It wasn't that we were looking at one of the broadcast networks and we didn't know that they'd decided not to let the President cut into their prime-time shows:
The White House asked the networks for time at 8 p.m. on Thursday night, and were greeted with little more than a "Mmm, no thanks." ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS knew that their customers would not be happy if the President ate into time reserved for some of the most popular shows on television, including "The Big Bang Theory" and "Bones."That's the first I'm seeing that the speech was on at 7 (our time). Anyway, we were tuned to CNN, and yet somehow we missed it. These presidential prime-time appearances don't mean what they used to. There are always other channels, other distractions, and if we actually want to see the speech, there will be streaming video. I originally wrote "read" for "see," because the truth is, I want to read the speech. I prefer the transcript. Even in the old days, the transcript was in the paper — in the paper I read, the NYT — and — speaking of reading — even when the President could take over every channel, we could turn off the TV and read.
You know, I still haven't watched or read last night's speech. I'm interested in seeing how the legal argument was put together, and I wonder how many of those who've already written about the speech have understood and made a reasoned assessment of the argument for presidential power. Or does everyone accept or reject it based on the political/policy preference they had in the first place? It's hard to expect more from people who probably — by now — believe that's what Supreme Court justices do.
Now, I'm going to read that transcript and give an assessment of it as if I had no policy preference about how to resolve the immigration problem. It happens to be true that I have no policy preference (because I'm not an ideologue and I don't understand the realities and practical problems deeply enough). But I have no illusion that anyone is interested in reading something that approximates an unbiased, legal assessment of the argument.
No, Althouse, shut up if you aren't going to say it's obviously soooo unconstitutional.
Did I just hear you yell that?