hilarious!
1 Like
Blah blah blah.executive action has been around as long as the Republic.It is political when you are convening congress for 30 seconds every 3 days so that you can say that its not in recess and therefore the President does not have the authority to make recess appointment. This is obstructionism,plain and simple.obstruction is all they got.This is bad for our nation.
3 Likes
BTW, it wasnât Bush who promised âChangeâ! Obama staunch defenders seem to have forgotten that and keep repeating the same idiocy ad nauseam: âBut Bush did it toâ.
Where is the âChangeâ? Or was it the change left in your pocket after 8 years of his administration that Obama was referring to?
goodlatte is desperately trying to not be another cantor, without sounding completely barking mad. they have such excellent cause for bringing suit, they donât even know what theyâre suing for.
what a bunch of useless morons the GOP has become.
1 Like
Yes, the your freedom not to have a black man as POTUS has definately been taken away from you. I can see why youâd be so angry.
1 Like
Oh dearâŠ!
Thatâs all you got?
TPM, better trolls please!!!
1 Like
whenever you read one of these absurd comments by republican politicians, just remind yourself, thatâs what they think of the intelligence of the typical member of their base.
1 Like
The only Sunday news I listen to is Up! With Steve Kornacki.
The restâridiculous. The mainstream media still believes this is a âcenter rightâ (old-style) Republican nation.
Two national elections and the Democrats retaining the Senate have shown them nothing. They have no right to push these utter idiots in the faces of Americans. But at least my face is not among them.
1 Like
That is what you meant to say, correct Lips?
Libs also said, âObamaâs job is to follow the laws that Congress has enacted he like them or notâ.
Itâs obvious English is not his strong suit.
What utter BS. The GOP knows they canât impeach him, this is merely a convenient way to fire up their ignorant base while wasting everyoneâs time and money.
1 Like
If it is from Virginia Republican, itâs all political.
1 Like
Look out, Lips is feeling her oats and feeling feisty today! She might even resort to posting TPMâs comment guidelines again!!
1 Like
It fires up and unites the ignorant GOPT base.
Those like yourself, with an inability to reason and communicate in complete thoughtsâ
are slowly suffocating our political process.
As all that is necessary to do so? Is for you, and those on your level of intellectâ
be fed buzzwords and talking points, and then regurgitate them blindly and loyally; without consideration.
Undoubtedly, you see yourself as one who stands against the tide.
When at essence? You, and so many like you-- unknowingly humiliate yourselves.
Your accomplishment here?
Making those who read your broken shards of thought-- exasperated for the countryâs future.
You make Karl Rove so proud. Goebbels would be too.
jw1
.
3 Likes
This lawsuit is about throwing a bone to the low-info base. Going by your posts, youâre swallowing it whole.
4 Likes
W had legislation handed to him on a silver platter for six of his eight years and still issued 109 more executive orders than has Obama. Can you imagine how many he would have issued if he was obstructed for all but two years of his presidency?
1 Like
âItâs very important," Goodlatte continued. "And this should be bipartisan â people standing up to protect the balance of power.â
FFS, do we even have to say it? Where the hell was all this concern about the âbalance of powerâ between 2001 and 2008 during the most lawless, recklessly overreaching Administration since Nixon resigned? Where were they when the White House was asserting the radical, borderline insane âunitary executiveâ theory in signing statement after signing statement? Where was Goodlatte when the Cheney crime cartel was lying us into a disastrous war, ignoring environmental laws, building secret prisons and claiming the right to hold U.S. citizens captures on U.S. territory in military custody with access to counsel or habeus corpus?
Sitting with his thumb up his ass, smiling with approval and defending them to the last ditch, as I recall.
4 Likes
This âargumentâ is making the rounds, and itâs clear itâs being made by those who are blind to the actual law and Constitution. What the Supremes did was to do something that the Constitution did not, which was to define a ârecessâ and what would be appropriate in a recess appointment. They decided that since the rules of the Senate called these pro-forma sessions sessions, that for the case at hand, the appointment was not a recess appointment. The court, however, also overturned (i.e., sided with the president) the appeals ruling which said that ârecessâ was only that time between the two year sessions of congress, and that appointments could only be made on vacancies which occur within that very narrow window. The Supremes gave a definition that presidents now have to follow - recess is when the congress is not in session for 10 days or more, and at that point the president can make any appointments to open executive positions. Hardly was Obama âbreaking the lawâ since this was never defined this specifically. Note, too, that this only came to happen because senate republicans, who are in the minority, blocked any presidential appointments by filibuster rather than allowing the Constitutional Advise and Consent provision. Hardly are republicans blameless here.
On the rest of your blathering, these guys present no grounds, so there is no way of telling what they will point to or sue on. However, the Constitution gives broad discretion in how the executive carries out the laws which are passed by Congress. For instance, the noise machine continues to attack the IRS for breaking the law on the whole 501©4 issue, when the actual law says NO political activity, and the IRS in its rule making (otherwise known as legitimate activity of the executive) looked at that and decided that a social welfare organization would need to be engaged at times in politics, and the question then was the activity legitimate social welfare activity, and was the ©4 proposing to engage ONLY in political activity - i.e., interpreted the law passed by congress to actually put it in effect. If you all want the president to follow the law, then in the actual 501©4 section of the law, all these groups DO NOT QUALIFY. But under legitimate executive powers, they MAY based on the rule making which the executive does under they Constitutional power to carry out the law. That president who this change from the actual written law was done under, by the way, was the evil Eisenhower.
Note, too, that the recess appointment case had to be brought by an aggrieved party; it was not - and could not have been - brought by Congress. That was the standing required for the suit to go forward. Harm had to be shown by a party actually harmed by the action of the executive.
I wonât even get into the question of what standing Republicans have in actually filing such a suit since they are not Congress - Congress is both houses, and I sincerely doubt they could get the senate to go along with a law authorizing a suit - which, since it would be a law that would need the presidentâs signature, he would no doubt veto. Which IS a power of the executive.
Sorry bub, the Constitution leaves a lot of room for how and where the president acts to carry out the laws enacted by congress and signed by the president, depending on the action. And still those actions make the president acting like neither king nor emperor. He is acting under what he believes to be his powers under the Constitution. Lastly, the Constitution has one - and only one - remedy for Congress if it believes the president has broken the law. Itâs a thing called impeachment. Nowhere does the Constitution say Congress say it can sue the president. The other remedy, by the way, is an election, as laid lout by the Constitution. Do note that the people decided, in 2012, in majority as required under the Constitution, that the president was worthy of re-election. Mitt Romney presented his case, and he lost.
Why, then, do these members of Congress propose to do something which the Constitution doesnât allow - i.e., changing or fabricating what Congress has the power to actually do under the Constitution?
7 Likes