By Kerby Anderson

Last Monday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the immigration case against President Obama. The lower courts ruled that the president acted unilaterally in issuing his order that would allow as many as 5 million illegal aliens to remain in the United States without any fear of deportation.

The issue at stake is much larger than immigration and deportation. What is at stake was whether the president could issue executive orders that bypass the legislative process. President Obama has been issuing these types of orders for years without much criticism from the mainstream press. Something changed with this order.

The editors at USA Today said that it would be a mistake for the Supreme Court to allow the president to do this and thus argued that the court should declare his action unconstitutional. My initial reaction was: Where were these editors when this president was issuing his over 200 executive orders?

The answer to the sudden conversion at USA Today can be found in the third to the last paragraph in the editorial. The editors argue that the problem with giving this authority to President Obama is that it would set a precedent and give this president (and the next president) sweeping authority. “The same people who think Obama should have broad powers over immigration enforcement will feel differently if a Republican wins the White House in November.” Ah yes, the sauce for the Democratic goose cannot be given to the Republican gander.

To drive the point home, they even tell their readers to “imagine what orders- Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would issue if elected president.” Now to be fair, Ted Cruz has promised to return the government to a constitutional foundation. Donald Trump, however, might simply remind the media that they had no problem with how President Obama used power. He was planning to do the same. Few complained when President Obama wrote executive orders, so they really can’t complain if a President Trump does too.