Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

[Constantine]

Aren't over 50 of those on repealing Obamacare, just for starters?
Btw, most ConservaTEAs on Debate Politics use the #200.

And how many times did Republicans repeal and REPLACE ? :lamo

Never. Ironic huh? The mess that is Obamacare is still in place. Although Democrats seem to have a major malfunction when it comes to understanding the difference between talk and action. Although with Obama...I guess that's pretty obvious by now. Refusing to debate something is as stupid as burning a book you do not agree with.

Don't know what a #200 is, don't care, I'm just here for ****s and giggles. I only visit from rare time to time. eace

 

[Linc]

First the GOP sues the President for executive orders on ACA.
Now the GOP is begging the President to issue executive orders on the immigration border problem.

And not a single GOP Senator/Republican could say a positive word today on defending the Kurds without a continuation of
their despicable back-stabbing on Foreign Policy which continues to treasonously undercut everyone's President.

This GOP House/Senate sewage will go down in infamy for what ruined our Great Nation .

 

[Linc]

Never. Ironic huh? The mess that is Obamacare is still in place. Although Democrats seem to have a major malfunction when it comes to understanding the difference between talk and action. Although with Obama...I guess that's pretty obvious by now. Refusing to debate something is as stupid as burning a book you do not agree with.

Don't know what a #200 is, don't care, I'm just here for ****s and giggles. I only visit from rare time to time. eace

GOP lawsuits dividing the Nation aren't funny in the Real World.
"On the lighter side" is a good subforum for laughs, plus the cartoons .

 

[Thrilla]

First the GOP sues the President for executive orders on ACA.
Now the GOP is begging the President to issue executive orders on the immigration border problem.

And not a single GOP Senator/Republican could say a positive word today on defending the Kurds without a continuation of
their despicable back-stabbing on Foreign Policy which continues to treasonously undercut everyone's President.

This GOP House/Senate sewage will go down in infamy for what ruined our Great Nation .

:lamo

 

[upsideguy]

Simple question: Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

Stupid is as stupid does...

This is but another non-serious move by the GOP to mask the fact they have no ideas, just games. Its non-serious as 1) the Congress has no standing and 2) they are suing to enforce the PPACA? How incredibly dumb is that.... I sure the judge is going to be snickering loudly as he throws it out at the Summary Judgement stage.

The one "serious" aspect about this is its a move by Boehner to keep the RINOS of the right (aka - tea baggers) from shooting themselves in the political foot once again by talking about impeachment just before the election.

 

[upsideguy]

Yes, I do support it. The President has been overstepping his boundaries and the US laws he's supposed to follow for years. He's shredded the constitution in some ways, destroyed our system of checks and balances, and is the most imperial leader we've ever had. Even George Washington, who had no idea how to lead a nation, and only had the British Monarchy to really look to for examples, wasn't as imperial as Obama is. I support the lawsuit because something must be done, and someone had to have the balls to say it and stand up, we Americans certainly have proven ourselves too lazy to do it. I don't support impeaching the President, not that he does not deserve it, because I think displacing him at this point will cause even worse damage to the nation. I fully support holding him accountable for his actions and policies and for those of his administration however. Anyone who disapproves of the lawsuit....well....you have no one to blame but Obama and the Democrats....if Obama had done what was right to begin with...we would not be here...and if the Democrats maintained their role of keeping their party member inside his legal boundaries....we wouldn't be here. The nation and world would be different. The fact is...we're here...so deal with it. Actions have consequences.

Me thinks you really have no sense of the history of the Imperial presidency and have been asleep for the past 50 years. Kindly support that claim.

 

[TurtleDude]

Simple question: Do You Approve of the GOP's Lawsuit Against Obama?

What I don't approve of is anonymous polls

 

[Linc]

Which still doesn't answer the question since I consider you far above just a yes/no poster.

What I don't approve of is anonymous polls

While ConservaTEAs bitch and moan about deficits, they refuse to divulge what the attorney coests will be in this latest venture top **** the American taxpayer.
Have the Libertaian/Right infused GOP/conservaTEAts reached $100 million on Ben--gha--zi yet .

 

[TurtleDude]

Which still doesn't answer the question since I consider you far above just a yes/no poster.

While ConservaTEAs bitch and moan about deficits, they refuse to divulge what the attorney coests will be in this latest venture top **** the American taxpayer.
Have the Libertaian/Right infused GOP/conservaTEAts reached $100 million on Ben--gha--zi yet .

I have no clue what you are talking about

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What I don't approve of is anonymous polls

 

[TurtleDude]

Keep it in mind next time you start a poll

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Keep it in mind next time you start a poll

 

[TurtleDude]

you're learning

good

 

[upsideguy]

The Democrats. There's over 350 bills sitting on Harry Reid's desk that he refuses to allow the Senate to debate. Then the President has the audacity to blame the right for not doing anything when his own side is acting like the Berlin Wall in the Senate.

Welcome to politics... that is the way it has worked for over 200 years. If they were serious bills, they would be introduced to the floor of the Senate, but they are not serious bills and everyone that really understands politics knows that. How do you know if a bill is serious? Well, a serious bill coming out of the house would have the support of the "right side" of the left.... the Blue Dogs and more conservative Democrats would support it. If you can not get the votes of Democrats in the house, how in the hell do you expect it to be seriously considered in the Democratic controlled Senate?

Boehner wastes far too much time seeking the approval of the RINO's... those wackdoos on the right fringe. Most things that appeal to them are things that will ever get through the Senate or be signed into law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/

 

[AJiveMan]

He better get a case of pens because they will make him work for a living. Then who is the party of no?

A congressional approval rating of about 8%, probably both.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

No, it does not. If it was it would be a felony or misdemeanor offense; it is neither. A Supreme Court decision doesn't impart some special status simply if it's unanimous. Presidential administrations have had their actions overturned throughout the years...none of those instances were examples of a President acting in an illegal fashion. Same goes for Obama. Nothing in our legal system magically makes it an illegal action simply because it's unanimous.

Fair point about it being unanimous, I only bring that up because that would imply this isn't a partisan issue. That being said though, are you saying that by overstepping your authority as listed in the Constitution, you're not breaking the law? Then... what are you doing?

 

[Objective Voice]

No. I see this as nothing more than an ideological stunt conjured up by one-quarter of Congress (House GOP) that in all likelihood don't have legal standing to even bring about such a case. It's not they who'd suffer economically; it's large employers. Moreover, the only way they'd even feel the economic impact is IF they don't provide insurance to their employees. Otherwise, they have nothing to worry about from the ACA.

 

[chromium]

They would need some kind of proclivity towards making laws on their own before having any kind of evidence of damages. The only ones who should sued for not doing their job in the slightest is congress, especially the GOP

 

[yobarnacle]

They would need some kind of proclivity towards making laws on their own before having any kind of evidence of damages. The only ones who should sued for not doing their job in the slightest is congress, especially the GOP

So you think we should have a one party system that rubber stamps the KING's whims? Will you be honest and call it the communist party?

 

[Zyphlin]

Fair point about it being unanimous, I only bring that up because that would imply this isn't a partisan issue. That being said though, are you saying that by overstepping your authority as listed in the Constitution, you're not breaking the law? Then... what are you doing?

Whether or not it's a partisan issue has nothing to do with whether or not the President has undertaken a "High Crime" or even a "misdemeanor". A SCOTUS decision regarding action taken by a president or congress and deeming it as unconstitutional has never been used as grounds to charge a congressman or a president with a misdemeanor or greater violation of the law. That's simple fact.

You seem to be showing a great care for the Constitution in your outrage towards Obama. Well, let's see what the Constitution sets as the requirement for impeachment:

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Note "Having your action overturned by a unanimous SCOTUS ruling" is not one of those listed things.

If you can show me some kind of legal basis for charging a politician for supporting or enacting a law or action that later goes on to be deemed unconstitutional with a misdemeanor or felony then you have a case. Otherwise, you're just complaining and throwing out baseless hypotheticals.

An action taken that is deemed unconstitutional is just that, unconstitutional. If the politician in question CONTINUED to enforce or do the same action then you'd have potential grounds to suggest that they're actually undertaken illegal activity as there is a clear legal opinion regarding the action in question and establishing it as not allowed. However, there's no instance I can think or quickly find where that initial ruling results in criminal charges.

Now, just because it never has happened doesn't mean you can't suggest it should be attempted. However, it does make such a suggestion rather preposterous and significantly questionable from a legal stand point. Not to mention it presents a MASSIVE slippery slope as it would establish that any politician who supports an unconstitutional piece of legislation or governmental action in a tangible way could potentially be charged with a crime.

 

[grip]

I think it's a dumb political move, because Impeachment's and Lawsuit's are meant to remove or punish an individual for obvious criminal acts, not for objectionable political behavior or minor indiscretions. I never believed that GW did anything that should've been sued over or impeached for either.

 

[yobarnacle]

Obama is being sued by congress. We will have to watch and see how that works out, since it's the very first time. Maybe congress will ask for 10 trillion in damages pain and suffering! Who knows? Might turn out it's only necessary to threaten lawsuit to rein in future petulant arrogant presidents.

 

[chromium]

So you think we should have a one party system that rubber stamps the KING's whims? Will you be honest and call it the communist party?

i think we should not have a senate who does *nothing* then bitches that the president issues exec orders *because* they do nothing. My solution to this, since the senate is completely hopeless at this point, is to get rid of it altogether

 

[yobarnacle]

i think we should not have a senate who does *nothing* then bitches that the president issues exec orders *because* they do nothing. My solution to this, since the senate is completely hopeless at this point, is to get rid of it altogether

Did you intend to say "the house"?

The senate is democrat controlled and doing nothing good, but not complaining about their adored king.

The republicans have the majority in the peoples house and are suing Obama.

 

[chromium]

Did you intend to say "the house"?

The senate is democrat controlled and doing nothing good, but not complaining about their adored king.

The republicans have the majority in the peoples house and are suing Obama.

Need 60 votes to pass anything in the senate, so having majority control is meaningless, not that i accept any political excuses for allowing the country to falter while the senate does nothing. They aren't even worth their salaries, so get rid of the senate like any other dysfunctional public entity. The senate is the real culprit in the house being unable to get anything they pass into law. That's what they, along with the american people, should be suing. Come on, there's reason that the senate has lower approval than bubonic plague, no matter which party has majority. It's broken beyond repair.