Can a Far-Right Republican President Rollback Progress?

Well if there is a narrow majority in the house or senate and a supreme court that could rule such things unconstitutional than it could be stopped. If not a president can sign any passed legislation if it wants too and also use executive orders on what he can do. However I don't think a far right republican can even get the nomination anymore or even if elected president win a second term. But a far right republican I don't think can even get elected president anymore. Most minorities, women and independents would probably vote democrat if the republican nominee is far right. Let's just hope that a republican president does not happen in the near future.

 

Don't know American politics perfectly well, but a general criticism of representative democracy is just that - that new governments can nullify progress that has been made.
For example, as happened here in Sweden, the incumbent government had been working on a new education plan for five years, spending lots of time and money (millions, I guess, or more), and when the new government was installed, they simply scrapped it. Yep, that's that tax money well spent. Or not...
If you're thinking LGBT+ rights progress under the Obama administration, then I think (I am not sure) a new government would have the authority to override many such advances.

 

Pretty much this.
I also doubt an extremely socially conservative candidate will be elected in the US . Republicans only have a chance of winning with a moderate one, who remains at least neutral in LGBT issues and more open to immigration.

 

The biggest problem here is that the President gets to nominate judges, and the fact that the President is the one to enforce Supreme Court decisions. Newt Gingrich said during his 2012 Presidential campaign that if Newt was President, he'd just ignore the Supreme Court if it didn't rule the way he wanted it to. He's also said that (And this is very shaky logic) Congress can pass a law limiting the Judiciary's standing to rule in marriage cases, or that they could abolish courts altogether.

This is why I say that gay marriage will be the Roe V. Wade of my generation, as it will be the decision the Republicans spend the next 40 years trying to undo.

 

There are some things that Obama has done via executive order that a reactionary president could change on his own. The recent rülė that federal contractors cannot discriminate on lgbt status could be changed or modified by the next president on his own.

The Supreme Court nominations are super important. Replacing RBG with a justice in the mode of Alito would completely shift the balance of power away from any semblance of protecting progress that's been made.

Given that our legislature looks to be dominated by the GOP until 2022 at the earliest, a far right president would likely have a pretty free hand in enacting his agenda. It's true that the dynamics behind presidential elections make a GOP winner for president much tougher than dominating the congress, but it should still be a huge concern.

---------- Post added 10th Apr 2015 at 12:51 PM ----------

And they've spent 50 trying to roll back the civil rights act. Stubborn bastards.

 

Actually when it comes to our legislature we have a huge advantage in 2016 and because of losses in 2014 we will a huge advantage in 2020. A bad year can make for a really election six years down the road. Moderate Republicans like Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, Susan Collins and others will block far right legislation along with democrats and a far right president will probably not get reelected in 2020 if people are dumb enough to vote for a far right republican. I like a moderate approach to policy and that is what I think will win in 2016. Screw the establishment.

 

No. Every Democrat that matters and liberal Republicans will make sure they will not be able to. If we get the Supreme Court ruling we're hoping for in June, it won't matter anyways if they get into office.

 

I don't see any path by which the democrats can retake the House in 2016, even with the higher turnout that comes with presidential elections. The Senate is possible to get to a majority, but a few of the seats lost in 2014 make that a lot harder.

 

What sort of progress are we talking about here? The primary function of government is to provide its citizens with security and defence, secondarily the economy. Now although a right winger could wreck those, it's statistically more likely to come from a left wing government who almost always cut the military budget, wreck the economy through excessive borrowing and slaying the evil capitalist dragon, chasing business out the country. But I assume we're taking about gay rights, marriage etc? As far as I'm aware they're set at a state not federal level (our constitutional monarchy is much easier to deal with!) so in that aspect the president can't do much, from what I understand anyway.

 

There's no such thing as a liberal republican.

Also, equal marriage is hardly the final fight for equality. the settled law of roe v wade and civil rights for black people have not been the ends of those struggles

 

Yeah it will be possible for the democrats to retake the senate. Honestly it will take a republican president in order for democrats to retake the house but anything is possible. We made gains in 2012 so we can still make them in 2016. It actually is very easy for democrats to retake the senate in 2016. Only 10 democratic seats compared to 24 republican seats are up for reelection and many of those republicans are in typically blue states. We only need to gain four or five seats to retake the senate and it actually can be easy to pull it off but anything can happen.

---------- Post added 10th Apr 2015 at 12:50 PM ----------

A moderate republican is a better word to describe. Honestly I would consider voting for Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, or Susan Collins if I lived in those states.

---------- Post added 10th Apr 2015 at 12:50 PM ----------

A moderate republican is a better word to describe it. Honestly I would consider voting for Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, or Susan Collins if I lived in those states.

 

It's very unlikely for this type of destruction to come from "the left" considering that the people who are called extreme leftists in the USA are almost all to the right of FDR.

In the USA over the last 30 years or so, it's not left governments(or democratic presidents anyway) that have blown up the budget and caused large amounts of borrowing but rather GOP presidents.

Our political system is confusing and ridiculous. Gay rights, marriage etc have been set at a state level because it's been blocked at a federal legislative level. Thus the need to go via the courts. Now that there is a case before the Supreme Court it's likely that we will get one unified decision that will override the states that still have bans.

 

There are several liberal Republicans on the west coast as well as in Maine(Susan Collins). This is false. Just as you are saying that Republicans are attempting to roll back the Civil Rights Act. That is definitely false.

 

Exactly. There is no need to drag down every republican when there are good ones out there.

 

Dano218, I dunno, just looking at the particular states in play and I see an uphill battle for the senate for the dems. True that they only need 5 to flip or 4 with a dem president, but I think that'll be tough.

9 of the 10 seats currently held by democrats look pretty solid. I'm not very confident in a democrat holding Nevada or if they do it'll be as tough a fight as flipping other seats. Of those 24 seats the GOP already holds, I'd say that over 2/3s are just about impossible to flip, and there's maybe 7-8 where the democrats can be competitive. Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,Wisconsin are possibilities, but they're going to have to do well in these states cause there aren't a lot of other possible avenues.

---------- Post added 10th Apr 2015 at 02:53 PM ----------

Fine, how's this: there are probably some number of actual, liberal republicans out there. However, the chances of them rising to the highest levels of power are effectively zero. Since we are talking about the house, senate and presidency, I think that's an important distinction.

Fair?

 

I think no matter what happens in Nevada the race will remain competitive and it is a typically blue state along with Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, Ohio and Florida which are all potentially competitive. I think there is a chance Arizona can even be competitive especially if Mccain loses a primary challenge. Democrats have the map they wished they had last year and it will work to their advantage. I think it will be hard for Ron Johnson, Kelly Ayotte, Mark Kirk, Pat Toomey, and Rob Portman to defend their records of obstruction. Mark Kirk and Rob Portman because of their moderate approach to gay rights may help them though in the general election. Both of them may not even survive their primaries which actually will make the races more vulnerable to flipping.

 

I didn't say act but I didn't qualify with "era" either. The GOP most certainly attacked the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that's an indisputable fact. Shelby County v Holder

 

I do agree to a certain extent. The GOP have been working to obstruct voting rights for the last few election years to make harder for those to vote. But my advice to those people do what ever you can possible to be able to cast that ballot at all costs. There is really no excuse no matter how much restrictions are in place. I don't care if you get fired from your job for voting do it and fight the obstruction. But that is just me.

 

Right, I actually think we are in agreement here about which states are possible? Those senators you've called out are some of the same ones I've mentioned, and a few more that are possible too, which is how I arrived at 7-8. There's certainly no dem state that has a GOP senator and I think there's about 10 seats right off the board that the democrats have zero chance in. If they can open up races in a few tougher places like Indiana, Missouri and Arkansas, that will help a lot.