• 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

iguanaman said:
I don't know...you tell me.
Click to expand...

I see no relationship with disagreeing with someone's actions or policies, and the color of their skin.

I haven't seen anyone on here claim that his skin color has anything to do with it. You're the one who brought it up, perhaps you see his skin color first and foremost.....
 
Quote from Scalia during the arguments, he was joking: “If you ignore the Constitution often enough, its meaning changes.”
 
polgara said:
Absolutely nothing, but they've always got the racism card to play! I wonder if a lot of people are going to wake up one morning, though, and suddenly realize they've been conned, when it affects them? That will be something to see! Remember how quickly the Univision questions about his failures back in September 2012 was hushed up and buried by the MSM? And they're Hispanic!
Click to expand...

I would hope that someone from NE Ohio realizes Hispanic is white, not a race but an ethnicity, like EYE-talian, or Nordic.

Given all the dim witted poster boys and speech makers at many TP gatherings I can see how some would see the extra dab of vitriol given to President Obama as race influenced. But mentioning the race thing doesn't diminish that for all the wild rhetoric and wailing, very little of what President Obama has done has been overturned.

There is no threat to the Republic, the question isn't can the government violate search and seizure, nor is this about what the terrorists are legally to be held as, nor is this over when will Americans die in a formally declared war...

It is over whether Congress was in recess when the President appointed people to his administration.
 
iguanaman said:
I don't know...you tell me.
Click to expand...

You're the one that made it a point to highlight race, therefore only you can provide the explanation for why you did so.

Why the highlighting of his race in your stated goal of the members of the house?
 
iguanaman said:
Oh really? GW was far more abusive of executive power and even decided what torture was. How many calls for impeachment did he receive? ZERO. It must be because he was a Texan.
Click to expand...

Is the stance you're taking here seriously that no one ever called for GWB's impeachment?
 
Zyphlin said:
Is the stance you're taking here seriously that no one ever called for GWB's impeachment?
Click to expand...

To be fair, the calls for him to be impeached started before he even was sworn into the presidency and lasted until the last day.
 
iguanaman said:
Oh really? GW was far more abusive of executive power and even decided what torture was. How many calls for impeachment did he receive? ZERO. It must be because he was a Texan.
Click to expand...

You know what they say, don't **** with Texas.
 
iliveonramen said:
Honestly this was going to happen sooner or later anyway. It was Dems that let this genie out of the bottle under the Bush Presidency when they technically weren't in recess while they were in recess. It was only a matter of time till a President called the Senate on it.

Now it's time for the Courts to rule.
Click to expand...

I hope Roberts isn't a big ***** this time.
 
scatt said:
To be fair, the calls for him to be impeached started before he even was sworn into the presidency and lasted until the last day.
Click to expand...

Really? Show me the House or Senate minutes where that happened.
 
iguanaman said:
Where are the House minutes then?
Click to expand...

Are you confused? Do you think impeachment calls only come from the government (although there of course was impeachment attempts from the government too)?
 
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.
 
scatt said:
Are you confused? Do you think impeachment calls only come from the government (although there of course was impeachment attempts from the government too)?
Click to expand...
Do you think there are other ways to impeach a President than Congress? You do need some schooling in Govt.
You stated there were numerous calls to impeach Bush yet it appears you are unable to find even one.

You may not know this, but House Republicans don’t like President Obama. Really, they don’t! And as a new piece from the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank shows, the antipathy on the far-right for the president has begun to slowly but surely turn into a growing chorus calling for impeachment.

A prime example can be found in Tuesday’s House Committee on the Judiciary hearing, a spectacle of impeachment innuendo that laid bare Republicans’ current desire to find a way to unseat the president. Iowa Republican Steve King ominously and obliquely referred to “the word that we don’t like to say in this committee, and I’m not about to utter here in this particular hearing.” Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold, meanwhile, said, with evident disappointment, “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate.”

As Milbank shows, however, Tuesday’s hearing was hardly the only venue where Republicans — in the Senate as well as the House — have mulled aloud impeaching the president:
Click to expand...

House Republicans yearn to impeach Obama - Salon.com
 
iguanaman said:
You stated there were numerous calls to impeach Bush yet it appears you are unable to find even one.
Click to expand...

Do you believe I have not "found" one, really? If you make the claim, that you know there was no government attempt to impeach him, so there can be a person who is wrong and a person who is right, I will gladly show you one.
 
beerftw said:
the court ruling would depend on whether he used eo to direct existing laws and regs,or tried to create new laws through eo.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he did and I think the Supreme Court would rule in his favor. The Appointments Clause explicitly states that the President can appoint "inferior officers" without the Senate's consent. The Constitution doesn't define what an"inferior officer" is, but I think Supreme Court precedent on this issue would establish that positions on the National Labor Relations Board are either positions of inferior officers or not of officers at all since it is an independent agency and the positions have term limitations.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I assure you that history will "get" President Obama.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

You would think the Republicans would have learned from their attempt to impeach Clinton. Clinton went on trail in the House of Representatives with an approval rating of 56%. When the dust settled and the senate voted against impeachment, his approval rating stood at 63%. The impeachment process actually improved his standing among the American people.

I can't believe the Republicans would be dumb enough to try it again, but..........who knows.
 
Good point about the appointees being reconfirmed by the Senate, now that the nuclear option has been used.
If the SCOTUS agrees the POTUS overstepped his authority.
I wonder why the nuclear option hasn't been challenged in Court.
It seems the Roberts Court likes State's rights/Individual rights as in Citizens United, but stands with either Bush or Obama on EOs.
And then there's the split-decision leaning right on such issues as VRA.
I believe it will go 6-3 with Sotomayor crossing against the POTUS, continuing the new third wing, Roberts--Kennedy--Sotomayor .
CriticalThought said:
Should serve as an interesting precedent but I imagine they will just reconfirm the same appointees if SCOTUS rules that Obama exceeded his Constitutional authority.
Click to expand...
 
nota bene said:
I assure you that history will "get" President Obama.
Click to expand...

oh-i-m-so-scared-o.gif
 
Perotista said:
You would think the Republicans would have learned from their attempt to impeach Clinton. Clinton went on trail in the House of Representatives with an approval rating of 56%. When the dust settled and the senate voted against impeachment, his approval rating stood at 63%. The impeachment process actually improved his standing among the American people.

I can't believe the Republicans would be dumb enough to try it again, but..........who knows.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom