# Yes, elections have consequences, but not these consequences **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632 "2015-01-22T23:44:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/61 "2015-01-24T06:21:19Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > There’s also Citizen’s United, the Medicare expansion, Hobby Lobby, and etc. To nitpick, the Citizens United case involved a Bush administration law, and the action the court found unconstitutional happened in 2008, but Ill give you the Medicare expansion, Hobby Lobby, etc. More generally, I think people in this threat are maybe being a little unfair to Congressman Gowdy? He’s making a rhetorical point, to wit…“We control Congress, Americans think you suck, maybe you should cooperate with us”, not a legal one. He’s not claiming that, because of the elections, the president is legally obligated to sign the bills into law. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/62 "2015-01-24T06:31:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, how about your reaction to the considerably less far-reaching claim that was actually made here? I’m not him, but I think my reaction would be that the claim that the Obama administration “keeps getting overruled” is neither particularly relevant or interesting. Like Tom Goldstein points out in the link, the government loses court cases all the time, and always has. It might be interesting to find out if the Obama administration gets overruled more often than its predecessors, but it’s late and I’m not even going to try to figure out if that’s true or not now. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/63 "2015-01-24T11:37:50Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Yes, no other reason has been given. That’s simply not true: > [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > 'The argument for the tax is that it is an acceptable component of running the ACA without increasing deficit spending You may have skimmed that, focusing on the word “acceptable” and not on the phrase “component of running the ACA without increasing deficit spending.” That’s the policy argument: it’s part of the ACA. Moreover, you seem to have acknowledged that when you wrote “said taxes are geared towards an Act. . . .” I’m not clear on the game you’re playing here, but it doesn’t look to me like you’re following the discussion, including your own posts, closely or consistently. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/64 "2015-01-24T15:56:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow. > > You try to refute a claim that Obama’s administration “keeps getting overruled,” by showing that a claim that his administration was overruled 9-0 13 times is false? > > Agreed: the claim that the Obama administration was overruled 9-0 13 times is unambiguously false. Did you read the article? Of those 13 times, eight of the cases of alleged overreach occurred under George W. Bush. Rep. Bob Goodlatte claimed ‘Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority’ 13 times, not ‘that Obama defended executive overreach.’ _United States vs. Jones_ wasn’t about executive overreach. _Arizona vs. United States_ was actually a victory for Obama, since the Administration was only defending Arizona in an attempt to kowtow to Conservatives… ‘“The Supreme Court struck down three of the four because they interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which was defended by the Obama administration to advocate for the laws passed by Congress,” Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.’ _United States vs. Wurie_ was another one that originated under Bush, and wasn’t even about executive overreach. _McCullen vs. Coakley_, another case on Goodlatte’s list, was not about executive overreach. So Goodlatte’s claim that the ‘Supreme Court has ruled 13 times that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority’, and **D’Anconia** ’s question that implies that the statement is true, are false. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/65 "2015-01-24T19:14:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow. > > You try to refute a claim that Obama’s administration “keeps getting overruled,” by showing that a claim that his administration was overruled 9-0 13 times is false? > > Agreed: the claim that the Obama administration was overruled 9-0 13 times is unambiguously false. > > Now, how about your reaction to the considerably less far-reaching claim that was actually made here? Why? Has the claim itself been backed by any evidence? Why should any of us spend a lot of time rebutting claims based on nothing but hot air? \*\*D’Anconia \*\*is full of claims, but empty of cites. It’s up to him to start off by substantiating his claims. Once he does that, evidence-backed rebuttal will be appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/66 "2015-01-24T19:26:57Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Why does he and his administration keep getting overruled by the Supreme Court? > > I thought he was a scholar in this area. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What about the instant case, known as _Noel Canning_? Shouldn’t Mr. Constitutional scholar and professor have known his actions in that instance were more likely than not unconstitutional? > > There’s also Citizen’s United, the Medicare expansion, Hobby Lobby, and etc. These last three are all about the Supreme Court’s treatment of laws, and regulations carrying out those laws. What I was referring to was the claim quoted in the OP that “We have witnessed one executive power grab after another, setting a dangerous precedent and eroding the constitutional balance set forward by our Founders.” It’s not an “executive power grab” “eroding [any] constitutional balance” if the President is acting pursuant to his statutory authority - you know, statutes _passed by Congress_ - regardless of what the Supreme Court later says about the Constitutionality of a given statute. Do you have any cases showing that the President acted in excess of his Constitutional and statutory authority? Descriptions and links would be useful. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/67 "2015-01-24T19:34:58Z")
The question Americans should be asking themselves is Obama the worst homosexual communist crypto-Muslim Kenyan-born president America has ever had? PS Benghazi ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/68 "2015-01-25T00:06:49Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Do you have any cases showing that the President acted in excess of his Constitutional and statutory authority? Descriptions and links would be useful. NLRB v. Noel Canning. The recess appointments were unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/69 "2015-01-25T01:06:04Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Why does he and his administration keep getting overruled by the Supreme Court? > > I thought he was a scholar in this area. He is. And if you’ll note, many of the rulings against him are 5-4, which means that, of the ten constitutional scholars involved, half of them are in agreement with Obama’s position. **Bricker** objected to the objection to your claim, since you didn’t actually say he was being overruled 9-0. The thing is, though, that if he’s narrowly overruled, it doesn’t suggest he’s blatantly acting in violation of the constitution to anyone but a person with a religious faith in the courts; instead, it suggests that the current court composition is slightly tilted against the president’s perfectly valid interpretation of the constitution. So either you’re making a meaningless point when you say you thought he was a scholar (of course he is, and nothing about these rulings contradicts that), or you’re making a false claim that his actions are flagrantly unconstitutional (if they were, the rulings would be unanimous, not narrowly split). ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/70 "2015-01-25T01:29:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The thing is, though, that if he’s narrowly overruled, it doesn’t suggest he’s blatantly acting in violation of the constitution to anyone but a person with a religious faith in the courts; instead, it suggests that the current court composition is slightly tilted against the president’s perfectly valid interpretation of the constitution. 9-0 against the Administration isn’t “slightly tilted.” See Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/71 "2015-01-25T02:03:53Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > 9-0 against the Administration isn’t “slightly tilted.” > > See Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. How many cases do you think establish the “keep getting overruled” pattern such that it suggests he’s flagrantly overreaching? And what are those cases? Edit: In case you really want to use [Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission) as your example, let’s see it: > [@](#): > > President Obama actually made no comment on the case, which was one the government began under the George W. Bush Administration ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/72 "2015-01-25T02:15:45Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Edit: In case you really want to use [Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission) as your example, let’s see it: It doesn’t matter that the case began earlier. Obama tried to defend it at the Supreme Court, and lost, 9-0. I wonder what he has against the 1st Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/73 "2015-01-25T02:53:52Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > It doesn’t matter that the case began earlier. Why on earth not? > [@](#): > > Obama tried to defend it at the Supreme Court, and lost, 9-0. He did nothing of the sort. The most you can argue is that he allowed the case to continue. Kindly explain how that furthers your point, 'cos I ain’t getting it. > [@](#): > > I wonder what he has against the 1st Amendment? :rolleyes: Cute. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/74 "2015-01-25T04:12:37Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > It doesn’t matter that the case began earlier. This is like the third straight-up ridiculous thing you’ve said in this thread that you’ve failed to admit error on. It’s easy to admit error. Just watch. Earlier, you know how I said I didn’t know what you were playing at? I’m changing that; now, I know. So, y’know, good luck with all that. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/75 "2015-01-25T04:15:45Z")
> [@andros](#): > > He did nothing of the sort. The most you can argue is that he allowed the case to continue. The Solicitor General, who works for the President, defended it (well, he tried to) at the Supreme Court. They lost. It wasn’t merely “allowing the case to continue.” ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/76 "2015-01-25T04:19:17Z")
**LHOD** What’s ridiculous about what I said? When a case began doesn’t matter. What matters is that the Administration defended an unconstitutional position. Why did they do that? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/77 "2015-01-25T04:40:49Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What’s ridiculous about what I said? First, your ridiculous position (that you’ve at least had the grace to stop defending, but never retracted) that funding a law you support with a tax isn’t a policy decision. Second, your ridiculous suggestion that Obama repeatedly stakes out positions that are flagrantly unconstitutional. Third, your ridiculous support of this suggestion with a case from the Bush era, with you indicting Obama for not intervening in the Justice Department to break standard procedure and stop the Department’s defense of the case. > [@](#): > > What matters is that the Administration defended an unconstitutional position. Why did they do that? Gee, why don’t you tell us? Obama, along with Bush’s DOJ and plenty of circuit courts, had one opinion. The Supreme Court decided the other way. Was Obama the constitutional scholar just an idiot, not a smartie like you? Was it part of his socialist plan (along with his buddy Dubya) to undermine good Christian values? What’s your theory, exactly? Because I’m always in the mood for a fourth ridiculous thing. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/78 "2015-01-25T04:55:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Second, your ridiculous suggestion that Obama repeatedly stakes out positions that are flagrantly unconstitutional. He has. > [@](#): > > Third, your ridiculous support of this suggestion with a case from the Bush era, with you indicting Obama for not intervening in the Justice Department to break standard procedure and stop the Department’s defense of the case. It’s not a matter of intervening. HIS Solicitor General argued at the Supreme Court, in 2011, against the First Amendment. Why that doesn’t trouble you, I do not know. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/79 "2015-01-25T05:01:20Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > He has. As supported by two cases, one of which was started by his predecessor. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > It’s not a matter of intervening. HIS Solicitor General argued at the Supreme Court, in 2011, against the First Amendment. Why that doesn’t trouble you, I do not know. Why it should, I do not know. The First Amendment wasn’t passed down by God, nor is its interpretation universal (for the record, I think the idea that churches are granted immunity from employment discrimination lawsuits by it grants far too much power to churches). Your statement is an awful twisting of the facts: the DOJ did not go to court to say that the first amendment was bad, but rather that it didn’t apply to the case. And why that bothers you, I do not know. Except, of course, that it was Obama, and therefore bothers you. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632/80 "2015-01-25T05:06:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As supported by two cases, one of which was started by his predecessor. It’s more than two cases. > [@](#): > > The First Amendment wasn’t passed down by God, nor is its interpretation universal. It was universal, in Hosanna-Tabor, which the President opposed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-elections-have-consequences-but-not-these-consequences/710632.md?page=5)