folks wanted change immediate plea. and change is record when you have an obstructionist republican congress. that is the president s view that it is this obstructionist republican congress. there have been many top democratic donors, particularly in the new york area people who campaigned actively for president obama who have now publicly come out and said that they are on team romney, some citing the president s demon myization of wall street, citing him as a bigger government guy than expected. does the president have the ability to blame it on a obstructionist republican congress or is the disappointment in some from his earlier circle too deep for that in. look, i think that there is there is a both. but the president has been claiming the republicans for a longtime. that s his stump speech in miniature that he gave to these folks. he s been doing it a lot, some of it sticks. that still doesn t get him out of the woods with these donors and voters overall. the proble
politics editor and host of power play on foxnews.com. the president was out earned. mitt romney earned more than he did in the month of may according to the reports, and apparently there is a bit of anxiety in the obama re-election team, among them that this could be a trend that could continue over the summer months. well it s not just, megyn, that the president was out raised by mitt romney, it was the fact that the president had a cash deficit for the month, that he spent $5 million more than he took n. the reason that is troubling beyond just falling short of romney s overall haul is this the burn rate that the president has established and has been doing for months is huge. he aoedz an incredible amount of cash, that is why we see him do all of these fundraisers, that is why we see him making conference calls with donors from air force one, saying guys, you ve got to step it up, you ve got to max out for me, we need the money. that s why you see them selling their t-s
plurality opinion. there was another case involving the cigarette labeling act and billboards. justice stevens wrote a very important concurring opinion. there were a couple of cases that struck down pre-emption involving pesticides in one case motors in another. justice stevens wrote those decisions in those cases. the last case was a very strong pro-preemption opinion on medical devices. justice stevens did not like it, but it occurred concurrend. this term comes along and he has the majority vote in these cases. if you are practitioner and i argued a couple of these cases, you have no idea what is going to happen with pre-emption on as you can figure out some way to persuade enough justices that they will outweigh justice stevens because he has written on every single one of these cases. i will make one final one final point. the obama administration, the president issued an executive order instructing agencies basically to go through all of their regulations and scrub
labeling or advertising. the statute said in order to have a uniform national policy with respect to the advertising or promotion of cigarette products, prohibitions or requirements by states on the advertising and promotion of cigarettes based upon smoking and health will be out, you know, they will be precluded. the altria versus goode case came up, someone is suing because they argued that the advertising of like cigarettes was misleading. people according to the allegation smoked the the cigarettes in such a way that they actually got potentially more tar and nicotine than the regular cigarettes so that the idea of advertising them as light was misleading bfment the tobacco companies said those suits are barred and the supreme court in a 5-4 decision written by justice stevens said no, they re not. that prohibition, the explicit preemption pro hi bigs goes to prohibitions based upon smoking and heather and what the lawsuit was based upon was the unfair practices act of th