• 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!

Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power[W:74:88]

Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

CalGun said:
Actually mrobama it isn't a recess because of one senator. Those are the rules, and your dictator got b slapped for violating them. God Bless those senators who chose to enter the hall and grab the gavel once each three days and deny the king his court.
Click to expand...
...and don't forget to God bless Harry Reid for inventing the Pro Forma session of the senate to block Bush Jr's recess appointments...
God bless them everyone!
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
they really were not in session
Click to expand...
Even Obama's appointees disagree with you. This was a unanimous decision. When the Congress is or isn't in session, isn't subject to the opinion of the POTUS.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power



In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.
Click to expand...



Mornin' Beaudreaux. :2wave: This is what the Hammer had to say yesterday. :smash:


Krauthammer: If Obama Were a Republican, He'd Be Impeached By Now.....


Yesterday the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against President Obama's NLRB appointment power grab. Last night Charles Krathammer called Obama's disregard for separation of power, Congress and the constitution "arrogant," and suggested if he was a Republican, he'd be impeached by now.

"He doesn't care about the constitution," Krauthammer said. "He got really smacked down."

Krauthammer stressed that the NLRB decision by SCOTUS is important because it bleeds into other issues and backs up Speaker Boehner's lawsuit against the President for repeated government overreach.....snip~

Krauthammer: If Obama Were a Republican, He'd Be Impeached By Now - Katie Pavlich
 
Amadeus said:
Is the filibuster legal? It's not in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's legal, and in a way, it IS in the Constitution... Article One, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Yes, it's legal, and in a way, it IS in the Constitution... Article One, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Click to expand...

You sunk my battleship.

I still think the filibuster stinks.
 
MMC said:
Mornin' Beaudreaux. :2wave: This is what the Hammer had to say yesterday. :smash:


Krauthammer: If Obama Were a Republican, He'd Be Impeached By Now.....


Yesterday the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against President Obama's NLRB appointment power grab. Last night Charles Krathammer called Obama's disregard for separation of power, Congress and the constitution "arrogant," and suggested if he was a Republican, he'd be impeached by now.

"He doesn't care about the constitution," Krauthammer said. "He got really smacked down."

Krauthammer stressed that the NLRB decision by SCOTUS is important because it bleeds into other issues and backs up Speaker Boehner's lawsuit against the President for repeated government overreach.....snip~

Krauthammer: If Obama Were a Republican, He'd Be Impeached By Now - Katie Pavlich
Click to expand...

The green part above, is what I've been saying since this ruling came down.
 
Amadeus said:
You sunk my battleship.

I still think the filibuster stinks.
Click to expand...

I don't like it that much either, however, I can support it for the sole reason that it demands the voice of the minority to be heard and recognized by the majority regardless of which party is in the majority. In other words, without it, the majority would walk right over the minority and have no check to their power at all.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I don't like it that much either, however, I can support it for the sole reason that it demands the voice of the minority to be heard and recognized by the majority regardless of which party is in the majority. In other words, without it, the majority would walk right over the minority and have no check to their power at all.
Click to expand...

Understood. To me, the filibuster should be a tool of last resort, not business as usual. Not really my area of politics, though. I'm just a surface-skimmer.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The green part above, is what I've been saying since this ruling came down.
Click to expand...

Well with Boehner's lawsuit.....which all know would take years. They will only have 3 options left. Censure.....Impeach.....Do Nothing!

Others are seeing how he has placed himself over the Constitution and the Country.
 
MMC said:
Well with Boehner's lawsuit.....which all know would take years. They will only have 3 options left. Censure.....Impeach.....Do Nothing!

Others are seeing how he has placed himself over the Constitution and the Country.
Click to expand...

That lawsuit will be fast-tracked, just like Bush v. Gore was fast-tracked. At least I think it will, for the very reasons you mentioned; that the only other options are Censure (which will probably occur either way), Impeachment (which I hope doesn't have to happen and the court will try to move quickly to prevent that) and Doing Nothing (which obviously is off the table at this point).
 
Beaudreaux said:
That lawsuit will be fast-tracked, just like Bush v. Gore was fast-tracked. At least I think it will, for the very reasons you mentioned; that the only other options are Censure (which will probably occur either way), Impeachment (which I hope doesn't have to happen and the court will try to move quickly to prevent that) and Doing Nothing (which obviously is off the table at this point).
Click to expand...



He is winging it with FP......and none can trust him. Nor what he says. Plus with what he was telling people in Minnesota Friday. He is completely out of touch.

Other leaders are mocking him openly. Allies and enemies. Its not just Republicans anymore. Even Democrats.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...ma-gop-keeps-attacking-me-phony-scandals.html
 
MMC said:
He is winging it with FP......and none can trust him. Nor what he says. Plus with what he was telling people in Minnesota Friday. He is completely out of touch.

Other leaders are mocking him openly. Allies and enemies. Its not just Republicans anymore. Even Democrats.





http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...ma-gop-keeps-attacking-me-phony-scandals.html
Click to expand...

After GWB's foreign policy fiasco in the ME he suffered global credibility troubles too! It's what happens when presidents lie and people die!!


George Bush's credibility: A matter of trust | The Economist
 
MMC said:
He is winging it with FP......and none can trust him. Nor what he says. Plus with what he was telling people in Minnesota Friday. He is completely out of touch.

Other leaders are mocking him openly. Allies and enemies. Its not just Republicans anymore. Even Democrats.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...ma-gop-keeps-attacking-me-phony-scandals.html
Click to expand...

The problem can be boiled down to two simple factors; he was and still is dangerously unqualified to be any type of CEO, much less the CEO of an entire country that affects the whole world, and, he has no problem with breaking any law or telling any lie to get his ideological agenda forward without any regard to facts, impact on the country or the consequences of his breaking of laws, or his lies, or his ideology, either intended or unintended.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The problem can be boiled down to two simple factors; he was and still is dangerously unqualified to be any type of CEO, much less the CEO of an entire country that affects the whole world, and, he has no problem with breaking any law or telling any lie to get his ideological agenda forward without any regard to facts, impact on the country or the consequences of his breaking of laws, or his lies, or his ideology, either intended or unintended.
Click to expand...

Well the Democrats were always talking about that overseas perception. Its time they to own up to their words. Moreover now they know.....they are only getting a portion of what BO is raising for money. The rest is all going to his Prog Group. Which he wants something like Bilbo's Global Initiative. As he knows no others will be looking to get much advice from him once he is sent out to pasture.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The problem can be boiled down to two simple factors; he was and still is dangerously unqualified to be any type of CEO, much less the CEO of an entire country that affects the whole world, and, he has no problem with breaking any law or telling any lie to get his ideological agenda forward without any regard to facts, impact on the country or the consequences of his breaking of laws, or his lies, or his ideology, either intended or unintended.
Click to expand...

Agreed, makes a good description of GWB, too!
 
Jack Hays said:
It is laughable to see the left try to drag GWB into a discussion of BHO's lawlessness.:lamo
Click to expand...

They hate the idea that Bush was right in so many things.
 
joG said:
They hate the idea that Bush was right in so many things.
Click to expand...

I hate that Bush was wrong about sooooooo much. Not happy with Obama's record by now either though. Did you miss the first word in my post. I agreed with Beau's description of Obama, because unlike you partisans, I'm fair and balanced in my criticism of presidents.
 
Montecresto said:
I hate that Bush was wrong about sooooooo much. Not happy with Obama's record by now either though. Did you miss the first word in my post. I agreed with Beau's description of Obama, because unlike you partisans, I'm fair and balanced in my criticism of presidents.
Click to expand...

Partisan?
 
Montecresto said:
I hate that Bush was wrong about sooooooo much. Not happy with Obama's record by now either though. Did you miss the first word in my post. I agreed with Beau's description of Obama, because unlike you partisans, I'm fair and balanced in my criticism of presidents.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that GWB was so much better than BHO.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
Sorry no...
Senate approval of nominations is part of checks and balances. Keeping government offices from functioning by blocking an up or down vote is obstructionism.
Neither unilateral appointments, nor the practice of minority parties blocking nomination votes were in the intentions of the framers.
Now they are both gone.
Click to expand...

When you say Senate approval is part of checks and balances that is correct. But you are essentially saying that it is only checks and balances when they approve the president's nominations, when they don't or block them (all part of the checks and balance just as much as approval is) then you call it obstructionism.

That's incorrect. All three are well within the rules. The Constitution makes no effort or requirement for any of those outcomes, it just sets the table. Any of the outcomes are equally Constitutional.
 
joG said:
Partisan?
Click to expand...

Yes, partisan. Have you ever criticised a republican? Note my posts, I'm equally critical of all presidents, whereas partisans such as yourself are incapable of that.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, partisan. Have you ever criticised a republican? Note my posts, I'm equally critical of all presidents, whereas partisans such as yourself are incapable of that.
Click to expand...

Of course! Reagan set a bad example. He ate jellybeans!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom