• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama’s use of executive power faces reckoning at Supreme Court

I'm sure they're gambling on the hyper partisan air they created with the New Contract for America. What they don't realize is that 1) the case is irrelevant 2) trying to impeach a president for what is essentially a technicality tends to backfires. This isn't Nixon & Water Gate. This is literally Republicans being mad a Democrat did the same thing a Republican president would do if confronted with a congress that refuses to work. It'll be hell to pay if they fire up congressional hearings and as we all know, the Senate will not convict as long as Democrats hold a majority - so why are they doing this? Bragging rights? Primary stances? Yeah, ask Rubio & Cruz how well that has worked for them. They're sitting at 7% each.

It takes 2/3rds of the senate to vote aye on impeachment to convict. Whether or not the Democrats lose the senate come November, there is not way 67 senators would vote for impeachment. Impeachment is nothing more than a fantasy. 61% of the American People have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. This would just add to it.

But keep in mind, the Democratic Party isn't seen much better, their disapproval rating stand at 54%. I personally think most Americans are fed up with both parties.
 
Good point. Since the rule change made the appointments a forgone conclusion, there is no reason to even hear this fluff.

Yeah, because if there is one thing our nation doesn't need, it's rule of law or co-equal branches of government providing checks and balances. :roll:



But you know what? It's okay. Because Democrats are establishing a Precedent. Which means that in 2015, Majority Leader McConnel will be able to run the Senate in such a way as to completely shut Democrats out of the process, and in 2017 a Republican President can just declare that his administration has unilaterally decided not to enforce any provision of the ACA, or, for that matter, the Estate Tax; and a few other things besides. Maybe a few personnel changes at the IRS which may or may not take advantage of the incredible complexity of the tax code to "punish our enemies". You want a President above the law? :) Good. The shoe is going to be on the other foot in a few years, and you are not gonna like the screwing you are gonna get.
 
Yeah, because if there is one thing our nation doesn't need, it's rule of law or co-equal branches of government providing checks and balances. :roll:



But you know what? It's okay. Because Democrats are establishing a Precedent. Which means that in 2015, Majority Leader McConnel will be able to run the Senate in such a way as to completely shut Democrats out of the process, and in 2017 a Republican President can just declare that his administration has unilaterally decided not to enforce any provision of the ACA, or, for that matter, the Estate Tax; and a few other things besides. Maybe a few personnel changes at the IRS which may or may not take advantage of the incredible complexity of the tax code to "punish our enemies". You want a President above the law? :) Good. The shoe is going to be on the other foot in a few years, and you are not gonna like the screwing you are gonna get.

Democrats never held up nominees like the Reps. have done lately and likely never would. They are not such sore losers and I'm afraid they like to give Reps. enough rope to hang themselves when they are in the majority. It's a better and better bet that the GOP will screw things worse than anything the Dems could muster. That's if they EVER get back the majority in the Senate. Right now they might have a hard time holding on the House. I would wager that a Republican will not sit in the Whitehouse for at least 20 more years so that is a moot point with me.
 
No one in Congress that I can remember. You remember hearings?

First, beautiful attempt to move the goal posts. Did you honestly think this transparent act wouldn't get called out? Trying to walk back your rather ignorantly stated, broad, across the board claim huh?

Second, I’ll even humor your obvious and glaring goal post moving. Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler, sitting congressmen, both brought forward actual articles of impeachment onto the House floor. And 166 congressman vocalized support for that impeachment to go to the judicial committee. Keith Ellison repeatedly called for investigations into a possible impeachment. Jerrold Nadler was another one along with Cynthia McKinney, who submitted a resolution bill that never made it past the submission stage.
 
Lol - I enjoy this reckoning. They couldn't get Obama on: IRS, Benghazi, BP, Acorn, the debt ceeling, vacations, Ayers, SCOTUS appointments, gay marriage. So far nothing seems to have stuck with the American public. (If we go by Libertarians - it's because everyone is stupid and Ron Paul has the biggest dick since Ron Jeremy's). Even with the failed state he inherited from his predecessor he's managed to level out at the same approval rating. So now they're crying over a few minor and irrelevant appointments. The Democrats should have just given the elephants this victory and just walked away. With the eventual right wing win, we'll have 7 weeks of nonstop "Nee-naing" from Republicans on what is essentially an irrelevant case. Presidents overstep the constitutional boundaries of their offices quite regularly. However, mark my words trying to impeach Obama on this will fire back on Republicans and simply make Obama more likeable. It'll be another faux gotcha moment that won't settle well with Americans.

I actually agree with you in terms of impeachment. IF it's ruled unconstitutional is it at least arguably a legitimate case for impeachment? Yes. But that's rather irrelevant. Something like this is so benign and alien to the minds of the every day american in my mind that attempting to impeach Obama on it would be a horrendous task that would likely cause a severe backlash. I have no issue with the challenge in court, indeed I support that. But I think trying to leverage it to work on impeachment this far into the Presidency, over this issue, would be a political mistake.
 
Do you think there are other ways to impeach a President than Congress?

You should not question someones education when it's your own inability to articulate what you're thinking that's the problem.

You asked about CALLS for impeachment.

ANYONE may "call" for the impeachment of a President. Whether or not that persons "call" has any significant impact or significant chance to affect an actual impeachment charge is irrelevant as to whether or not the "call" can be done.

You did not ask about calls for impeachment by members of congress. You did not ask for official or legislative calls for impeachment. You did not ask for meaningful or plausible calls for impeachment.

You asked about calls for impeachment.....period, done, fin. You added no equivocation, no further butrussing factors, nothing to expand out to what you've now moved the goal posts.

YOU failed to apparently coherently express what you were thinking, and because of that you lash out at others for your inability to communicate your point. The posters education regarding government is not the issue here; they're statement was exactly in line with what you actually asked for.
 
Democrats never held up nominees like the Reps. have done lately and likely never would. They are not such sore losers and I'm afraid they like to give Reps. enough rope to hang themselves when they are in the majority. It's a better and better bet that the GOP will screw things worse than anything the Dems could muster. That's if they EVER get back the majority in the Senate. Right now they might have a hard time holding on the House. I would wager that a Republican will not sit in the Whitehouse for at least 20 more years so that is a moot point with me.

Robert Bork? Ever heard of him? Prolly not. It seems that anything other than what you say is a moot point to you. You're living in hermetically sealed environs.
 
You asked about CALLS for impeachment.

Calls for impeachment are just so last century.

If you can't twitter for impeachment these days, at least have the good sense to text.
 
Calls for impeachment are just so last century.

If you can't twitter for impeachment these days, at least have the good sense to text.

Politicians need to refrain from Twitter.

20j1uux.jpg
 
I hope Roberts isn't a big ***** this time.

Ehh...I dunno if it has to do with being a *****. Ultimately whatever the ruling it will have an impact on both parties. I'm pretty sure that if it's ruled that the "recess" appointments aren't valid both parties will be using that tactic to block recess appointments in the future.
 
Ehh...I dunno if it has to do with being a *****. Ultimately whatever the ruling it will have an impact on both parties. I'm pretty sure that if it's ruled that the "recess" appointments aren't valid both parties will be using that tactic to block recess appointments in the future.

They'll just have to appoint them while in session like they should, instead of using an emergency appointment process in an underhanded way.
 
House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–VA) declared:

>" President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws by directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to stop removing broad categories of unlawful immigrants.
In June of last year, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum telling U.S. immigration officials how they should “enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.” The move essentially served to implement major portions of the DREAM Act—which has been introduced and failed in Congress more than 30 times—by executive fiat..."<

Obama Grants Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants Without Congress

actually that wont stand up in any court,since he did not create a law in that instance,but rather directed the existing law,which he has the authority to do.

in all truthfullness,he has been the most corrupt president in recent history,theres too much he can be attacked on,but executive orders he cant unless its proven hes either writing law through eo or adding to law from eo,however using eo to direct agencies on enforcement is within his power.
 
Back
Top Bottom