Doomed. Doomed, I tell you. (Part Whatever)

[vaskidmark]

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/20/rasmussen-plurality-of-democrats-think-obama-should-be-able-to-ignore-court-rulings-if-its-important/

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country…

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party…

[W]hile 72% of GOP voters and 63% of unaffiliateds believe it is more important to preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances than for the federal government to operate efficiently, Democrats are evenly divided…

Women and younger voters feel more strongly than men and those 40 and older that the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings. Black voters believe that more than whites and other minority voters do.

I'm going to lay this at the feet of that whole "self esteem" "there are no losers" educrap that started in the 50s and really blossomed by the 80s.

It's more important to FEEL than it is to know, and even if you know it's still more important that things are done in a way that does not effect anybody's self esteem by making the feel like losers.  And everybody knows that all the courts do is divide people into winners and losers.

One of the first things I'm going to do when it's my turn to use the Wayback Machine is to go slap Dr. Benjamin Spock up side the head - repeatedly.

stay safe.

[Scout26]

One of my friends on FB is of a slightly darker complexion then yours truly.  In his eyes, Obama can do no wrong.

And he thinks that Obama should just be able to do what he wants.  What many people don't relieve is that the Founding Fathers did not want "efficiency"  they wanted to make it as difficult as possible to get anything done, because they knew that the only thing .gov can do is screw *expletive deleted*it up.

A legislature like Texas', where they only meet once every two years is far to often.   Only an overt Act of War towards the US should be the only reason to call Congress into session outside of that regular meeting time.

Congressional session last 30 days every two years.  Goes along with my Mandatory Sunset of every law after seven years Constitutional Amendment. 

[makattak]

One of my friends on FB is of a slightly darker complexion then yours truly.  In his eyes, Obama can do no wrong.

And he thinks that Obama should just be able to do what he wants.  What many people don't relieve is that the Founding Fathers did not want "efficiency"  they wanted to make it as difficult as possible to get anything done, because they knew that the only thing .gov can do is screw *expletive deleted*it up.

A legislature like Texas', where they only meet once every two years is far to often.   Only an overt Act of War towards the US should be the only reason to call Congress into session outside of that regular meeting time.

Congressional session last 30 days every two years.  Goes along with my Mandatory Sunset of every law after seven years Constitutional Amendment. 

You'll have to end bureaucratic "rule-making" first.

[Andiron]

One of my friends on FB is of a slightly darker complexion then yours truly.  In his eyes, Obama can do no wrong.

And he thinks that Obama should just be able to do what he wants. 

So... He's an imbecile?

[MicroBalrog]

I'm going to lay this at the feet of that whole "self esteem" "there are no losers" educrap that started in the 50s and really blossomed by the 80s.

The notion that Presidents should be able to ignore court rulings has been popular - very popular long before the 20th century had even started.

Certainly by the 1930s FDR was already happily rabble-rousing against the Court.

[TommyGunn]

The notion that Presidents should be able to ignore court rulings has been popular - very popular long before the 20th century had even started.

Certainly by the 1930s FDR was already happily rabble-rousing against the Court.

Wasn't it President Andrew Jackson who said of the Supreme Court; "they've made their decision, now let us see them enforce it." This regarding "the trail of tears," if I recall.

[Angel Eyes]

The notion that Presidents should be able to ignore court rulings has been popular - very popular long before the 20th century had even started.

Yup.  Lincoln ignored a number of Supreme Court rulings.

And got away with it.

[HankB]

One of my friends on FB is of a slightly darker complexion then yours truly.  In his eyes, Obama can do no wrong.

I SAID that racism was rampant in the last two elections - there's a certain part of the electorate to whom skin color is SUCH an overwhelming qualifier they would cheerfully vote for Idi Amin had he been running against Mother Theresa.

[MicroBalrog]

Wasn't it President Andrew Jackson who said of the Supreme Court; "they've made their decision, now let us see them enforce it." This regarding "the trail of tears," if I recall.

It's a bit mythical.

This was the context.

[vaskidmark]

The notion that Presidents should be able to ignore court rulings has been popular - very popular long before the 20th century had even started.

Certainly by the 1930s FDR was already happily rabble-rousing against the Court.

Wasn't it President Andrew Jackson who said of the Supreme Court; "they've made their decision, now let us see them enforce it." This regarding "the trail of tears," if I recall.

Yup.  Lincoln ignored a number of Supreme Court rulings.

And got away with it.

All true, but has nothing to do with the current state of affairs where vast swaths of the population are expressing approval for the behavior.

It wasn't until LBJ that a vast swath of the population expressed an opinion about what POTUS was doing - and that swath was opposed to him.  Reagan had a much smaller swath that supported him, but that was more agreeing with his philosophy than active support of his political acts.

Now we have a significant plurality that does not care that POTUS's actions are unconstitutional, illegal, and/or fattening.  In fact, they see sidestepping all of those bothersome and icky procedural and legal issues as A Good Thing^TM.  Seems to me that about 1/3 of those in the plurality are from the "He's one of us racially" camp and the other 2/3 are from the "He's a liberal like us" camp.  In either case "their side" finally gets to be winners.

stay safe.

[MicroBalrog]

It wasn't until LBJ that a vast swath of the population expressed an opinion about what POTUS was doing - and that swath was opposed to him. 

Are you suggesting FDR had no popular support?

[vaskidmark]

FDR had popular support for the outcomes of his programs, but there was no large number of folks saying that they loved him and what he was doing in spite of blatantly violating existing law, ignoring the constitution, etc.

It's that whole "we know it's unconstitutional/illegal and he should be allowed to do even more of that" which is the phenomenon under discussion.

stay safe.

[brimic]

Hitler had MASSIVE support from german citizenry and also ignored his courts.
FDR is seen as good guy because he didn't mass murder people along ethnic/racial lines, he merely put them in concentration camps.

[TommyGunn]

Hitler had MASSIVE support from german citizenry and also ignored his courts.
FDR is seen as good guy because he didn't mass murder people along ethnic/racial lines, he merely put them in concentration camps.

IIRC Hitler eventually put Nazi judges in charge of Nazi courts so they would "rubber-stamp" his policies.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm going to lay this at the feet of that whole "self esteem" "there are no losers" educrap that started in the 50s and really blossomed by the 80s.

It's more important to FEEL than it is to know, and even if you know it's still more important that things are done in a way that does not effect anybody's self esteem by making the feel like losers.  And everybody knows that all the courts do is divide people into winners and losers.

It's also a function of NOT teaching the Constitution in middle school or high school ... or (worse) inculcating the notion that the Constitution is old and out-dated. Or that the Constitution is a "living document," to be interpreted through the lens of modern (what passes for) society.

[vaskidmark]

Hitler had MASSIVE support from german citizenry and also ignored his courts.
FDR is seen as good guy because he didn't mass murder people along ethnic/racial lines, he merely put them in concentration camps.

IIRC Hitler eventually put Nazi judges in charge of Nazi courts so they would "rubber-stamp" his policies.

Let us not forget Emperor Hirohito, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Atilla, the French Revolution, almost every Roman emperor, the Mayan and Incan rulers whose names I cannot spell, and bunches and bunches more.

And while we are not forgetting all of those folks/regiemes let us not forget that the discussion started about a major change in the political behavior of Americans, and that the change was not linked to world history but the response to one specific individual.

I now return you to the usual APS thread drift.

stay safe.

[MechAg94]

Are we headed for a repeat of Rome?  Moving to a Dictatorship/Emporer phase?

[RoadKingLarry]

What happens in the next three years should tells us.

[Hawkmoon]

Yup.  Lincoln ignored a number of Supreme Court rulings.

And got away with it.

True.

'ceptin' he got hisself kilt ...

[RocketMan]

This is what a Republic dying of old age looks like.