Now that the court is 4-4. In a split, yes it is normal for the lower court to stand.

But I fucking hate this notion that means "forever". No, it merely means for now. If you study SCOTUS history, because each president nominates SCOTUS members, over time future courts have overturned prior SCOTUS rulings. 

It also the bullshit right wingers thought about the "under God" case that SCOTUS threw out with Newdow. They were not saying "it stays in forever", they threw it out because Newdow technically didn't have enough legal custody to bring the case up on behalf of his kid.

Our three branch system isn't one that remains stagnant and never allows for long term change. What is causing our current deadlock with a 4-4 court is again, not based on the Constitutional right of a President to nominate, but the obstruction of basically what amounts to sore losers.

(June 23, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now that the court is 4-4. In a split, yes it is normal for the lower court to stand.

But I fucking hate this notion that means "forever". No, it merely means for now. If you study SCOTUS history, because each president nominates SCOTUS members, over time future courts have overturned prior SCOTUS rulings. 

It also the bullshit right wingers thought about the "under God" case that SCOTUS threw out with Newdow. They were not saying "it stays in forever", they threw it out because Newdow technically didn't have enough legal custody to bring the case up on behalf of his kid.

Our three branch system isn't one that remains stagnant and never allows for long term change. What is causing our current deadlock with a 4-4 court is again, not based on the Constitutional right of a President to nominate, but the obstruction of basically what amounts to sore losers.

How about the fact that the constitution doesn't allow the president to enact laws on his own?

How about that he wasn't enacting a law, dumbass?

This is not so bad though.  Maybe it will motivate Hispanics to get off their asses and vote against Drumpf and these other republicunt fucks?  Who knows.  Stranger things have happened.

(June 23, 2016 at 12:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: How about that he wasn't enacting a law, dumbass?

This is not so bad though.  Maybe it will motivate Hispanics to get off their asses and vote against Drumpf and these other republicunt fucks?  Who knows.  Stranger things have happened.

What was he doing Mini? Is it allowed by the constitution?

Executive Orders go back to George Washington, dummy.  Or didn't you know that.

Executive Orders, last 4 two-term presidents:

Reagan: 381
Clinton: 364
Bush: 291
Obama: ~240

(June 23, 2016 at 12:55 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: Executive Orders, last 4 two-term presidents:

Reagan: 381
Clinton: 364
Bush: 291
Obama: ~240

Source?

(June 23, 2016 at 12:08 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Now that the court is 4-4. In a split, yes it is normal for the lower court to stand.

But I fucking hate this notion that means "forever". No, it merely means for now. If you study SCOTUS history, because each president nominates SCOTUS members, over time future courts have overturned prior SCOTUS rulings. 

It also the bullshit right wingers thought about the "under God" case that SCOTUS threw out with Newdow. They were not saying "it stays in forever", they threw it out because Newdow technically didn't have enough legal custody to bring the case up on behalf of his kid.

Our three branch system isn't one that remains stagnant and never allows for long term change. What is causing our current deadlock with a 4-4 court is again, not based on the Constitutional right of a President to nominate, but the obstruction of basically what amounts to sore losers.

How about the fact that the constitution doesn't allow the president to enact laws on his own?

UGGGGGGG........

Executive orders are part of the constitution. Our founders were wise enough to understand that all three branches were a system of checks and balances. It is bullshit to claim that executive orders are absolute power, because the SCOTUS can act as a check on any one of them at any time which they did today on immigration. But even the Supreme Court doesn't have absolute power because they can be reversed by future courts, and every Judge regardless has to be vetted by Congress before getting the seat.

Obama lost on this case, but only because the rules state in a tie, the lower court ruling is upheld. It does not negate a future case being brought. 

No tyranny involved. If Obama were acting on his own nobody would be allowed to use the courts to challenge him.

The lack of civics education in this country is astounding.

But, if you want to worry about someone destroying it you should worry about Trump.

I'm not sure why people complain so much about Obama's executive orders. Given the obstruction done by the gop, how do they expect him to get anything done without executive orders. Though I guess that's the thing. They don't want him to do shit, so whatever they can't outright block they bitch about.

OK.  I'll back off on the legality of Obama's action.  It's up to the supreme court to decide.  I will throw in that the supreme court is useless in reality because anytime there is a politically charged issue the liberal judges vote one way and the conservative judges the other way.  There's no objectivity in their decisions as there is supposed to be.  If the new congress is republican majority we'll get a conservative judge.  If it's democrat we'll get a liberal judge.  It doesn't matter anymore what the constitution says.