Rasmussen: Plurality of Democrats think Obama should be able to ignore court rulings if it’s...

Hot Air ^ | 2/20/15 | Allahpundit

[blueyon]

Rasmussen: Plurality of Democrats think Obama should be able to ignore court rulings if it’s “important"..... A small reminder that Obama couldn’t get away with his authoritarian plays on immigration and health care if his party wasn’t backing him up. Turns out, in fact, that they’re willing to go even further than he is. Obama tends to limit himself to summarily rewriting federal statutes, like immigration laws and ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Democrats wonder: Why not rewrite some federal court rulings too?

Something to bear in mind as we wait for SCOTUS’s decision on ObamaCare subsidies in the Halbig case and the Fifth Circuit’s decision on that injunction blocking O’s executive amnesty. He’s already entered the YOPO phase of his presidency. Why not make his base happy by ignoring any adverse rulings and instigating a full-blown constitutional crisis?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are 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…

[blueyon]

and this is why we have a problem.........

[Gay State Conservative]

Funny,supporters of Stalin and Mao had the same attitude.

[Noumenon]

It will take a savage civil war to sort this out.

[Repeal 16-17]

To a large number of Democrats the Liberal Messiah can do no wrong. They don’t advocate that the Liberal Messiah commit any specific; they just love and support Him no matter what. Germans who were alive 70 - 80 years ago can tell you about such adoration.

[kaehurowing]

I guess this means we can ignore all those court decisions on homosexual “marriage.”

[kaehurowing]

Further evidence that Democrats hate America.

[Bullish]

This is like thinking it's justifiable to burglarize your neighbors house if you really need some of his possessions. Those attitudes would certainly do a 180 once a Republican is in the white house.

[Sasparilla]

Lawlessness appears to be a generally accepted Democrat principle.

[Jacquerie]

“Government is either free or absolutist, depending on whether it has or lacks proper laws; it is either free or tyrannical depending upon whether it operates in the interest of the common good or for some particular, private interest.” Giorgio Inglese.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Ruth Bader Marxistberg agrees.

[mrsmith]

All presidents have the right.
That’s why impeachment is in the Constitution.

Allahpundit is so vapid. I don’t understand it’s appeal.

[skimbell]

I’m sure that the dems will still just love that little “concept” in ‘17 when there’s a Republican sitting in the WH.

[cripplecreek]

Plurality of Democrats think Obama should be able to ignore court rulings if it’s “important"

And they think every last thing they want is important. I must admit I did enjoy their screeching about "The rule of law" when the Illinois governor smacked the unions with that RTW executive order.

[Paul R.]

Yes. It’s too bad these Dems don’t have to spend a few years in a country where the President doesn’t like them and the courts bend to the President.

Oh, wait. They could just try calling themselves conservatives.

[sphinx]

A lot of things that we would have considered almost unthinkable -- well into fictional range -- have become thinkable in the last few years. Obama is a red diaper baby and movement leftist, the kind who in college years considered himself a revolutionary, and possibly still does today. He is a product of one-party Chicago, he is not attached to the forms of competitive two-party democracy, and he does not concede the legitimacy of a democratic opposition.

Do I think Obama would simply disregard a court order? No. That is not an accusation that I would make regarding anyone in American politics today. But it is not inconceivable. There are those on the left who argue that our formal democracy is a sham concealing oppressive structures of power, and that it would be a legitimate revolutionary act to overthrow bourgeois democracy by forcing it to drop the charade and respond forcibly to attempted usurpation.

Which brings us to Salvador Allende and Chile, which up until Allende had been South America's model democracy. Allende won a plurality in a three way race but did not have a legislative majority. He ruled in defiance of the Chilean legislature, and then defied the Chilean courts. At that point, he was a acting as a pure dictator. Then the army stepped in. And Allende remains a leftist hero.

[Regulator]

instigating a full-blown constitutional crisis?

He already did that by trying to hand out amnesty to millions of people without any law authorizing him to do so.

[cripplecreek]

Now ask if they think a republican president should be able to do the same.

[Paladin2]

Do you want your omelet or not? ;-)

[Adder]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ron-paul-good-news-that-secession-is-happening#.kmDjJbxNW

Don’t usually agree with Brother Paul...but I think he is right on right. Homosexual marriage is just one issue. Healthcare is another. And the list gets bigger.

Zerohiseff wants to ignore the courts and congress...I guess its just fine that we ignore him.

[uncitizen]

I’m probably giving RATs way more credit than they deserve but I just don’t believe more than half RATs would agree with that. Or even if they did, that they would readily admit it. unless they did a really really small sample and selected RATs for the sample that were way outside the mainstream (of RATs). Like only planned parenthood workers or RAT campaign volunteers. This is just another lie to tell weak Americans what to think (that it’s ok to think the president doesn’t have to obey any laws or courts.)