Nearly 50 Percent Of Democrats Support An ‘Imperial Prez'

[BOP]

This ought to disturb even our board libprogs. It won't, but it should.

http://chicksontheright.com/blog/it...t-of-democrats-support-an-imperial-presidency

A survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals disturbing new details about the liberal psyche. In fact, a whopping 43 percent of Democrats believe that the president can completely ignore a court ruling against them if he thinks it’s “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.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all voters believe, generally speaking, that court challenges of actions approved by the president and Congress help protect the rights of U.S. citizens. Thirty percent (30%), however, consider such challenges mostly nuisances that stand in the way of good policy. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

 

[Rommey]

I wonder if those 43% would respond the same if the question was worded with "President George W. Bush"...

 

[mamatutu]

I wonder if those 43% would respond the same if the question was worded with "President George W. Bush"...

I was just going to post that same thought! No wondering about it. No.

 

[Hijinx]

This ought to disturb even our board libprogs. It won't, but it should.

http://chicksontheright.com/blog/it...t-of-democrats-support-an-imperial-presidency

A survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals disturbing new details about the liberal psyche. In fact, a whopping 43 percent of Democrats believe that the president can completely ignore a court ruling against them if he thinks it’s “important for the country.”

The figures are obviously for Democrat voters, 43% of the voters believe the President can ignore a court ruling.

100% of Democrat politicians in the House and Senate believe that the president can ignore a court ruling against them.
That is pretty much a proven fact since not one has the balls to speak out in opposition to anything Obama does.

Now the Village attention whores will ask for a link that proves my assertion.

 

[Vince]

The figures are obviously for Democrat voters, 43% of the voters believe the President can ignore a court ruling.
100% of Democrat politicians in the House and Senate believe that the president can ignore a court ruling against them.
That is pretty much a proven fact since not one has the balls to speak out in opposition to anything Obama does.

Now the Village attention whores will ask for a link that proves my assertion.

But only if it's a Dem President. It's kinda like how they all believe in free speech, but only if it's them doing the talking.

 

[tommyjo]

Actually what this poll only confirms what is exhibited on this board on a daily basis. The American public is woefully uneducated about its own system of govt.

Everyone of you who posted on this particular thread would have answered the poll question in the affirmative from Jan 2001 thru Jan 2009. You all, like the 43% of the Dem respondents in this poll, believe party is more important than the Constitution or checks and balances.

 

[GURPS]

You all, like the 43% of the Dem respondents in this poll, believe party is more important than the Constitution or checks and balances.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Actually what this poll only confirms what is exhibited on this board on a daily basis. The American public is woefully uneducated about its own system of govt.

Everyone of you who posted on this particular thread would have answered the poll question in the affirmative from Jan 2001 thru Jan 2009. You all, like the 43% of the Dem respondents in this poll, believe party is more important than the Constitution or checks and balances.

How much of your ObamaCare subsidy do you have to repay? Or are you one of 800,000 folks the IRS sent tax forms with the wrong information?

 

[b23hqb]

How much of your ObamaCare subsidy do you have to repay? Or are you one of 800,000 folks the IRS sent tax forms with the wrong information?

TJ is probably on its' obamaphone right now trying to get that answer to both those questions for ya.....

 

[Hijinx]

Actually what this poll only confirms what is exhibited on this board on a daily basis. The American public is woefully uneducated about its own system of govt.

Everyone of you who posted on this particular thread would have answered the poll question in the affirmative from Jan 2001 thru Jan 2009. You all, like the 43% of the Dem respondents in this poll, believe party is more important than the Constitution or checks and balances.

Since Obama has been President , I haven't seen much of checks and balances.
He pretty much has nullified that.

 

[Midnightrider]

Since Obama has been President , I haven't seen much of checks and balances.
He pretty much has nullified that.

how? exactly how has obama nullified the constitutional checks and balances?

 

[vraiblonde]

I wonder if those 43% would respond the same if the question was worded with "President George W. Bush"...

Exactly. What they mean to say is that they support Leftist Imperialism. Viva Che.

 

[vraiblonde]

how? exactly how has obama nullified the constitutional checks and balances?

They all do it. I don't even think that's a thing anymore. Political partisanship, and yes your boy Bammy is guilty of that big time, has pretty much nullified our system of checks and balances. At least Bush made a reasonable showing of trying to be bipartisan; Bama doesn't even pretend.

 

[Vince]

They all do it. I don't even think that's a thing anymore. Political partisanship, and yes your boy Bammy is guilty of that big time, has pretty much nullified our system of checks and balances. At least Bush made a reasonable showing of trying to be bipartisan; Bama doesn't even pretend.

Wasn't that something he was yelling a few years back? Bi-partisanship? Obama wants to change this country and not into something we're going to like. That "hope and change" crap was his hopes and his changes. Not the American peoples. And no he doesn't even pretend. He does what he pleases and knows that no one will do anything about it.

 

[Midnightrider]

They all do it. I don't even think that's a thing anymore. Political partisanship, and yes your boy Bammy is guilty of that big time, has pretty much nullified our system of checks and balances. At least Bush made a reasonable showing of trying to be bipartisan; Bama doesn't even pretend.

bipartisanship is different than 'checks and balances'. The president has no authority or ability to eliminate checks and balances.

 

[vraiblonde]

bipartisanship is different than 'checks and balances'. The president has no authority or ability to eliminate checks and balances.

No sir, bipartisanship has EVERYTHING to do with checks and balances. To wit:

Supreme Court justices
House and Senate votes

If you do not think our Supremes are politically compromised...I don't know what to say about that. And we will notice that the House and Senate almost always divide straight down party lines. Therefore, if a President does something that is clearly unconstitutional, that he should be effing thrown in jail for, or at least impeached, he better hope that he has a majority party friends in the other two branches of our government so he can skate.

We do not have checks and balances in this country anymore; we have a two-party system and a bunch of stupid people who vote.

 

[Midnightrider]

No sir, bipartisanship has EVERYTHING to do with checks and balances. To wit:

Supreme Court justices
House and Senate votes

If you do not think our Supremes are politically compromised...I don't know what to say about that. And we will notice that the House and Senate almost always divide straight down party lines. Therefore, if a President does something that is clearly unconstitutional, that he should be effing thrown in jail for, or at least impeached, he better hope that he has a majority party friends in the other two branches of our government so he can skate.

We do not have checks and balances in this country anymore; we have a two-party system and a bunch of stupid people who vote.

it would appear you dont know what checks and balances are or how they work....

The SCOTUS is appontied over numerous presidencies. Any bias shifts depending on the courts makeup. Right now the dems have neither the house or the senate. The checks and balances are in place. In any case, Obama has no control over the checks and balances. He can only appoint justices when they retire or die.

 

[vraiblonde]

it would appear you dont know what checks and balances are or how they work....

The SCOTUS is appontied over numerous presidencies. Any bias shifts depending on the courts makeup. Right now the dems have neither the house or the senate. The checks and balances are in place. In any case, Obama has no control over the checks and balances. He can only appoint justices when they retire or die.

Are you just arguing to argue? Because that's boring.

Why do you think they appoint the Justices they appoint? To make it fair?

This is not an Obama original; they all do it. So don't be all testy that I'm picking on your guy. The Supreme Court has not checked or balanced a President in my lifetime. If you google "biased Supreme Court" you will find a number of entries. A cursory glance at them will show that regardless of how much the two ideologies disagree, the one thing they DO agree on is that the Supreme Court is politically biased.

 

[Midnightrider]

Are you just arguing to argue? Because that's boring.

Why do you think they appoint the Justices they appoint? To make it fair?

This is not an Obama original; they all do it. So don't be all testy that I'm picking on your guy. The Supreme Court has not checked or balanced a President in my lifetime. If you google "biased Supreme Court" you will find a number of entries. A cursory glance at them will show that regardless of how much the two ideologies disagree, the one thing they DO agree on is that the Supreme Court is politically biased.

Appointing justices does not 'nullify checks and balances', and as far as I know both of the justices who retired during Obama's presidency were fairly liberal. Obama didn't get to shift the court with his appointments, at least not enough to be considered 'nullifying' any check the court should provide.

The court is only one of the checks, Obama hasn't been able to nullify any others either. Despite him being 'king' for six years both houses are fully in 'CHECK' position. Obama's partisanship should guarantee not nullify the checks and balances provided by congress. That is IF the congress critters disagree with his actions.

 

[Gilligan]

Are you just arguing to argue? Because that's boring.

.

Ah ha! ^^---a purely rhetorical question.