President Barrack Obama has not been able to develop any form of Legislative Agenda with the Congress from 2011 onward because of several issues. One of the most significant reasons for President Obama’s failure to develop any kind of Legislative Agenda with the Congress is the Republican strategy of total opposition to the Obama administration. The Republicans formulated a plan that would ensure that any kind of Legislative Agenda brought forward by the President is rejected. The intensive nature of the opposition by Republicans watered down any efforts by the President to develop a Legislative Agenda, which could not stand a chance to receive support in the House. Republicans decided to oppose any Obama’s proposition, hence frustrating his efforts to develop any tangible Legislative Agenda from 2011 onwards. The available opposition was also intimidating, hence making it difficult for the President to strike a Legislative Agenda with the Congress since 2011.
Another vital reason for President Obama’s failure to develop any kind of Legislative Agenda with the Congress is the Great Recession, which affected most countries around the world, with the U.S. being no exception. It is worth acknowledging the view that the Great Recession slowed down President Obama’s efforts relating to the development of Legislative Agenda with the Congress. The government was trying to counter the Great Recession, which led to the rise in the cost of living for most U.S. citizens. The Congress was more focused on addressing the consequences of the Great Recession, hence providing no room for the development of any kind of Legislative Agenda. The Great Recession meant the government needed to dedicate its resources to addressing the most pressing issues in the country. This denied President Obama the opportunity to develop any kind of Legislative Agenda with the Congress.
More so, the President could not develop any kind of Legislative Agenda with the Congress because of the availability of extensive veto points for opponents to stop any kind of bill. President Obama could not easily develop any Legislative Agenda with the Congress because of the greater veto points that allowed members of the opposition to veto any motion for a bill. Vetoes ensure that the bill does not pass in the House, hence killing it in the early stages. Members of the Congress opposed to President Obama made it difficult for him to develop Legislative Agendas as they utilized their veto powers to overcome his efforts to introduce legislations. Therefore, the veto powers available to members on the opposing side posed a practical challenge to President Obama’s efforts of developing any kind of Legislative Agenda from 2011 onwards.
Additionally, President Obama could not foster legislative cooperation with Republicans because of electoral concerns. Republicans remained fully opposed to developing any Legislative Agendas in the Congress because of the fact that Obama failed to act as a moderate conciliator. His liberal approach to leadership made it difficult for him to breach the gap and reconcile the differences between the Red and Blue America, the differences founded on racial differences. President Obama paid more visits to the “blue” states, as opposed to the “red” states, dominated by Republicans. Therefore, race was a significant reason for President Obama’s failure to come up with any kind of Legislative Agenda with the Congress. He was perceived to be taking a one-sided approach in addressing racial differences in the country.
Judicial activism entails judicial rulings that emanate from creativity and innovation of the law or the political considerations of the country rather than existing law. Judicial restraint implies the Supreme Court’s reliance on the existing legal rule within the judicial system. Having judicial activism alongside judicial restraint is a vital component of the judicial branch because of various reasons.
Having judicial activism alongside judicial restraint is a vital component of the judicial system because it would help regulate the court’s involvement in the activities of other branches of government. The court is never supposed to make decisions that relate to the other branches of the U.S government. The presence of judicial activism alone would give the court the power to interfere with the domains of the Legislature and the Executive, hence interfering with the concept of the separation of powers that demands the independent operation of each of these governmental entities. Judicial restraint tends to lean more on the separation of powers by allowing the court to rely on the legal rules that have already been established in other courts. This means that the availability of judicial activism alongside judicial restraint would be crucial for the judicial branch because it would ensure that there is less interference with the activities of the other branches of government. This would help promote the independence of the judiciary, as it eliminates any form of association with the executive or the legislature branches in the course of making decisions.
In addition, the possession of judicial activism alongside judicial restraint is vital for the judicial branch, because the Supreme Court has the potential to be a source of progress and social change in the U.S. The absence of non-partisan inclinations on the part of the Supreme Court would give it the capacity to influence social change in line with judicial activism and judicial restraint. The Supreme Court would have the capacity to consider the decisions of all as a societal precedent rather than a case law. It offers the opportunity for the court to compare the current facts with the facts that were used in the case law that might be referred to under judicial restraint. This promotes maximum benefits and fair decisions in court judgments. Everyone in the U.S. would have the capacity to receive satisfactory decisions because of the ability of the Supreme Court to create decisions that promote social change in reference to the legal decisions made by other courts.