FINALLY! Republicans Sue Obama Over Recess Appointments! (polls, parties, election)

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by stillkit

So did George Bush. Were you worried about it then?

No, because they were in recess then.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by stillkit

The point is not that Obama may not be wrong, but that your outrage and worry is nothing more than thinly disguised partisanship.

I'm not outraged, but definitely worried. I was very worried about previous administrations erosion of our Constitutional rights as well.

[MasterChief]

Originally Posted by stillkit

A lawsuit? Snort!

If they really thought they had a case, they'd offer up impeachment charges.

More fodder for the witless.

If he is re-elected, those will hopefully follow.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by MasterChief

If he is re-elected, those will hopefully follow.

He won't be impeached after he leaves office. He would be charged (with whatever) and tried in a regular court. It won't happen. Neither party wants to set the precedent. They know that their turn would come around next administration change.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

How about this: The Senate was in recess, therefore the appointment was constitutional.

The senate was not in full recess.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

The senate was not in full recess.

Correct!

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

The senate was not in full recess.

Perhaps you should wait for the courts to decide that.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Perhaps you should wait for the courts to decide that.

If we do that then there would be no need for any thread where a court case was involved.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by stillkit

A lawsuit? Snort!

If they really thought they had a case, they'd offer up impeachment charges.

More fodder for the witless.

Did you not know that there are impeachment charges being offered already on other matters for Obama?

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Perhaps you should wait for the courts to decide that.

So, to be clear, legislative activism is encouraged when it is used to get Obama's butt out of trouble but a bad thing if it overturns his so-called signature legislation?