Topic: Who is the Speaker going to file a lawsuit with? (Read 2739 times)
So a bunch of people who no longer could get their old insurance because of Obamacare have signed up because that is now the only way for them to get it? I'm sure you have a point here, could you just get to it?
20 million people have signed up for Obamacare.
http://time.com/2950961/obamacare-health-care-obama/
http://time.com/2950961/obamacare-health-care-obama/
Indeed. Liberals are *shocked*, but it is not a surprise to anyone who pays attention. The PPACA was politically expedient, and therefore passed, precisely because it relied on state exchanges. 39 states opted out, though, something that the central planners in their infinite wisdom somehow did not foresee. That left Obama with an unworkable law because the law only allows them to subsidize premiums for insurance purchased on state exchanges.
Obama will ask for another ruling. If that isn't in his favor he'll just grab a pen and change the law to include federal exchanges...he's already shown even though he's supposed to be a constitutional lawyer, he has little regard for the law.
Indeed. Liberals are *shocked*, but it is not a surprise to anyone who pays attention. The PPACA was politically expedient, and therefore passed, precisely because it relied on state exchanges. 39 states opted out, though, something that the central planners in their infinite wisdom somehow did not foresee. That left Obama with an unworkable law because the law only allows them to subsidize premiums for insurance purchased on state exchanges.
The way the law is written, federal subsidies are only supposed to be available to people who sign up through STATE exchanges. Since a bunch of states didn't set up exchanges those subsidies aren't available to poor people, so if they're given subsidies it will be breaking the law.
Of course the argument here is going to be "but he's the president. It doesn't matter what the law is, Obama can just give out the subsidies anyway!"
Of course the argument here is going to be "but he's the president. It doesn't matter what the law is, Obama can just give out the subsidies anyway!"
the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
Apparently the new rule of law is "Obama gets the make up the rules and laws as he goes."I wonder how this is going to go over when a republican president does the same thing.obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
just keep it up, it's fun. the only difference is you are just inviting people to second guess everything you say in the future. words well spent.
the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
Apparently the new rule of law is "Obama gets the make up the rules and laws as he goes."I wonder how this is going to go over when a republican president does the same thing. obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
Obama/democrats forced through a law that everyone knew couldn't work, and now that it's not working Obama is trying to change the law on the fly and democrats with hopes of getting re-elected are running from it and him.
He's the president of the greatest country in the world. Elected properly by the Constitution/electorate of the United States of America.I honestly don't mind if He breaks a few local, state, national, and/or international law(s), if he thinks it is in the best interest of the USA.
I say give the Man the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's not a mastermind evil genius plotting to take away our rights and liberties.
Obama/democrats forced through a law that everyone knew couldn't work, and now that it's not working Obama is trying to change the law on the fly and democrats with hopes of getting re-elected are running from it and him.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
Simple question: give that that was just one symptom of how shitty the law is, can you give me one good reason why the dates should have been delayed rather than the law cancelled altogether? Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability.What Obama is doing is more like a judge ignoring a mandatory minimum sentence to impose what he feels is more just. That judge would be reversed on appeal and maybe censured.
I understand the valid concern of the preservation of legal institutions and rule of law, but 7960s motives have nothing to do with concern for others.
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability.What Obama is doing is more like a judge ignoring a mandatory minimum sentence to impose what he feels is more just. That judge would be reversed on appeal and maybe censured.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability. 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. 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
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
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?
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?
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
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
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?
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?
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?
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?
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. 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?
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?
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.
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.
Now if your point is that Obama is as bad as Bush? Wow...high bar there.
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.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
But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.
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
"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."
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. 
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
True enough!
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
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!
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.
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.
I asked a question. I answered it. It's unfortunate you are such a weenie about bad news.
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.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
But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.
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
1. The FBI can't track a car by installing GPS on it--clearly a desire of the current admin
2. One act allows for another to be charged, recommends the 1970s Clean Water act be clarified--everyone knows this is a key piece of Obama legislation
3. Government can't pick religious employees, ruling leaves open suing--clear blow to the presidents agenda of appointing religious figures
4. Statue of limitations is tied to the date you did the crime, not when it was discovered--drats, Obama is foiled again
5. Let's sue the federal government for its flood control efforts--sure showed that uppity negro a thing or two
Your first five examples are shit. They don't even pertain to the current administration. In fact, they show the normal court deliberations that would happen under any administration. Asserting these belong on a list with recess appointments or filing suit is silly and desperate--trumped up.
Try using your own words when making your menopausal response.
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.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
But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.
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
Side A might be silly buggers but all sides are buggers period.Ergo going for a recess appointment is only slightly less buggerish than extending do nothing sessions into pro forma sessions to block recess appointments.
It wasn't responsive to what was being discussed. I'm sure it was responsive to whatever the voices in your head were discussing. Side A might be silly buggers but all sides are buggers period.Ergo going for a recess appointment is only slightly less buggerish than extending do nothing sessions into pro forma sessions to block recess appointments.
It wasn't responsive to what was being discussed. I'm sure it was responsive to whatever the voices in your head were discussing.
Side A might be silly buggers but all sides are buggers period.Ergo going for a recess appointment is only slightly less buggerish than extending do nothing sessions into pro forma sessions to block recess appointments.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee?
Executive orders are legitimate. The issue is executive orders that contradict the laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the president himself.
The president is constitutionally required to carry out laws. That's his fucking job. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he wants to carry out, or to change them on the fly.
The president is constitutionally required to carry out laws. That's his fucking job. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he wants to carry out, or to change them on the fly.
Obama sure is trying to pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce. If any lawsuits are filed, I hope there's one that forces him to do a proper job of securing our borders, for instance.
Obama is setting very bad precedent by not enforcing our laws. Not only that but it is making it difficult for congress to trust him to negotiate with him as they don't trust that he will enforce the laws that he agrees to.
Executive orders are legitimate. The issue is executive orders that contradict the laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the president himself.
The president is constitutionally required to carry out laws. That's his fucking job. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he wants to carry out, or to change them on the fly.
The president is constitutionally required to carry out laws. That's his fucking job. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he wants to carry out, or to change them on the fly.
Obama sure is trying to pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce. If any lawsuits are filed, I hope there's one that forces him to do a proper job of securing our borders, for instance.
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.He has made changes to the ACA aka Obamacare via executive orders by changing deadlines and other requirements that are very clear in the law.
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.Which EO are you defending?
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.You defined this matter as political bullshit.
But courts are where genuine differences of opinion on the meaning of law SHOULD BE DECIDED.
That's the right way to resolve a conflict.
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.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
But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.
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.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
It's not the quantity, since the impact of any EO isn't equal in scope.
Please describe the quality that deserves such a lawsuit?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.
Executive orders are legitimate. The issue is executive orders that contradict the laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the president himself.
The president is constitutionally required to carry out laws. That's his fucking job. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he wants to carry out, or to change them on the fly.
The president is constitutionally required to carry out laws. That's his fucking job. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he wants to carry out, or to change them on the fly.
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. It's not the quantity, since the impact of any EO isn't equal in scope.
Please describe the quality that deserves such a lawsuit?
It's not the quantity, since the impact of any EO isn't equal in scope.
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.
that makes no sense. You have a genuine conflict between the legislative and the executive branch, in which the legislative feels their constitutional right to legislate is being capriciously over ruled with executive orders.
Taking such a matter to a judicial body is the right thing to do, as they interpret the law and apply it. Taking this matter to a judicial body - I think it would be the District Court in DC, by the way - is not a punative measure, but a request for clarification of the law. Further, if a controversial executive order was protested to the court, an injunction for a restraining order could be had until such time as the court ruled on the matter.
Absolutely. Executive orders are not supposed to counter existing law. This issue will finally be resolved with the next president in office, but the eventual decision should reign in the executive branch a bit.
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.
that makes no sense. You have a genuine conflict between the legislative and the executive branch, in which the legislative feels their constitutional right to legislate is being capriciously over ruled with executive orders.
Taking such a matter to a judicial body is the right thing to do, as they interpret the law and apply it. Taking this matter to a judicial body - I think it would be the District Court in DC, by the way - is not a punative measure, but a request for clarification of the law. Further, if a controversial executive order was protested to the court, an injunction for a restraining order could be had until such time as the court ruled on the matter.
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.
Obama may have less executive orders, but the orders that he does issue are more far reaching and are closer to changing the law then his predecessors. 
Executive orders are merely supposed to be commands ordered by the President to govern federal agencies, not a way around Congress or other checks and balances to impose law. The Founders purposely made it hard to pass laws for a reason and narrowly defined the scope thereof in Art I, Sec VIII of the US Constitution. And, "All legislative powers herein granted are to be vested in a Congress" is the very first sentence.
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.
Jump to: