Pages:
Author

Topic: Who is the Speaker going to file a lawsuit with? - page 2. (Read 2748 times)

sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
You're so full of bs
Where are the damages in not issuing a parking ticket......where are the damages that warrant a parking ticket....there have to be damages for a crime to be committed correct......

You believe there are no damages when the rule of law isn't followed....duly noted
There aren't any, which is why I don't attempt to sue my meter maid for not issuing one. Generally speaking one can express damages in dollar or utility terms for a wide variety of crimes: including illegal parking or driving.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?
The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?
You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in.
What's telling is that Obama, a lawyer, fought for and passed a law and then thought nothing of breaking it, and you're ok with it. You don't need damages, just mandamus or an injunction.
Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital.
if someone believes obamacare is shit (and there's plenty of reason to) then getting more people to see that it's shit and also not like it is pretty smart.
It takes an exceptionally shitty person to enjoy accumulating political capital at the malicious expense of the people they are supposed to represent. Motives matter, and what I have been asking you for here is a motive outside of the child-like belief that occasionally being lenient and not following the letter of the law (through punitive action) regardless of the situation is always terrible. Or more likely: outside of the malicious desire to gain points no matter who it hurts. The latter is also rather dumb as it could easily backfire.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?
The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?
You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in.
What's telling is that Obama, a lawyer, fought for and passed a law and then thought nothing of breaking it, and you're ok with it. You don't need damages, just mandamus or an injunction.
Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital.
if someone believes obamacare is shit (and there's plenty of reason to) then getting more people to see that it's shit and also not like it is pretty smart.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
You're so full of bs
Where are the damages in not issuing a parking ticket......where are the damages that warrant a parking ticket....there have to be damages for a crime to be committed correct......

You believe there are no damages when the rule of law isn't followed....duly noted
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?
The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?
You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in.
What's telling is that Obama, a lawyer, fought for and passed a law and then thought nothing of breaking it, and you're ok with it. You don't need damages, just mandamus or an injunction.
Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?
The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?
You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in.
What's telling is that Obama, a lawyer, fought for and passed a law and then thought nothing of breaking it, and you're ok with it. You don't need damages, just mandamus or an injunction.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?
The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?
You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?
The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
That's not the case at all...... anyone who voted for the bill, blindly cast partisan votes, because no one understood the bill because they didn't fukking read it.....it is a very simple concept, which isn't followed...our gov't is becoming more fraudulent every day.....rule of law is only a myth today.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
Politifact is being misleading? Shocking. Of course, the simple truth is the Obama admin doesn't defend laws they feel are unconstitutional.

Now if your point is that Obama is as bad as Bush? Wow...high bar there.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.
Educate me. Which law(s) are you talking about?
I'll pick one (there are many examples)

In 2010 the dream act failed, so Obama used executive orders to stop deportations and of illegal immigrants.

So even though the law (he supported) failed, he just wrote it in and told law enforcement and the justice dept how to act.
Someone or other passed a law about recess appointments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d19_story.html
...and the other side played the technicalities card by holding fake sessions to block recess appointments.

But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.
Another Obama SCOTUS smack down. He's the President, not the King. When was the last?Here:
United States v. Jones
Sackett v. EPA
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC
Gabelli v. SEC
Arkansas Fish & Games v. United States
PPK Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Horne v. USDA
Sekhar v. United States
Burrage v. United States
Bond v. United States
United States v. Wurie/Riley v. California
NLRB v. Noel Canning
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-times-obama-/

"A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under...the Bush administration."
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
The Nobel Peace Prize committee?
I would certainly agree with that one.  It would be interesting to hear the defense arguments and production of evidence.  Since there was none.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Absolutely correct and H.Obama is knee-deep in bullshit!

Well you must admit he is unifying the country. Polls say he's pretty much failing in every category at close to 60%!  That means R, D and I are holding hands in disgust  Grin

True enough!

Wink
hero member
Activity: 519
Merit: 500
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Absolutely correct and H.Obama is knee-deep in bullshit!

Well you must admit he is unifying the country. Polls say he's pretty much failing in every category at close to 60%!  That means R, D and I are holding hands in disgust  Grin
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Absolutely correct and H.Obama is knee-deep in bullshit!
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
I asked a question. I answered it. It's unfortunate you are such a weenie about bad news.
You started it!

Glad you're still posting though.

I still don't think we're talking about the same thing. Buttboy called this one more in a line of something similar--those examples you gave are not similar to the one in the OP, because that ruling names the Administration. You can call everything in this thread anti Obama and that's fine, but saying everything in the thread is a smackdown of commensurate proportions is demonstrably incorrect.
That is the list I could find. I don't necessarily agree with any or all or none of the decisions. They are a list of smackdowns, no more, no less. They are all similar in that the admin got smacked down, or at least departments of the admin...which are run by...the admin. As far as still posting, I have to be honest and say there is more intelligence in the main than here. I don't plan on posting here much.
Pages:
Jump to: