I don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
Only the Supreme Court could reverse Roe v. Wade (short of a constitutional amendment). However, you were the one that brought up nominations of Supreme Court justices. I'm just pointing out that he's opposed judges because he viewed them to by "pro-choice" (Sotomayor) and he seems very firm in his beliefs that gay marriage is wrong. ARe you not afraid that he would try to select judges who would share these views?
The president submits the budget to congress, who usually changes whatever they want, and they eventually send it back to the president for approval. So I think his tax planning is a moot point since he has no control over it and it won't happen, but he could reject the budget so it isn't a moot point.
[/quote]
Regarding the former, you are correct that a president submits to congress his or her budget request in the first month of the year. After the CBO evaluates an analysis of the budget it goes to both the house and senate sub-committees where each makes budget resolutions and can tack on amendments to the budget. THey can also refuse to pass any budget and funding levels will default to the prior-year's budget. Then it gets voted on and sent back to the president to sign. Which is all to say that the President has no legal control over the extensive amendment process; congress (not the President) ultimately decides what goes into the Budget. THe President can merely decide to sign or veto the budget Congress ultimately approves
Changes to the tax code aren't really different. Any member of Congress can propose changes to the tax code. The President can propose a tax cut by having the bill sponsored by someone in congress (see the Bush Tax Cuts for an example). Again, the bill goes to committee where it can be extensively altered and members can tack on amendments, then it gets voted on by Congress (H+S) before being sent back to the President, who can sign or veto the bill.
In other words, the President cannot control what Congress does with regards to the budget OR taxation. In political campaigns ALL candidates like to tout how their tax plan or their budget will lead to relief and prosperity for all, but in reality they have no direct control over what ultimately lands on the desk of the Oval Office.
Take
Obama's latest budget proposal. It's largely seen as being completely symbolic, calling for an almost 5% increase in annual spending and almost everyone concluded that it was "Dead On Arrival." The ultimate budget (if one gets passed) will look absolutely nothing like what Obama requested. That's ok. the Constitution always intended for Congress (not the President) to be in control of both budgeting and taxation.
Since abortions and gay marriage already are in place due to supreme Court decisions, I would prefer some Rubio nominated justices over Clinton justices. I think there could be some gun control decisions in the future and I sure do like my guns.
I think you have a very unique view that those decisions are somehow 'safe'. There are two major decisions on the Supreme Court's docket just for 2016 that deal directly with abortion (Mississippi and Texas, both focusing on the "admitting privledges" of doctors) as well as one about Contraception and the ACA. Proponents on both sides of the debate fiercely argue that the Supreme Court's decisions could have a lasting impact on everything from abortion to affirmative action.
To flip this question around, what issues that are likely to come before the Supreme Court do you think would better be heard by a judge nominated by Marco Rubio, since you seem to disagree with him on both abortion and gay marriage?
