• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gasp! Obama May Actually Countermand Bush Executive Orders!!!!!11!!eleventyoen!!

boloboffin

Unregistered
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
4,986
If you don't know, I'm a live voice writer in real life. I use voice recognition software to caption live tv. So this morning I was captioning a local television station that was talking to their "exclusive Washington bureau" -- a bureau they share with several other locals around the country. Anyway, they all seem to be marveling at the idea that Barack Obama was actually thinking about countermanding several of Bush's executive orders. The transition team is already identifying several that Barack can just reverse, just outright reverse!

My amazement is that they think this is so novel (or are pretending it to be novel for the sake of their viewers). It actually is standard operating procedure. Bush II did it, Clinton did it, and I daresay that Bush I even did it to Reagan's executive orders. That's the point. That's why they are called executive orders. The executive issues them, and when there's a change in executives, there's a review of orders.

For example, a couple of instances are gag orders on information about abortions and stem-cell research restrictions. Both of these are not matter of legislative law. They are restrictions Bush himself placed on how his administration was to carry out the law. This was his prerogative! I disagreed strongly with his decision in both matters, but I never questioned the authority of the President to make those judgment calls. Now it's Barack's turn and bam! He's going to change them. That's all it takes.

But judging by this faux mystification I heard today, I'm sure it will be all over the talk radio shows about how Barack is "legislating from the executive branch." And FSM forbid that Barack actually start hiring new attorneys for the Justice Department. "Wasn't that what the liberals were all up in arms about when Bush fired his own attorneys???" the hue and cry will go. No, of course, is the answer -- the problem is the politicization of the hiring process that the DOJ employed. You can be danged sure that Obama won't be able to try to do the same thing. And of course, I doubt that he would try.)

So keep your eyes open. Every time President Obama acts like, well, like the President of the United States, I expect the same simple-minded "OMG, what is he doing, he can't do that, can he, AAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!111!!!!111??" from the right wing sounding boards. I just am dismayed to find that I will be hearing in the media as well.
 
If you don't know, I'm a live voice writer in real life. I use voice recognition software to caption live tv. So this morning I was captioning a local television station that was talking to their "exclusive Washington bureau" -- a bureau they share with several other locals around the country. Anyway, they all seem to be marveling at the idea that Barack Obama was actually thinking about countermanding several of Bush's executive orders. The transition team is already identifying several that Barack can just reverse, just outright reverse!

My amazement is that they think this is so novel (or are pretending it to be novel for the sake of their viewers). It actually is standard operating procedure. Bush II did it, Clinton did it, and I daresay that Bush I even did it to Reagan's executive orders. That's the point. That's why they are called executive orders. The executive issues them, and when there's a change in executives, there's a review of orders.

For example, a couple of instances are gag orders on information about abortions and stem-cell research restrictions. Both of these are not matter of legislative law. They are restrictions Bush himself placed on how his administration was to carry out the law. This was his prerogative! I disagreed strongly with his decision in both matters, but I never questioned the authority of the President to make those judgment calls. Now it's Barack's turn and bam! He's going to change them. That's all it takes.

But judging by this faux mystification I heard today, I'm sure it will be all over the talk radio shows about how Barack is "legislating from the executive branch." And FSM forbid that Barack actually start hiring new attorneys for the Justice Department. "Wasn't that what the liberals were all up in arms about when Bush fired his own attorneys???" the hue and cry will go. No, of course, is the answer -- the problem is the politicization of the hiring process that the DOJ employed. You can be danged sure that Obama won't be able to try to do the same thing. And of course, I doubt that he would try.)

So keep your eyes open. Every time President Obama acts like, well, like the President of the United States, I expect the same simple-minded "OMG, what is he doing, he can't do that, can he, AAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!111!!!!111??" from the right wing sounding boards. I just am dismayed to find that I will be hearing in the media as well.

Yellow journalism sells.
 
GOt news for you guys. Every time we change parties in the White House this happens.
Happened when Clinton took over from Bush sr, happened when Bush Jr took over from Clinton.
 
How DARE Obama use his executive authority to undo previous executive decisions!!

Doesnt Obama know his place?

Doesnt he know who is REALLY incharge??

:o
 
Why don't jerks actually wait for Obama to do something they disagree with before criticizing him? He's not even sworn in yet.
 
My amazement is that they think this is so novel (or are pretending it to be novel for the sake of their viewers). It actually is standard operating procedure. Bush II did it, Clinton did it, and I daresay that Bush I even did it to Reagan's executive orders. That's the point. That's why they are called executive orders.


But is it common practice to announce it well before he takes office? I thought there might have been an ulterior motive in coming out and saying he'll do it.
 
@ shadron,

At first I wondered if it was a warning to Bush about ramming a lot of right wing agenda stuff through before he left because he (Obama) would just reverse it anyway, but then I saw that he was talking about executive orders, not legislation.

Perhaps it's just an indication to Americans of the transparency that he promised, letting them know ahead of time what he intends to do.

Or maybe he's giving those affected by his proposed reversals the heads up so they can start preparing now (ex: stem cell researchers).

Or maybe it isn't unusual for a president-elect to make an announcement like that. Is it?

ETA: Looks like my first thought might have been right after all:

Potential plans for a last-minute rush of executive decisions by the White House were also being watched carefully, [Podesta] added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7720137.stm
 
Last edited:
If executive orders by Bush or others are to be rescinded, I see no reason not to announce this ahead of time so people can start preparing. Scientists, for example, may wish to prepare new grants on currently banned stem cell projects for the next funding cycle.

Bush did a fair amount of legislating through executive orders. Mostly things which the Democrats would have blocked. They will end as the Bush administration does.
 
My amazement is that they think this is so novel (or are pretending it to be novel for the sake of their viewers). It actually is standard operating procedure. Bush II did it, Clinton did it, and I daresay that Bush I even did it to Reagan's executive orders. That's the point. That's why they are called executive orders. The executive issues them, and when there's a change in executives, there's a review of orders.

Am I supposted to be suprised that those who have been trying to expand presidential power are now against it that the other guy won?
 

Back
Top Bottom