You must mean the other 2 branches of govt he is always bypassing.... or trying to?

Nahhhhh...the current POTUS only tries to circumvent ONE of the "branches of govt" - Congress - as it is their intent to sit and do nothing, all the while getting paid well FOR not doing anything.

No POTUS can circumvent the third of the "branches of govt" - the Supreme Court.


Factually-speaking, of course.

In that case,he ought to give dirty Harry a serious talking to,since he is the obstructing Louse!

Actually the POTUS can stuff the court with ideologues. Sometimes it only takes one to change the balance of history.

Factually-speaking any POTUS COULD...it would *simply* take all 9 of 'em to keel over or retire in the same 4 year term (or 8, if the POTUS is re-elected) FOR it to happen.

The current SCOTUS, which *approved* "Obamacare", is made up of 5 presumably-conservative judges (as they were appointed by Republican presidents) and 4 presumably-liberal judges.

Only two of the nine current judges were selected by Obama; currently, he is tied with Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush for having the "most" currently-seated justices...only the first Bush is left out, having only one still onboard.


Factually-speaking, of course.


There has been no "deck stacking" of our current Supreme Court; if anything, the Conservatives STILL have a *stronger* voice, yet they STILL won't go along with the "I Hate All Things Obama" agenda many keep pushing for.

Anyway, those nine members of the SCOTUS are supposed to be experts on what the U.S. Constitution says, and they have unanimously ruled against the Obama Administration 13 times. Since President Obama is the POTUS, the buck stops with him in regards to what his Administration does.

to each their own perception

for instance, EVEN THOUGH, when my kids go out they certainly REPRESENT my and what I have taught them,, they are also NOT ME

in spite of their 'representation',, they still are also their own people as well,,,

likewise with our 'representatives' they are not US and we are not THEM,,,,,we are all individuals with similarities that are represented and difference which make us all unique,,,

Id suggest re reading the piece, as with so many others it is opinion represented as fact with very little DETAILS That can be verified

as I said , the ADMINISTRATION could be any of hundreds of individuals who work within it and are not OBAMA , just because they are all in the administration under his POTUS ship

so ,,,when in fact it is ADMINISTRATION that has been voted against
that is no indication that OBAMA as an individual isn't completely knowledgable about his magna carte area ,,,,the constitution,,,

the 'buck stops here' doesn't apply to personal knowledge or abilty,, just final responsitiliby,,

But, the buck never stops with Obama. He's spent the last six years passing the buck on most matters, by
continuously blaming Bush 43, and even members of his own cabinet.
Obama has yet to man up, and accept responsibility for anything.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

"President Barack Obama received a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court last week for his attempt to make appointments when Congress was still technically in session.

The 9-0 decision in National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning came just as Speaker John Boehner announced plans to sue Obama for executive overreach.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who defended Boehner's lawsuit, said the Supreme Court's ruling was emblematic of Obama'��s term. Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."

Has Obama really had such a tough time with the high court? We decided to review the record.

Goodlatte isn'��t the only person to make this argument. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made a similar claim in a press release last week and it was also the subject of a column in the National Review, a conservative news website.

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte gave us a list of the 13 cases he referenced. We reviewed the evidence his office offered enlisted the help of a few experts to help us parse through the legalese.

Goodlatte'��s assertion doesn'��t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach.

"That'��s a fair case of the president'��s use of executive authority getting rejected," she said.

But the rest of the claim? "It'��s a total overstatement," Bloch said.

Why?

For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush'��s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

Obama's Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that's commonplace, experts we spoke with said.

Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.

But that isn't really what Goodlatte claimed. He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that Obama defended executive overreach.

Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn'��t really even at issue. For example, in United States vs. Jones, the court was ruling on whether the FBI had the power to use a GPS to track a suspect and gather evidence.

Technically, the FBI is a federal department under the Justice Department, a department in the executive branch. But the court was not reeling in an administration that was abusing power. Rather, "it gave us some guidance about how new technology and the Fourth Amendment should interact," Bloch said. "It has nothing to do with presidential authority."

Another case on the list, Arizona vs. United States, surprised our experts. Why? Because many saw it as a partial victory for Obama.

This is the case surrounding Arizona’s tough immigration laws that many civil rights groups said amounted to racial profiling. In 2012, the Supreme Court released a complicated 5-3 ruling, in which the court actually sided with the Obama administration on three of four counts. On the fourth provision, which allowed Arizona authorities to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, the court basically said it’s too soon to tell, and unanimously decided to send the issue down to the lower courts to monitor for further challenges.

"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.

Another case on the list was last week’s ruling in United States vs. Wurie, which was decided along with Riley vs. California. The court ruled that police could not search your cell phone without a warrant if you were arrested.

Wermiel said it was "absurd" to include the Wurie case on the list. It also originated prior to Obama taking office and was the result of a Boston police effort. Like the Jones case, it dealt with technology issues, not executive overreach.

Another case on the Goodlatte'��s list and decided last week, McCullen vs. Coakley, dealt with state laws, particular whether a Massachusetts law that put no-protest zones around abortion clinics was constitutional. While the Obama administration filed a brief supporting the Massachusetts law, the issue decided had little to do with executive authority.

The last case included, Sekhar vs. United States, did originate under the Obama administration. It's complicated, but basically the FBI sought extortion charges against a Massachusetts venture capitalist, who was accused of trying to force a legal adviser to the New York state comptroller to persuade the comptroller to invest in his company. The Supreme Court said the FBI couldn'��t arrest him under federal extortion laws.

In all, how does Goodlatte’s assertion hold up? Not well, our experts said.

"This is a concocted statistic," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog.com. "It's just saying that the government lost cases unanimously. The government participates in roughly 60 cases a term. Every administration loses cases unanimously."

"It's true that the Obama Administration's views have been rejected repeatedly in the Supreme Court. But this way of putting it overreaches considerably."

Our ruling

Goodlatte said, the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration.

We rate Goodlatte'��s statement False."




Folks need to actually read about what it is they want to talk about to *edumacate* themselves on the matters, rather than simply knee-jerkingly parroting back something they read or heard someone who screams 'til they're red - or blue - in the face


said.

pfffft, you don't even have to be a "suspect" in order for the DOJ to track GPS. They have all that information ALL the time. It's there for the picking and querying from several different database servers that all do different kinds of monitoring. "Collect it ALL!" mentality of the person RUNNING the NSA.

"Perhaps the most famous formulation of what privacy means and why it is so universally and supremely desired was offered by the US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1928 case Olmstead v. U.S.:"The right to be left alone [is] the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by free people." The value of privacy, he wrote, "is much broader in scope" than mere civic freedoms. It is, he said, fundamental:

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone."

from an Hereditary King,to an Elected one!

mrld_ii,

I stand corrected. You did the research that I should have done.

I keep hearing and reading the claim, its rarely backed with factual examples of such quotes where he has 'blamed' someone else,,,,

but politics is no place to share actual facts,, I suppose,,,,

ty for adding to my pov some verifiable information

always read for the actual SUBSTANCE of a story instead of just the slant,, it was odd that the claim did not list the specifics of what it was claiming

ty for the clarification,,,

Figures that Obama's biggest cheerleader would be in here within seconds of any post criticizing your Fuhrer.

Yes it does, he said he would use his pen (that he can stick up his a$$, which he probably does and enjoys) and use Executive Orders to bypass Congress.

What do you expect from Obama's biggest cheerleader.

Barack Hussein Obama is a Booty Bumper (On the receiving end too), plain and simple. Enough said.