Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone doesn’t like Utah’s law banning gay marriage, goes to court and gets it declared unconstitutional. Supporters of the law appeal to the Supreme Court justice with jurisdiction over the 10th Circuit, Sotomayor, and she issues a stay of the lower court’s order validating gay marriages until the full 10th Circuit court of Appeals can hear the case.
Obama, a politician who just two years ago was still on record as opposing gay marriage, now feels that the matter has since “evolved” to a point where there’s a fierce moral urgency to marry off the gays immediately, orders his DOJ to ignore Justice Sotomayor’s ruling and grant federal recognition to Utah gay marriage.
Liberals see nothing wrong here and scratch their heads when it’s pointed out that that same abuse of executive authority can be used against them when power changes hands.
None so blind ….
The thing liberals agree on is the ends justify the means. They'll be in favor of any level of fraud, deceit and lawlessness, if it got them to their end goal. However, let anyone else, any president, any judge, or Congress to try anything remotely close on something libs are opposed to, and they will squeal like stuck pigs, demanding impeachment and or prison.
The debt is a perfect example. Bush adding $4 trillion over eight years was irresponsible and unpatriotic but Obama can add $6 trillion in just four years and it's perfectly acceptable.
Sibelius declaring birth control pills and sterilization procedures are good for the nation and forces all insurance companies to include free distribution of these in all health insurance policies is perfectly acceptable. But let the next HHS secretary decide these are harmful to the nation's health, and bans all insurance providers from covering the distribution of them in all but a few cases, and the libs will squeal like stuck pigs.
"if they don't agree with a law, or wish there was an existing law that defined something a certain way, they just create new law, modify laws, refuse to defend laws, delay laws, waive laws so a lucky select few groups and individuals don't have to obey them, or single out people and groups they do not like and use laws to target them."
There is a HUGE difference between a state and the Federal government. No comparison. If the residents in a state make a bad decision, it only affects the residents of that sate. If the President makes up his own laws if affects EVERYONE!
As for:
Quote:
"if they don't agree with a law, or wish there was an existing law that defined something a certain way, they just create new law, modify laws, refuse to defend laws, delay laws, waive laws so a lucky select few groups and individuals don't have to obey them, or single out people and groups they do not like and use laws to target them."
This applies to both parties equally. Bush created Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, the NDAA, the TSA, and Obama has perpetuated all of it, only in more vile incarnations.
No politician has the constitutional authority to do many of the things they do. To ignore one party because the other does it, or to complain about the "other party" doing something, when your own party does it, is the definition of hypocrisy.
I'll never be a Republican or Democrat again. They've both become progressive shills used as fronts for special interests and multinational companies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.