The fact that the commenter didnât mention that democrats only controlled the House and Senate for 72 days, in which time they passed the ACA, failed to mention the republican dinner before Obamaâs inauguration in which they vowed to thwart everything he proposed even though we were in a massive recession and banking crisis says everything about this person.
Interesting perspective. Yeah, the absolutely factually incorrect statements are straight out of that era. Perhaps even a few of these are still used by Macedonians or their contemporaries? Itâs a non-zero chance. Same outcome either way.
Not to mention, iirc, the Libertarian party splitting the republican vote heavily until after Obama got re-elected and their base unified under the more extreme maga gop - that and the consolidated conservative media apparatus that grew emboldened under Obama, allowing the cult to be herded.
Oh shut the hell up with the excuses. Nobody cares WHY he didnt do shit, they care THAT he didnt do shit. He should have forced his agenda through regardless. He should have named Merrick Garland an official Justice the day republicans chose not to offer their "advice and consent", as the constitution states that he can. Oh, the republicans say he cant? Well, then let them take it to the SC, none of this conceding prematurely bullshit. Republicans wont let him have medicare for all like he ran on? Well, then kill the filibuster and make it happen. Thats WHY we elected him, he is actively defying the will of the people if he DOESNT force it through
That's actually not true. If he had followed the law, he would have put Garland in as a Justice. The constitution says the president chooses, and there is no "unless congress puts their fingers in their ears" clause. By allowing the senate to deny him his selection, Obama technically broke the law. It was his duty to fill that seat, and he failed in it.
You think not getting consent from the Senate would be âfollowing the law?â And that Garland would have agreed to be seated? And that the republicans wouldnât have sued even if he did? And that the Supreme Court would have decided on appeal that it was legal to seat a justice without the Senate consent?
My point is that there is a very good argument that Obama in that situation was actually REQUIRED to seat a Justice, after the senate had told him they had no opinions about who he seats. He already had the consent of the senate, they had declined to provide any input.
Maybe the Republicans would sue. What's the worst case outcome of that? That Donald Trump gets to fill Obamas seat unjustly...
13
u/Numerous_Bad1961 Sep 09 '26
The fact that the commenter didnât mention that democrats only controlled the House and Senate for 72 days, in which time they passed the ACA, failed to mention the republican dinner before Obamaâs inauguration in which they vowed to thwart everything he proposed even though we were in a massive recession and banking crisis says everything about this person.