Your politifact article addresses only cases of exceeding constitutional authority.
I’m sure you remember Hosanna v. Tabor.
As for how many Presidents who get struck down 9-0, how many of them claim to be constitutional law professors? And I seriously doubt that any have had so many cases go against them that way. When you’re struck down 9-0, that means you don’t know shit about the Constitution or the law and don’t particularly care, which actually IS disqualifying for office per the Oath of Office the President is required to take.
“I will not believe in exorcism or consider volcano monitoring funding pork” alas, is not in the Oath of Office.
Politifact does mention the 9 other cases to date where the administration lost unanimously, but doesn’t address the actions they took in each case to earn such a smackdown, instead trying to push those cases off on Bush:
For example, the Bush administration also defended the constitutionality of Citizens United, but the Bush administration in oral argument never claimed a government power to ban books under campaign finance law. The arguments made by the Obama administration in many high profile cases have been to put it, gently, novel.
“Claim”? WTF are you talking about? Are you saying Obama wasn’t a constitutional law professor?
I seriously doubt that I’ll accept anything factual you have to say on subjects related to Obama without a cite.
No it doesn’t.
No it’s not. This is government functioning properly – executive takes actions, some are challenged, some are struck down/reversed. That’s not violating the Oath of Office – that’s governing, by the executive and the judicial branches.
I never brought up the Oath of Office. Jindal’s beliefs are disqualifying, in my opinion, because they show a level of ignorance and irrationality that would make one totally unsuitable for governing. It calls into question his capability to think rationally, weigh alternatives, and consider facts.
What do you mean “push those cases off on Bush”? The actions in question took place under Bush! The Justice Department was just offering a defense, which is normal procedure for a later administration. Typical legal stuff.
Without a cite (what is this about banning books??), I have no idea what you’re talking about.
And yet even while allegedly holding these beliefs Jindal performed ably in his role as Governor, improving the state bond rating, being widely praised for his handling of Hurricane Gustav, winning re-election by a wider margin than for his original election, getting re-elected to the House of Representatives by a wider margin, signing a bill allowing discussion of intelligent design that even the head of the local ACLU said was on firm Constitutional ground, etc. So your assumption about his capability to think must be wrong - he seems to be able to think quite well and clearly.
Not from what I’ve read, and not according to most of my many friends who are still in Louisiana (I left after college).
Either my assumption is, or the majority of Louisiana voters who voted in a couple of elections are. I don’t think you’ll be surprised about which I think is wrong.
More likely the majority of people who vote in his elections either don’t know he’s a loon, are ideological enough to vote for him regardless, or to some extent agree with his looniness.
His first thought when a friend goes into a seizure is to perform an exorcism. That’s a profound level of stupidity and disregard for human life that should make you not want him in charge of your country’s army.
I think it’s fine to criticize Jindal’s weirder beliefs. I just don’t think it’s disqualifying given that he’s already proven he can do the job of governing a state. What has Liz Warren done?
Obama’s elections were both due, in my analysis, to the fact that the Republican candidates were advocating an economic policy indistinguishable from that of Bush 43. (You know, the guy that brought us the great recession.") Either they have to tweak that message or hope that the statute of limitations has run out.
Yep – we voted for the guy who mostly got us out of disastrous wars, resulting in far, far fewer dead Americans per month, who got OBL, who presided over a big recovery, who passed a huge improvement to health care, and who avoided getting us into another ground war that would result in thousands more dead Americans.
Obama – many, many fewer dead Americans than the alternatives.
I’m on record as saying that the Republican candidate is going to be Rubio… but at this point, I’m having a hard time seeing how anyone could beat Kasich. He’s certainly got a far better shot than Jindal, Jeb, Cruz, or most of the other names that are being bandied about.
Kasich’s got beltway connections and he’s governor of a crucial state. That does make him a frontrunner I’d imagine.
Rubio is our Obama at this point. Let him govern Florida before be gets ambitions for the Presidency, although VP is fine. Same goes for Rand. It’s a deep red state, he can be governor anytime he wants to, so that’s what he should do first.