama's lawless behavior

Nixon might have been impeached for using the IRS to punish a few political enemies.  Here is an edited summary of what appeared in Investors' Business Daily (Aug. 16, 2013) (some deletions where I think that they are wrong):

 Aug. 14, 2013: Delayed ObamaCare caps on out-of-pocket health care costs•  

July 17, 2013: The 3rd, 4th Circuit (on this date), and DC Court of Appeals have ruled President Obama's National Labor Relations Board recess appointments and its decisions were unconstitutional. Obama adm ignores the rulings.•  

July 1, 2013: Delayed employer mandate provision of ObamaCare for a year•  

June 25, 2013: Obama administration sues Texas for voting rights violation after the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Eric Holder that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is "unconstitutional" and that "the formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdiction to preclearance." (Debatable) 

June 15, 2012: announced Obama adm will stop deporting illegal immigrants under the age of 30 in a "deferred action" policy to circumvent immigration laws. Congress had already rejected a similar measure about a year ago.•  

May 20, 2013: Fox News reporter James Rosen was investigated by the DOJ, which subpoenaed his phone records and emails in direct contravention of the First Amendment under the pretense that Rosen had committed a crime related to a leak investigation.•  

May 13, 2013: AP reported the DOJ secretly collected phone records of AP reporters and editors at work and home.   Something completely outside the law.•  

May 10, 2013: The IRS revealed it targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status beginning in March 2010, a direct targeting of political opponents through the tax laws.•  

May 3, 2011: Lying before congress.  Attorney General Eric Holder falsely testified, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."  Later information clearly shows that he knew about that this claim was false.•  

March 27, 2012: With no regulatory authority, EPA issued final rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions on electric utilities that require power plants to use nonexisting carbon capture-and-control technology.•  

April 23, 2012: Ignoring Obamacare law, he postponed Medicare Advantage cuts and used unapproved funds to continue operations.•  

March 1, 2011: Attorney General Holder again lied to Congress when he said: "decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department." Associate A.G. Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by DOJ attorneys.  

Feb. 3, 2010: Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama administration in contempt for re-imposing an offshore drilling moratorium that was struck down by the courts.

Click on the "obamalawless" tag below to get a more complete list.

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's lawlessness

Here is a partial list of lawless actions by Obama.  It isn't an issue of whether one agrees with the changes Obama wants.  It is a question of how those changes are being made.  From the Washington Post:

. . . On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence— for example, the amount of dope involved. 

In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. . . .   

 . . . Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses — a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation. 

Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs — under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off. 

Which came just a month after the administration’s equally lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare:the employer mandate. 

Which followed hundreds of Obama­care waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to selected businesses, unions and other well-lobbied, very special interests. . . . 

In 2012, the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedingsagainst young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier. Obama himself had repeatedly said that the Constitution forbade him from enacting it without Congress. But with the fast approach of an election that could hinge on the Hispanic vote, Obama did exactly that. Unilaterally. . . .

Click on the obamalawless tag below to get a longer list of Obama's lawless behavior.

George Will on Obama's Lawlessness

These articles are starting to pile up.  From the Washington Post:

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality. 

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.” 

He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . . It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.” . . .

Daniel Henninger: Obama as authoritarian

Dan Henninger has a piece that I think is clearly correct in the WSJ:

. . . The second-term over-and-over, elevated in his summer speech tour, is the shafting of the middle class. But the real purpose here isn't the speeches' parboiled proposals. It is what he says the shafting of the middle class is forcing him to do. It is forcing him to "act"—to undertake an unprecedented exercise of presidential power in domestic policy-making. ObamaCare was legislated. In the second term, new law will come from him. . . . 

Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming. As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress." (Applause.) 

The July 24 speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., has at least four references to his intent to act on his own authority, as he interprets it: "That means whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I'll use it." (Applause.) And: "We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress." . . . 

The U.S. has a system of checks and balances. Mr. Obama is rebalancing the system toward a national-leader model that is alien to the American tradition. 

To create public support for so much unilateral authority, Mr. Obama needs to lessen support for the other two branches of government—Congress and the judiciary. He is doing that. . . .

Yet more examples of the Obama administration's lawless behavior

The Obama administration has an attitude where they do whatever they want regardless of the law and simply force people to have to bring lawsuits against them.  It is an interesting strategy.  Sometimes they win simply because their opponents can't afford the legal costs to challenge them.  But the Obama administration can use taxpayer dollars to pay for their legal costs.  It is hard not to call this behavior "lawless."  From a piece in USA Today:

When a president pursues policies that require such expansive federal power that he can't get a single justice to agree, something is probably amiss. . . . 

In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a decision issued in June, the justices unanimously rejected the Obama administration's argument that raisin farmers did not have the right to go to court to contest the seizure of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of raisins. The Fifth Amendment states that the government must pay "just compensation" whenever the government takes private property for "public use." But the administration claimed that farmers could not even raise the takings issue in court without first enduring lengthy delays and paying a $483,000 fine.  

Horne was the administration's third unanimous defeat in a property rights case in 18 months. . . .   

In Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, it unsuccessfully argued that the Fifth Amendment doesn't require compensation when the federal government repeatedly and deliberately floods property owners' land. Even liberal justices normally skeptical of property rights claims, including one of President Obama's appointees, found these arguments too much to swallow.   

The Obama administration has also suffered unanimous defeats in several other important cases.   

Last year, the justices rejected the administration's position that the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment does not apply to churches' decisons to hire and fire employees with religious duties, such as teaching theology. Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan called the administration's position "amazing."   

In United States v. Jones, another 2012 case, the justices unanimously rejected the administration's claim that the Fourth Amendment does not restrict the government's authority to attach a GPS tracking device to a car. . . .

Obama comments interfere with military legal cases

Obama has made comments on everything from the Zimmerman case to the police arrest of Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge.  Some of those comments have stirred up racial tensions and created other problems.  Now one of his comments is making it impossible to prosecute some who may have committed crimes.   From the New York Times:

When President Obama proclaimed that those who commit sexual assault in the military should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged,” it had an effect he did not intend: muddying legal cases across the country. 

In at least a dozen sexual assault cases since the president’s remarks at the White House in May, judges and defense lawyers have said that Mr. Obama’s words as commander in chief amounted to “unlawful command influence,” tainting trials as a result. Military law experts said that those cases were only the beginning and that the president’s remarks were certain to complicate almost all prosecutions for sexual assault. 

“Unlawful command influence” refers to actions of commanders that could be interpreted by jurors as an attempt to influence a court-martial, in effect ordering a specific outcome. Mr. Obama, as commander in chief of the armed forces, is considered the most powerful person to wield such influence. 

The president’s remarks might have seemed innocuous to civilians, but military law experts say defense lawyers will seize on the president’s call for an automatic dishonorable discharge, the most severe discharge available in a court-martial, arguing that his words will affect their cases. . . .