Congress can pass laws over the objection of the President only by two-thirds supermajority in each chamber. Anything less, and it's not happening.
True, but once a law is passed, the President cannot unilaterally repeal it. It would take a majority in both chambers in Congress for the President to get that done.
Court rulings take time, and moreover they require someone with standing to have filed a lawsuit, for the lawsuit to get ruled on. No lawsuit, no ruling; no standing, no lawsuit.
True, but sometimes they can happen faster when it becomes a big national issue that has a time pressure. An illegal action by the president could be brought to court fairly quickly in federal court, and an injunction can be issued.
Yes, it was the showrunners' wish-fulfillment, details-of-the-issues-free story. The subject (and mature members of the audience) demand more than that kind of 30 minute cartoon, snap-your-fingers-and-its-done plotting.
They also demand writers have some semblance of knowledge on the subject that is being written about, including civics. It requires intelligent writing.
Historically, there have been differences, most notably the shift from Lincoln's proposals for a post-slavery, post-war nation (at the time of his death) were not carried out (in some cases, jettisoned) by his successor, Andrew Johnson.
The fact that you have to go back 150 years kind of makes the point. Today, VPs tend to be chosen not just for what they can deliver at the polls, but for how well they can work for the President. You wouldn't see the democrat nominee offer Ted Cruz the job as a running mate. And you wouldn't see Ted Cruz offer the job to Elizabeth Warren. There is no way a VP would be that different than the previous president.
If anything, a VP would be more to the right or to the left depending on which party is in power, but it's doubtful you would get someone on the extreme other side.
True. However, it still strikes odd that an alien would pick someone like Baker as VP...
It makes no sense at all, especially with modern day vetting. You would think that Marsdin would specifically look for someone that would be very pro alien when making this choice.
Baker strikes me as a political opportunist and sycophant who goes whichever way the wind's blowing, as long as it boosts his career.
Then again, maybe he's like Joe Biden. Even though Biden was President Obama's VP and apparently a good friend of his, he has a
problematical record on racial issues if you dig into his past.
It is absolutely possible for a President to be an opportunist who governs by the polls. Bill Clinton did that, and it was not the worst strategy. However, Baker is taking some very extreme positions.
One thing the show doesn't cover is how the general population feels. We know how the main characters feel, but what about the population? Is it equally divided? Is it overwhelmingly anti-alien?
If Baker is as you say, he would be following the polls, and for Baker to be this anti-alien in public, the polls would have to be uniting the entire country. The writers seem to paint a different environment that is more like most issues today, where there is serious division.
If there is serious division, then Baker is making zero sense, because given Marsdin's election, his political base should be pro-alien, and he would be committing political suicide.
