I mean a plurality of Americans voted for Obama. Should he have been able to ignore the will of congress and appoint supreme court justices to the vacant spots?
Nobody is saying that the Republicans in congress cannot set tariffs. We're just saying the _president_ cannot singularly do it. If elected Republicans congress critters want to pass a law establishing the tariff rates and have the elected Republican president sign it; go ahead.
Because that's the law ratified by a majority of states which is much more than plurality of Americans.
He didn't try it because it would be anti-democratic and fascist to do so. That's why. Not "weakness". Says a lot about you that you use that word to describe adherence to democracy.
The Constitution said that the appointment required the advice and consent of the Senate.
It had nothing to do with him "trying" or being too "weak", it is called following the law. Trump doesn't do that, and the court rulings are showing that his power to rule via EO is not going to be allowed.
The Senate deliberately did not go into recess to avoid Obama having the power to appoint Garland via a recess appointment.
McConnell is more to blame for the dysfunction of Congress and the misuse of the Senate than anyone else.
> McConnell is more to blame for the dysfunction of Congress and the misuse of the Senate than anyone else.
McConnell isn't in charge of the Senate anymore and they're doing a pro forma session against Trump. ("Friday, May 30, 2025 Convene for a pro forma session at 7:00 a.m." [1]).
Nobody is saying that the Republicans in congress cannot set tariffs. We're just saying the _president_ cannot singularly do it. If elected Republicans congress critters want to pass a law establishing the tariff rates and have the elected Republican president sign it; go ahead.
Because that's the law ratified by a majority of states which is much more than plurality of Americans.