I wanted to go back and address other points you made in your post:
"Several actions that Obama took via EO's were unconstitutional, according to the SCOTUS as they decided against him in multiple cases over them."
This is not accurate. There is a statistic out there that claims 13 of Obama's EOs were overturned by SCOTUS. In fact, nine of those originated in the Bush administration - the DOJ under Obama was just handling the appellate process. Three had nothing to do with EOs. The one remaining case was actually decided by a lower court; when the appeal got to SCOTUS, there was a 4-4 tie, which meant the lower court decision was upheld. So technically, SCOTUS only ruled on one Obama EO, and that ruling was influenced by the fact that there was a vacant seat on the court at the time.
"The only reason Trump has been able to do many of the things he has done using EO's is because that is how Obama chose to operate. You can't blame Trump for undoing what Obama did by using EO's. Obama's actions left that option open. "
It's not so much HOW he's doing it, it's THAT he's doing it. Trump is trying to erase Obama completely; he's rolling back perfectly sensible regulations for no other logical reason. His decisions on the environment don't make any sense - for instance, does anyone actually think it's a good idea that coal companies should be allowed to pollute our rivers again?
"BTW, according to some of your posts about two or three months ago, most of Trump's EO's haven't really done anything, they have mostly been for show (or something along those lines). If that is the case, why would you think Repubs, or anyone for that matter, should be upset at the number of EO's Trump has written? "
Because the Repubs were upset about Obama's use of the EO, period. They were frustrated that they couldn't block what he wanted to do, but only one of his EO's were ultimately found to be unconstitutional (the EO that funded the CSR is still technically under appeal, although that may now be moot). What's fair for one is fair for the other. I'm old enough to remember when Mitch McConnell got upset that the Dems might block Gorsuch after McConnell refused to even consider Garland. So upset that he blew up the SCOTUS confirmation process - and still needed the VP to cast the deciding vote for Gorsuch's confirmation. That kind of stuff has a way of biting you when the tables turn.
"the left is actually helping him by searching for anything they can be 'hair on fire' upset about on a daily basis. They are helping to muddy the waters so much that he is getting a pass on many things that a lot of people might not overlook otherwise. "
IMO, it's a calculated effort on Trump's part. The media will report on whatever he does - that's their job. His goal is to distract them by tossing a shiny object in another direction that they will all go and chase, while he quietly does something else. Trump sucks at governing, but he excels at self-promotion and PR. He knows exactly how to play the media - he's been doing it for years, going back to his time in NY when he would call reporters pretending to be "John Baron", a Trump spokesperson who would describe Trump's exploits with women, many of which were untrue (that's documented).
|
