Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a stay against the Chrysler deal with Fiat.  The suit was filed by three pension funds in Indiana, saying that the Obama administration had among other, things changed the order of precedence in the bankruptcy illegally.  They also said that TARP funds were illegally used in the first place to fund Chrysler, something I've been saying for quite a while, despite assurances by Paul Ryan that a car company somehow is actually a bank.  It should also be noted that evidence is coming out that the deal with Fiat was forced upon Chryrsler by the Obama Administration, despite serious management concerns.  So much for Barack's statements that these companies are still "privately run".

Of course, this was all started by the Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration is all too happy to use all the same tricks... and in most cases these are the same tricks that they criticized the Bush Administration for.  For instance, when arguing against the Indiana pension funds, they said:

The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of "bailout" (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

Sound like something Bush did?  So what does Michael Mathias say when bond holders actually challenge all this in court, and the Obama administration says that they aren't even allowed to?  Is the Obama Administration still not subverting the rule of law?(Reason has some good coverage on how the Bush Administration waffled back and forth on whether car companies were banks as well.)

It doesn't stop there either.  Remember how Bush loved to subvert the legislative process by issuing an unprecedented number of signing statements on laws he signed?  Remember how Democrats complained about this, and how Obama promised to return to the Constitution in this regard?  Guess what... Obama has so far outpaced him during even the early days of his administration:

For those of you keeping score at home, based on the listing of signing statements on coherentbabble.com (which includes both constitutional signing statements and uncontroversial rhetorical or laudatory signing statements), President Obama has issued more constitutional signing statements than President Bush had at this point in his presidency

But despite all this, at least we now have a President who doesn't go around the world like a Christian soldier, and using religion in any and all contexts imaginable:

He's done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches - something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.
...
At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he'd seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. "I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church but to be in the church," Obama said. "It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."

Damn.  I should point out, that I'm not offended by the President using religion in these contexts... only that he is doing it more than Bush did publicly, and yet Bush caught more flack for it.  As I've said time and time again, Republicans and Democrats are really no different.  They both want to control your lives through government power... they'd simply have you do different things.  Likewise, Obama is really the same as George W. Bush... except he can read off a teleprompter better.