How Republicans Sell Out Their Base While Pretending To Fight

[Ricter]

If you were God and dictator and President, what would you do about it?

I'd form an organizational structure and put people in charge of the various divisions and departments.

 

[loyek590]

I'd form an organizational structure and put people in charge of the various divisions and departments.

The Department of Departments?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

By that reasoning then, the two challenges to Odumbocare, in which the Supreme Court sided with Odumbo, were nothing more than spittin' in the wind, waste of time. Had the decisions gone the other way, what? Obama just says "tough titty" and goes on about his business the way he wants? Might as well disband Congress and the Supreme Court.

I always thought when the Supreme Court ruled something unconstitutional, that mean "you can't do that", not "go ahead an do it anyway if you want".

He would have had to get the congress to go along with him. Also, he would have faced substantial obstacles. For example, insurers could have gone to court and challenged being forced to offer various oceverage or obey other parts of a law that had been declare dunconstitutional. So defying the Court would have been largely pointless.

With Bush however, if he had ignore the Gitmo decisions, there would have been little recourse other than through impeachment. That fact in itself is a powerful reason for the Court to stay out of such matters.

 

[Scataphagos]

He would have had to get the congress to go along with him. Also, he would have faced substantial obstacles. For example, insurers could have gone to court and challenged being forced to offer various oceverage or obey other parts of a law that had been declare dunconstitutional. So defying the Court would have been largely pointless.

With Bush however, if he had ignore the Gitmo decisions, there would have been little recourse other than through impeachment. That fact in itself is a powerful reason for the Court to stay out of such matters.

If the President "goes ahead anyway"... in spite of the SC telling him "no", he SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. If not, just what the Hell are "checks and balances" for if not that?

An aggressive, egotistical President can do TONS OF DAMAGE TO THE COUNTRY (RE: OBAMA). The "checks and balance of the Constitution" give us a way to "throttle him". But if Congress and the SC just sit back and suck their thumbs, then we've got BUPKIS!

I don't believe it's the SC's business to "stay out of matters". They don't arbitrarily "weigh in". They only consider when "asked" and the complainant has "standing". After which it's the SC's job to determine what should be allowed by the Constitution and which should not. It should NOT be up to the president to consider/ignore the SC's ruling and then proceed as he wishes.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

If the President "goes ahead anyway"... in spite of the SC telling him "no", he SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. If not, just what the Hell are "checks and balances" for if not that?

An aggressive, egotistical President can do TONS OF DAMAGE TO THE COUNTRY (RE: OBAMA). The "checks and balance of the Constitution" give us a way to "throttle him". But if Congress and the SC just sit back and suck their thumbs, then we've got BUPKIS!

I don't believe it's the SC's business to "stay out of matters". They don't arbitrarily "weigh in". They only consider when "asked" and the complainant has "standing". After which it's the SC's job to determine what should be allowed by the Constitution and which should not. It should NOT be up to the president to consider/ignore the SC's ruling and then proceed as he wishes.

In theory that is fine. In practice we have a Supreme Court and lower federal courts that routinely issue edicts that have the effect of turning their personal or political policy preferences into newly invented constitutional "rights." The effect of this is to erode democratic rights, as federal judges are not elected but have lifetime appointments.

Anyone with a grievance can file a lawsuit, and the courts decide if there is standing and if they have jurisdiction. The past several decades have seen them being more and more willing if not eager to take on matters formerly considered to be outside their purview.

I am not advocating wholesale defiance of the courts, but I am saying they are a co-equal branch, not preeminent.

 

[BSAM]

Brethren, some of you are living in your 9th grade history class.
You need to wake up and accept and realize that the Constitution doesn't matter anymore.
Obama has shown this time and time and time again.

That's no longer even the question.

Here's the real questions:

WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT THE CURRENT SET OF FACTS IN WHICH WE EXIST?

CAN A NEW AND CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT CHANGE THE COURSE IN WHICH WE ARE ENGAGED AND RETURN WHAT'S LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY TO A REASONABLE LEVEL OF SANITY?

IF NOT, HOW LONG BEFORE THE WHOLE COUNTRY BECOMES DETROIT?

IF SHIT COMPLETELY HITS THE FAN, WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES?

Wake up, brethren, you're living in the 1970s.