Perhaps the Dems SHOULD nominate another to topple the GOP, but Kucinich? Even though Kucinch might good, the name won’t win.
Remember what happened with Dukakis? 
Well, he was too short too.
You’d have to assume that a Bachmann Presidency would be a part of a general shift to the right in American politics. If the voters elect Bachmann, they’re going to be voting Republican across the board.
There’s always
Nader
My guess is that the biggest effect of a Bachmann administration would be in the courts. If Bachmann is President, she’ll probably get to appoint a replacement for Ginsberg and it’ll be somebody like Luttig - a fifth conservative who’ll join Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. That’ll give the conservatives a lock on the legal system and allow them to override Congress and the President as needed.
On a day-to-day basis, I think Bachmann’s biggest issue will be a policy of benign neglect. She won’t disband and repeal laws she doesn’t like - she’ll just encourage lax enforcement. That was something Bush understood - why abolish regulatory agencies when you can just staff them with people who will render them toothless?
Well, I have a very similar surname to her, Namkcalb in reverse, so if she wins, I’ll consider changing my name if I ever have to live in the USA
This is pretty much how I feel. Regardless of her extremist campaign rhetoric, she wouldn’t be able to get most of her beliefs converted to law or official policy because no one would allow it. Still, some of it would inevitably creep in and that’s what my question is about.
I have no doubt spending cuts would be in the offing under her administration, but a repeal of the health care legislation? Unlikely. Now that it’s in, it’s in. Minor modifications will be proposed at best. I suspect health care repeal would be for Bachmann what Guantanamo was for Obama.
Agreed.
I see two of you’ve mentioned this. I’m not too certain how the US judiciary works but clearly it plays a political role somehow? If it does, I tend to agree that SC appointments would be an easy way to increase influence.
With gay marriage… I suspect the movement has transcended to a larger civil rights argument - I don’t think she’d touch the issue as there’d be a significant risk of leaving a legacy of being the president who vetoed basic rights for people. A very woo-woo, abstract reason, but one I feel would hold.
Based on her voting history (thank you, Little Nemo!), an off-shore drilling program seems likely as well.
That depends of who you ask. The general consensus is that the justices you agree with are non-political and only ruling on the basis of what the law is. The justices you disagree with are partisan activists who are legislating from the bench.
The only thing I think everyone agrees on is that the Supreme Court has a lot of power - it’s the equal of the President and Congress. And it’s enduring - Presidential elections are every four years, Congressional elections every two years, Senators every six years. But Supreme Court Justices serve for life - get a majority on the bench and you might control a third of the government for decades. So nobody wants to see that much power controlled by the other side.
Aankh, I see you’re British and from what I understand the court system works very differently in the UK. So a quick primer on the Supreme Court (my apologies if you already know all this stuff).
First off, it’s basically all about the Supreme Court. There are lots of other courts, both Federal and State. But the Supreme Court can overrule any other court in the country and there is no higher appeal to a Supreme Court decision except a Constitutional Amendment (which is hardly ever done). And the Supreme Court isn’t assigned cases by some outside party - it chooses what cases it wishes to hear.
So the Supreme Court has the power to reach out and overturn any law it thinks is unconstitutional. (This is the part where people disagree. If you agree with what the court did, you say that it overruled a law solely because it was unconstitutional. If you disagree with what the court did, you say that they just declared something unconstitutional because they didn’t like it.) But the fact that everyone agrees the other side has too much power on the bench shows that the court really does have serious power.
There are nine justices on the court and it’s majority rule - if five of them agree it’s official. There are currently four “liberal” justices - Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayer - and four “conservative” justices - Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. And there’s Arthur Kennedy. Basically what usually happens is the four liberal justices vote one way, the four conservative justices vote one way, and whichever way Kennedy votes becomes the majority.
Kennedy is, in my opinion, more conservative than liberal. But he’s not as conservative as the other four. If they push for too conservative an opinion, Kennedy will figure they’ve gone too far and he’ll side with the liberals. So the decisions from the court have been generally conservative but Kennedy has acted as an anchor that’s kept them from going completely off to the right.
So this is the issue I referred to earlier. Ruth Ginsberg is 78 years old and is probably going to leave the court before 2016. If Obama is re-elected, he’ll replace her with another liberal justice and the current balance will continue. But if a Republican President is elected, he’ll probably appoint another conservative to replace Ginsburg. This will give the Conservatives a clear majority of five votes without needing to placate Kennedy anymore.
Someone should ask Bachmann if, as president, there are any circumstances under which she would sign a bill raising the debt ceiling. She was adamant that it was a blank check that allowed increased spending, so I would like to know if she would be willing to unilaterally strangle the US economy by sending us into permanent default.
“President Bachmann”
Don’t scare me like that!
Yes with a major “BUT”: The Supreme Court can only declare a law unconstitutional (in whole or in part) if the law applies to the case before the Court.
As an example, let’s take one of Bachmann’s bills: H.R.849 : Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act
(For the record, I don’t know what was in this bill nor whether it passed. I’m guessing it was an attempt to repeal the mandated phasing out of traditional incandescent lightbulbs in favor of more efficient bulbs.)
So HR 849 gets passed in this example. SCOTUS cannot step in and say “LBFoCA 2011 is unconstitutional because we say so.” Somebody has to bring a case. Since the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when a state is a party, let’s speed up this example by saying California and Texas sue the federal government over LBFoCA 2011. SCOTUS could then hear the case (as noted upthread, they only hear what cases they choose to hear), and in their decision step in and say “LBFoCA 2011 is unconstitutional because we say so.” (last part copy-pasted from earlier in the paragraph.)
I’m pretty sure she’d figure out a way to get rid of Planned Parenthood or at least pass a law making it illegal to donate to them. Considering what Gov. Perry has already done in Texas re: birth control, family planning, and abortions, I can’t even imagine the damage Pres. Bachmann might do.
She could essentially repeal UHC, if it’s still in the court systems, but instructing DoJ not to do anything to support it. If the Supreme’s have already ruled on it then it’s a moot point, unless Republicans control both houses during her reign.
As to getting extreme Supreme Court justices on the bench, it of course depends on who is in power when she gets there. But she can always nominate a person with no prominent decisions to disqualify him, similar to Obama. Or find someone who looks moderate on the surface but then always sides with the conservatives.
That’s quite a list of sponsored bills, which seem to pander to almost everybody. Gotta love the ones about insuring that military people get paid and have affordable health care, since that’s already a non-problem.
I am quite certain Bachman will make legitimate attempts to do both of the things you mentioned.
I also think she will attempt to make some progress against Roe vs Wade, possibly even pushing for an amendment to the Constitution which will almost certainly fail. She will certainly push for an amendment to ban gay marriage, which will also fail. She will certainly push for stronger enforcement of immigration law, and oppose any “path to citizenship” program.
Beyond that, I’m not sure what she’ll do. I honestly can’t predict what her foreign policy will be, or whether she would reduce the size of the military. She might push for mandatory intelligent design curriculum in schools, but I’m sure she’d fail there. She could make smaller success in that area though, if she pushes for allowing schools to teach ID, without actually requiring them to.
All in all, I’m not optimistic for a successful Bachman presidency. Of the Republican candidates, Romney is the most palatable to me. I would even consider voting for him over Obama, if the Bush tax cuts are not repealed before the elections. The Obama presidency where Republicans get everything they want is no different from a hypothetical Romney presidency where Republicans get everything they want, and I believe it’s important for Democrats to understand they can’t take our votes for granted.
Maybe congressman Mike Turner could be her running mate. That would really put the campaign in overdrive.
Well, Bush saturated the Justice department with graduates ofRegent law school. One assumes Bachmann would do the same sort of thing.
For a party that’s all up in arms about Sharia law, the Republicans have no problem with mixing their own brand of religion into the justice system.
In theory, yes. But as a practical point, it’s no obstacle. There are thousands of appeals made to the Supreme Court every year - somewhere in that pile will be a case related to whatever law you want to overturn. Especially if it’s known that a majority of the current justices are looking for an opportunity to declare a law unconstitutional - that’ll get people filing cases solely for the purpose of getting them before the court.
I, for one, welcome our new batshit-insane overlords