Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's inability to work with congress is why he tried to "legislate" via executive order. Much of this was tossed out by the courts and the rest will go via a simply use of the pen by Trump.
It's also why Obama failed to get any new treaties approved including the appeasement with the dictators in Iran and Cuba.
And of course Obama failed to get his Scotus pick confirmed. This person may set the direction of the Supreme Ct. for decades. It's a historic loss for Obama.
Then again, his only qualification and job history seems to be "community agitator". They are not known for compromise.
Obama's inability to work with congress is why he tried to "legislate" via executive order. Much of this was tossed out by the courts and the rest will go via a simply use of the pen by Trump.
It's also why Obama failed to get any new treaties approved including the appeasement with the dictators in Iran and Cuba.
And of course Obama failed to get his Scotus pick confirmed. This person may set the direction of the Supreme Ct. for decades. It's a historic loss for Obama.
Then again, his only qualification and job history seems to be "community agitator". They are not known for compromise.
Obama did not lose in the courts. The right simply court shopped for the few District Courts in the only Appeals Circuit where such decision could occur. The decision than hung in the divided court.
The Supreme Court nomination was pure obstructionism which the Democrats can now return with every right to pay back. They should have held hearings and then voted down the nominee if not acceptable. But they could not do that because Obama picked a guy who would easily get enough votes to be confirmed.
It is the radical right wing of the Republicans that screwed up these last two sessions of Congress. And now we get payback.
Untrue. The Supreme Ct. has weighed in on numerous executive orders and ruled them unconstitutional.
There in only one Supreme Ct. so "shopping around" isn't possible.
The Obama Immigration case was exactly a Court shopping expedition.
********************
Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Tex., entered a preliminary injunction shutting down the program while the legal case proceeded. The government appealed, and a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the injunction.
**********************
Only in that Appealate Circuit and from a radically conservative District Court Judge could that decision have been made. And it was sustained only by the 4/4 split. If Obama's nominee had been allowed a vote it would never have happened.
Do not misunderstand. It was sharp lawyering by the TX AG. But it was not good law.
Oh my. So all the stories about his regulations and taxes destroying America was just........fake news?
There is difference between legislation and regulation, this topic is about legislation.
For example in 1990 the first Bush administration authored and submitted to Congress what became the 1990 amendment to the clean Air Act. It passed both houses with wide support from both parties. It's still with us today and would require new legislation to repeal or replace it.
On the other hand the environmental policy created under the Obama administration was done unilaterally with regulations. At 12 noon on January 20th they are subject to whims of President Trump.
Unlikely especially considering his history on 2nd Amendment issues.
Comeon. You know better than that. The man was easily confirmed. He was virtually perfect. In fact there was much talk that the Republicans would confirm him if Clinton won. Much more acceptable than any candidate she would put forth.
That is why they would not allow a hearing or a vote. He was picked because the Republicans could not turn him down...
And now the Democrats in the Senate require a moderate candidate or they block the nomination. Too bad...this thing has no end.
That's funny, I recall Mitch McConnell's statements not to mention him filibustering his own bill, yeah must be the executive branch. I guess you forgot the moderate supreme court nominee.
What moderate Supreme Court nominee? Merrick Garland was firmly in the Liberal "interpret the law as you go" camp.
And now the Democrats in the Senate require a moderate candidate or they block the nomination. Too bad...this thing has no end.
They can do that but as I recall the Republicans did not block the nomination of either Kagan or Sotomayor. This judge will be replacing the most Conservative judge that was on the court it's clearly appropriate he/she is Conservative. Furthermore if Trump goes two terms there is good possibility he will be nominating two to replace Ginsburg and Breyer, I would suggest it would be wise of Democrats to save it for that fight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
