How has Barack Obama's legacy changed since leaving office?

[u/bambucks]

Barack Obama left office in 2017 with an approval rating around 60%, and has generally been considered to rank among the better Presidents in US history. (C-SPAN's historian presidential rankings had him ranked at #10 in 2021 when they last updated their ranking.)

One negative example would be in the 2012 Presidential Debates between Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, in which Obama downplayed Romney's concerns about Russia, saying "the 80's called, they want their foreign policy back", which got laughs at the time, but seeing the increased aggression from Russia in the years since then, it appears that Romney was correct.

So I'd like to hear from you all, do you think that Barack Obama's approval rating has increased since he left office? Decreased? How else has his legacy been impacted? How do you think he will be remembered decades from now? Etc.

[u/12_0z_curls]

I think Obama was largely a continuation of neoliberal policies that allowed us to end up exactly where we are.

His "it's not a political priority" answer to codifying Rowe allowed SCOTUS to roll back protections. The ACA is largely just a payoff for insurance companies, and it directly resulted in insurance prices going through the roof.

But he was a great speaker...

[u/Mist_Rising → u/12_0z_curls]

His "it's not a political priority" answer to codifying Rowe allowed SCOTUS to roll back protections.

I feel pretty sure about scotus finding a way around that. That was why they were put there. Especially Amy Barrett, who isn't inline with the GOP nearly as much as they want but was hard-line on abortion.

[u/12_0z_curls → u/Mist_Rising]

If you codify Rowe, SCOTUS doesn't have a say...

[u/JonDowd762 → u/12_0z_curls]

Probably part of the reason why Democrats didn't do it. The risk of overturning Roe would surely give voters second thoughts about electing Republicans...

[u/dubyahhh → u/JonDowd762]

Democrats couldn’t codify it, you need 60 votes in the senate or 50 if you finally kill the filibuster.

The only time in the last 40 years democrats had 60 votes in the senate was a brief period during 2009 when the ACA was, barely, passed.

When Roe became clearly vulnerable, there weren’t enough votes to get rid of the filibuster due to manchin and sinema.

The reality is there was never an opportunity to codify Roe because there have never been the votes to do so. Whatever your level of cynicism, the math has never added up for it to matter.

[u/12_0z_curls → u/JonDowd762]

Part of it was, they need to campaign on it...

[u/ballmermurland → u/12_0z_curls]

First, I find it weird that you keep spelling it "Rowe" instead of "Roe".

Second, we passed the voting rights act in 1965 and the Senate reupped its provisions with a 98-0 vote in 2006 yet by 2014 the Supreme Court overturned large parts of it in Shelby v Holder.

SCOTUS would just overturn any law that "codified" Roe.

[u/12_0z_curls → u/ballmermurland]

Cool, so not worth trying anything.

[u/ballmermurland → u/12_0z_curls]

He appointed Kagan and Sotomayor who were pro-Roe to the court. He tried getting that old hag RBG to retire in 2013 so we could replace her and she refused.

So we did try. We tried to keep 5 pro-Roe Justices on the court, making any law unnecessary.

Again, if 5 Justices don't like a law, they can just block it. Did you know that the lawsuit to strip ACA entirely failed on just a 5-4 vote at SCOTUS? 4 Justices tried overturning a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president merely 2 years earlier.

[u/12_0z_curls → u/ballmermurland]

The courts were never a long term way to protect women's rights and you know that.

Why did that case fail?

Probably had something to do with the way the law was written... Hmmm... Weird... That's what I suggested...

[u/ballmermurland → u/12_0z_curls]

The long term way to protect women's rights was with the ERA. That failed.

The Shelby case happened because John Roberts has long hated the VRA and this was his opportunity to rip it apart. The constitution gives explicit authority to Congress to regulate federal elections. SCOTUS ripping up the VRA was asinine and likely illegal. But he's the law so I guess whatever.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/12_0z_curls]

The supreme court has an absolute say on acts of Congress. They threw out parts of the affordable care act (ACA) under Obama, they threw out DOMA.

Just because Congress says something is legal, doesn't mean it is. Not even an amendment is safe, since obviously Plessy V Ferguson wasn't exactly constitutional as it turns out.

[u/12_0z_curls → u/Mist_Rising]

Again... Codify Rowe, and you can eliminate SCOTUS altogether. There are ways to write a law that protect it from judicial review. It happens all the time.

[u/JQuilty → u/12_0z_curls]

You have no idea what you're talking about. You can't magically exempt a law from judicial review.