Supreme Court of the United States

[Sour Masher]

The excessive usage of EO - to circumvent Congress is just another thing that has created such division. Obama ran as this guy who was going to unite folks - yeah not so much. EO governance only makes the other side dig in deeper. The checks and balances built into our system are to promote bi-partisanship and making both sides work together to promote those ideals that are best for the large majority of folks.

This is a fair point, but do you concede that Obama started off trying to do this? Can you recall a Congress more hell bent on obstructionism for its own sake? I can't. If he said water was wet, the Republican position was that it was dry. I'm not saying that I don't agree that the response to that has led down a bad path. But I do think it is unfair to Obama not to think he really wanted to do it the right way, but gave up in the face of a really recalcitrant Congress. Still, it is hard to argue against the notion that he became overly reliant on them and they do give an out on compromise.

[chancellor]

You don't think he has advisors who reviewed the options and could say something to him like, "This candidate is the most likely to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergfell v. Hodges, but this other guy is the most likely to provide the broadest interpretation of the presidential pardon power and presidential immunity?"

I do. That said, given most of the timbre of this board and the bulk of the left, it's doubtful if they really believe that Trump would listen to any advisers, even if it's in his best interest. But let's posit that's the case for a moment, as I did. Fact is, while Kavanaugh had far more published to draw from, both Barrett and Hardiman had similar POVs in their writings, and were perceived as significantly more conservative than Kavanaugh - especially if you're talking Roe v Wade. In fact, pre-hearing and harpy uprising, Kavanaugh was considered by many on the right to be more of a Roberts-like candidate - one who'd vote most of the time on the conservative side, but if the heat were too heavy, fold up like Roberts was perceived to have done on Obamacare.

[DMT]

This is a fair point, but do you concede that Obama started off trying to do this? Can you recall a Congress more hell bent on obstructionism for its own sake? I can't. If he said water was wet, the Republican position was that it was dry. I'm not saying that I don't agree that the response to that has led down a bad path. But I do think it is unfair to Obama not to think he really wanted to do it the right way, but gave up in the face of a really recalcitrant Congress. Still, it is hard to argue against the notion that he became overly reliant on them and they do give an out on compromise.

Mitch McConnell is to blame for Obama's excessive use of EOs as Congress refused to do anything useful for fear Obama might get credit.

Bi-partisan governance is a laudable goal until one side refuses to govern.

[DMT]

Obama's choice was accomplish nothing he wanted or utilize a questionable tool in his box to accomplish something. He made the right choice IMO, and comparing Trump's use of them despite his party controlling both the Senate and House is laughable whataboutism.

[Judge Jude]

I would put it as more that dopey McConnell set up a perfect excuse for Obama to skip bipartisan effort and dictate via executive order. with every stupid comment that ventriloquist dummy would make, there had to be high-fives in the White House.

[baldgriff]

And I would agree that Trump should be doing a way better job of legislating through the legislative branch. The use of the EO - is just another thing that raises concerns regarding his inability to play well in the sandbox.

[gcstomp]

DMT worded it exactly correct. Every single person on boards is aware, or should be, this has been pointed out many times, day Obama was sworn in, GOP vowed to obstruct at every possible point http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23...bstruct-obama/
Obama tried to build bipartisan support, wasted too much time until it was obvious to all that either he could judiciously use EO's to get something done, or GOP would effectively rob country of governance. Obama being a consitutional scholar was careful in use, and it pained him to have to proceed as he did, and its common knowledge he averaged fewer EO's per year than any prior President per year since Cleveland http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...cutive-orders/ but if for instance Obama were in Trumps shoes, with both House, Senate he would have used even fewer. The hypocrisy is that Trump was such a vocal critic of Obama sparingly using EO's but then he comes into office and uses them when he has congressional majority, why does this make sense?

As it is Obama forfeited his choice of SC nominee. McConnell telegraphed from day one Obama would not fill seat with near a full year left in Obama term. Congress openly abdicated their advice consent role in lieu of obstruction, leave it to SC to see if a sitting President can make pick when Congress refuses to do their job.

One more peeve, The lock her up rallies, they are celebrating a mardi gras of disingenuous hate mongering, as Trump is guilty of what they are chanting about, the use of unsecured cell in talking to foreign leaders but whatever.

[onejayhawk]

Mitch McConnell is to blame for Obama's excessive use of EOs as Congress refused to do anything useful for fear Obama might get credit. Bi-partisan governance is a laudable goal until one side refuses to govern.

With most I would ask if you were joking. Sad.

A point was made on drive radio today. Trump may not be serious about an executive order, but he has effectively co-opted the conversation a week before the voting. After all, this is the issue he was elected upon.

J

[DMT]

As it is Obama forfeited his choice of SC nominee. McConnell telegraphed from day one Obama would not fill seat with near a full year left in Obama term. Congress openly abdicated their advice consent role in lieu of obstruction, leave it to SC to see if a sitting President can make pick when Congress refuses to do their job.

Agreed, but unfortunately he assumed like almost everyone else that Clinton would win.

[Judge Jude]

Garland was easily well-qualified, and should have passed the Senate easily and should be on the Supreme Court today.

[DMT]

Garland was easily well-qualified, and should have passed the Senate easily and should be on the Supreme Court today.

Exactly, so you agree, but what exactly should the Democrats do in response? Not saying you're among them, but many so called 'independents' think they the Democrats should always have to play by the rules but find it perfectly acceptable that the Republicans cheat and steal their way into power.

[onejayhawk]

Garland was easily well-qualified, and should have passed the Senate easily and should be on the Supreme Court today.

This is true, within limits. It is equally true of Kavanaugh.

J

[Sour Masher]

With most I would ask if you were joking. Sad.

A point was made on drive radio today. Trump may not be serious about an executive order, but he has effectively co-opted the conversation a week before the voting. After all, this is the issue he was elected upon.

J

What drive radio do you listen to? Most of it is mind poison if you take it at face value. Some of the most hateful propagandists populate that medium. You have referenced such sources a few times lately. You should probably cut back on that stuff. It will rot the brain. It might even convince you that McConnell wasn't an obstructionist, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Judge Jude]

Exactly, so you agree, but what exactly should the Democrats do in response? Not saying you're among them, but many so called 'independents' think they the Democrats should always have to play by the rules but find it perfectly acceptable that the Republicans cheat and steal their way into power.

I can appreciate the emotion in that response, but not only is it inaccurate, but let's acknowledge - and I think you do - that I am an independent and not an 'independent.'

Your response almost begs for me to give examples of what we both know are examples of Democrats not 'playing by the rules' - but it doesn't seem productive, to me, at this point.

I currently find Rs more egregious in their abuse of power.
I don't buy into "it's all equal," but I also don't recall a time in my lifetime when Ds were benevolent despots when they were in power.

[onejayhawk]

What drive radio do you listen to? Most of it is mind poison if you take it at face value. Some of the most hateful propagandists populate that medium. You have referenced such sources a few times lately. You should probably cut back on that stuff. It will rot the brain. It might even convince you that McConnell wasn't an obstructionist, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Local guy on a Dallas station. Usually I don't listen to drive talk at all. Sometimes I have no choice. In any event, it's a valid point. Trump controlled what people are talking about today.

I never said McConnell was not obstructionist. I challenged your assertion that McConnell forced President Obama to use Executive Orders.

J