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.
There have been losses by presidents in the past, that is why the supreme court is in place.
The largest issue in the lawsuit is changes to the ACA, I guess he should have sent the changes back to congress for a vote but there is the prior 40 odd legislative proposals to defund Obama care.
He had no business nor authority to do that.
Difficulty getting what you want through Congress is no excuse.
None had their clocks cleaned 13 times in two years 9-0.
Yes, they would not have went along but that doesn't mean he can on his own. He can't.
13 times in 2 years...
Funny thing...how many of these were lawsuits started under Bush? If you actually review the cases, many were not about presidential authority, and most of the cases were first litigated when Bush was in office.
Sooo actually...Bush has gotten his clock cleaned more the Obama with those 13 rulings....
But hey, reality, who really worries about that when you can be screaming out rhetoric. Right?
These cases are important about defining presidential authority. They generally take so long that its not relevant to the original president, but they're a important part of how our government can work.
So this lawsuits probably a good idea, but not for any of the reasons the vast majority here have indicated.
Funny thing...how many of these were lawsuits started under Bush? If you actually review the cases, many were not about presidential authority, and most of the cases were first litigated when Bush was in office.
Sooo actually...Bush has gotten his clock cleaned more the Obama with those 13 rulings....
But hey, reality, who really worries about that when you can be screaming out rhetoric. Right?
These cases are important about defining presidential authority. They generally take so long that its not relevant to the original president, but they're a important part of how our government can work.
So this lawsuits probably a good idea, but not for any of the reasons the vast majority here have indicated.
I don't know if that is the case or not but I've noted many times Bush was scum here also.
Are you referring to the junk bills the House sends the Senate trying to defund ACA every other day that are all DOA?
You do not mean HR 872 which deals with regulations or
Hr 910 the energy tax resolutions
hr 2018 clean water act
Hr1315 consumer protection act
Hr2587 protecting jobs from government interference
Hr 2401 transparency act
Hr 2250 EPA regulatory act
Hr2273 coal act
Hr 3094 workforce fairness act
Hr 10 reins act
Hr1633 farm dust act
Hr 4078 red tape reduction act
So unlike your version the senate blocks acts involved of the ACA the senate blocks much more.
Democrats block legislation since they control the senate by a wide margin why not let a vote happen
You do not mean HR 872 which deals with regulations or
Hr 910 the energy tax resolutions
hr 2018 clean water act
Hr1315 consumer protection act
Hr2587 protecting jobs from government interference
Hr 2401 transparency act
Hr 2250 EPA regulatory act
Hr2273 coal act
Hr 3094 workforce fairness act
Hr 10 reins act
Hr1633 farm dust act
Hr 4078 red tape reduction act
So unlike your version the senate blocks acts involved of the ACA the senate blocks much more.
Democrats block legislation since they control the senate by a wide margin why not let a vote happen
Most of that legislation was junk, they wanted to limit the EPA and want to weaken the clean water/clean air acts as if that is an issue.
right because its ok only when the democrats break the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Not surprised, but it will be funny when this blows up in the Republican's face....though the bad part is they have no shame, so they won't even notice when this goes south for them.
This would be grounds to impeach every single president past, present, and future. Seems a bit petty and actually I think it helps the Democrats.
It's a bit petty to want the President to stop changing laws by himself that have been passed by Congress? You call that "petty"? Would you rather we lived in a dictatorship? Have you ever heard of the concept of "rule of law"? Ever heard of the constitution? Ever heard of separation of powers?
Quote:
Good luck in 2016, Repubs. You're gonna lose again if you don't change your strategy.
I sincerely hope that nobody changes their strategy to agree with nutjobs who think we should let the President make changes to the law on his own whim and desire. Most liberals are just idiots, but people like you are actually dangerous. People who think that Obama should be allowed to do whatever he wants whenever he wants without regard for interference by an opposition party are the type of people who are responsible for Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao.
One more time: Speaker Boehner does not have standing to sue, and the congressional resolution purporting to authorize him to sue the President is not effective to confer representative standing. Without prudential standing, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction; and, to put is simply, without jurisdiction, there is no case.
The last time there was a "stunt" like the congressional resolution to authorize Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit was in the appeal of the Shivo case when, in an eleventh hour, last-gasp effort for a rehearing before the Eleventh Circuit en banc, Congress passed "Terri’s Law" which purported to confer appellate jurisdiction. In a scathing rebuke of the President and Congress, Circuit Judge Stanley Birch wrote in a separate concurring opinion ruling the law unconstitutional and denying jurisdiction:
"The separation of powers implicit in our constitutional design was created to assure, as nearly as possible, that each branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility. But when the fervor of political passions moves the Executive and the Legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principles, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene." (internal quotes omitted)
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.
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.
