Well if it is in the Enquirer, then it must be true! Same as that story about the boy with dolphin fins.
If it is in the NYT, then it must be true. Right?
Obama wanted to “lose” many of those cases, like the Defense of Marriage act, US vs Windsor, and more.
Count those as losses if you want, D’Anconia, but that seems silly to me when Obama got the ruling he wanted.
Actually, I have this vision of Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney paying secret visits to Obama, saying " Hey, you know that thing people have been saying you are going to do…cancel the elections, declare martial law, and make yourself King of the USA? Please do it, please please please.
And Obama grins and says NO!!!
adaher has competition!
In Texas, probably. Or they think that since Obama is a filthy goddamn furriner he wouldn’t know the rules.
At least adaher hasn’t tried to tell us we’re doing the Internet, message boards in particular, wrong.
Yes, keep repeating the same bullshit like a broken record. Eventually everyone will bow to your wisdom. It’s inevitable.
That’s not bowing, it’s dry heaves.
Which Administration lost more cases before the Supreme Court, then?
Considering that many of Obama’s “losses” were actually what his administration wanted, then I’m not sure.
I’ll give you Windsor, since Attorney General Holder announced the Administration wouldn’t defend the law, and another group took over (and lost, obviously).
What other cases do you have in mind where Obama “wanted” to lose?
They’ll have moved on to Hillary well before then.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I should have said "people like idiotic jackass cousin and D’Anconia. It’s a race to the bottom…who can be the most ignorant. Coming this election season on FOX!
The relevant facts in terms of the makeup of Congress and the Court itself have already been explained to you. One generally assesses reality in terms of the totality of relevant facts, not just one happy number that one obsesses over like a cat chasing the bright dot of a laser pointer. Otherwise one is not dealing with reality and one is proving oneself to be at best a relentless partisan or, more likely and in more common parlance, a fucking idiot.
It’s both. I’ve never seen the [del]eldritch horror[/del] pathetic weasel go after anyone who’s even vaguely right-wing.
The makeup of Congress is irrelevant, and does not give the Executive an excuse to undertake unconstitutional actions. The concept of “Obstructionism” is b.s.
Congress is not under any obligation–legally, ethically, or morally–to support any particular President’s policies. This is a feature, not a bug.
The same thing can be said of the makeup of the Court. Even Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, appointed by Bill Clinton, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, appointed by Obama, have ruled against him in Noel Canning et alia.
Sure, pal, anything you say.
They are most definitely under an ethical obligation to consider his policies on their merits, fairly and in the nation’s interest. That’s why they exist. Rather than, for instance, deeming that a president is unfit, for instance, to appoint a SCOTUS justice in the last 25% of his term.
Is that your justification of “often”? What about the example I cited of the unprecedented ruling of the wingnut contingent of the court so slavering to shut down EPA regulation that they jumped the gun before a federal appeals hearing was even held? By 5-4, again, of course. You truly are a fuckwit.
But those are five unelected judges he can get behind.