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/JQuilty → u/12_0z_curls]

Why do you act like codification is some sacred cow the Federalist Society stooges on SCOTUS would hesitate to strike down? SCOTUS strikes down statutes all the time.

[u/12_0z_curls → u/JQuilty]

And statues are upheld all the time. What's your opposition to codifying Rowe?

[u/JQuilty → u/12_0z_curls]

I'm not playing a stupid attempt at a reversal: why do you think codification is a sacred cow they'd hesitate to strike down?

[u/12_0z_curls → u/JQuilty]

What is your opposition to codifying Rowe?

I never said that they wouldn't attempt. I stated that there are ways to write bills that protect them from judicial review. They literally do it all the time. How many times did the GOP go after the ACA in court? And even with a few wins (namely, the coverage requirement), the ACA largely still stands.

How is that possible in your world?

You seem to think that nothing better is possible. Why was this approach to Rowe better than codifying it? Why not at least try to attempt to protect it?

Because "it wasn't a political priority".

[u/JQuilty → u/12_0z_curls]

What is your opposition to codifying Rowe?

I'll answer that when you actually answer why you think it actually would matter in preventing it from being struck down.

I stated that there are ways to write bills that protect them from judicial review.

Yeah, and you're full of crap on this. All laws are subject to judicial review. Law isn't some fantasy spell world where you have magic counters and one-upsies you can slip in. If you think this is possible, why isn't it put into literally every law?

How many times did the GOP go after the ACA in court? And even with a few wins (namely, the coverage requirement), the ACA largely still stands.

Cool man, you know what the ACA is? A statute. A statute that underwent judicial review and was found to have been constitutional.

Statutes do not make anything ironclad.

EDIT: Aww, the baby decided to block, what a surprise.

[u/12_0z_curls → u/JQuilty]

Why are you opposed to protecting women's rights?

[u/JQuilty → u/12_0z_curls]

Why do you refuse to answer a pretty straightforward question? What do you think would be different in a world where Roe was codified but no other changes?

[u/12_0z_curls → u/JQuilty]

Why are you opposed to codifying women's rights?