Who is the Speaker going to file a lawsuit with?

[zolace]

Side A might be silly buggers but all sides are buggers period.Ergo going for a recess appointment is only slightly less buggerish than extending do nothing sessions into pro forma sessions to block recess appointments.

It wasn't responsive to what was being discussed. I'm sure it was responsive to whatever the voices in your head were discussing.

[sana8410]

Side A might be silly buggers but all sides are buggers period.Ergo going for a recess appointment is only slightly less buggerish than extending do nothing sessions into pro forma sessions to block recess appointments.

It wasn't responsive to what was being discussed. I'm sure it was responsive to whatever the voices in your head were discussing.

It was plenty responsive. In fact it gave your less than helpful post some context. Feel free to comment.

[Rigon]

Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.

I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Educate me. Which law(s) are you talking about?

I'll pick one (there are many examples)

In 2010 the dream act failed, so Obama used executive orders to stop deportations and of illegal immigrants.

So even though the law (he supported) failed, he just wrote it in and told law enforcement and the justice dept how to act.
Someone or other passed a law about recess appointments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d19_story.html

...and the other side played the technicalities card by holding fake sessions to block recess appointments.

But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.

Another Obama SCOTUS smack down. He's the President, not the King. When was the last?Here:
United States v. Jones
Sackett v. EPA
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC
Gabelli v. SEC
Arkansas Fish & Games v. United States
PPK Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Horne v. USDA
Sekhar v. United States
Burrage v. United States
Bond v. United States
United States v. Wurie/Riley v. California
NLRB v. Noel Canning

[sana8410]

Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.

I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Educate me. Which law(s) are you talking about?

I'll pick one (there are many examples)

In 2010 the dream act failed, so Obama used executive orders to stop deportations and of illegal immigrants.

So even though the law (he supported) failed, he just wrote it in and told law enforcement and the justice dept how to act.
Someone or other passed a law about recess appointments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d19_story.html

...and the other side played the technicalities card by holding fake sessions to block recess appointments.

But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.

Another Obama SCOTUS smack down. He's the President, not the King. When was the last?Here:
United States v. Jones
Sackett v. EPA
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC
Gabelli v. SEC
Arkansas Fish & Games v. United States
PPK Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Horne v. USDA
Sekhar v. United States
Burrage v. United States
Bond v. United States
United States v. Wurie/Riley v. California
NLRB v. Noel Canning

Ok let's look at these.

1. The FBI can't track a car by installing GPS on it--clearly a desire of the current admin

2. One act allows for another to be charged, recommends the 1970s Clean Water act be clarified--everyone knows this is a key piece of Obama legislation

3. Government can't pick religious employees, ruling leaves open suing--clear blow to the presidents agenda of appointing religious figures

4. Statue of limitations is tied to the date you did the crime, not when it was discovered--drats, Obama is foiled again

5. Let's sue the federal government for its flood control efforts--sure showed that uppity negro a thing or two

Your first five examples are shit. They don't even pertain to the current administration. In fact, they show the normal court deliberations that would happen under any administration. Asserting these belong on a list with recess appointments or filing suit is silly and desperate--trumped up.

Try using your own words when making your menopausal response.

[Rigon]

I asked a question. I answered it. It's unfortunate you are such a weenie about bad news.

[sana8410]

I asked a question. I answered it. It's unfortunate you are such a weenie about bad news.

You started it!

Glad you're still posting though.

I still don't think we're talking about the same thing. Buttboy called this one more in a line of something similar--those examples you gave are not similar to the one in the OP, because that ruling names the Administration. You can call everything in this thread anti Obama and that's fine, but saying everything in the thread is a smackdown of commensurate proportions is demonstrably incorrect.

[Rigon]

I asked a question. I answered it. It's unfortunate you are such a weenie about bad news.

You started it!

Glad you're still posting though.

I still don't think we're talking about the same thing. Buttboy called this one more in a line of something similar--those examples you gave are not similar to the one in the OP, because that ruling names the Administration. You can call everything in this thread anti Obama and that's fine, but saying everything in the thread is a smackdown of commensurate proportions is demonstrably incorrect.

That is the list I could find. I don't necessarily agree with any or all or none of the decisions. They are a list of smackdowns, no more, no less. They are all similar in that the admin got smacked down, or at least departments of the admin...which are run by...the admin. As far as still posting, I have to be honest and say there is more intelligence in the main than here. I don't plan on posting here much.

[LostDutchman]

Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.

I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Absolutely correct and H.Obama is knee-deep in bullshit!

[ALToids]

Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.

I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Absolutely correct and H.Obama is knee-deep in bullshit!

Well you must admit he is unifying the country. Polls say he's pretty much failing in every category at close to 60%!  That means R, D and I are holding hands in disgust 

[LostDutchman]

Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.

I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Absolutely correct and H.Obama is knee-deep in bullshit!

Well you must admit he is unifying the country. Polls say he's pretty much failing in every category at close to 60%!  That means R, D and I are holding hands in disgust 

True enough!

[Spendulus]

The Nobel Peace Prize committee?

I would certainly agree with that one.  It would be interesting to hear the defense arguments and production of evidence.  Since there was none.

[zolace]

Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.

I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit.

Educate me. Which law(s) are you talking about?

I'll pick one (there are many examples)

In 2010 the dream act failed, so Obama used executive orders to stop deportations and of illegal immigrants.

So even though the law (he supported) failed, he just wrote it in and told law enforcement and the justice dept how to act.
Someone or other passed a law about recess appointments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d19_story.html

...and the other side played the technicalities card by holding fake sessions to block recess appointments.

But technicalities count, so thank god we can say republicans have achieved something in congress.

Another Obama SCOTUS smack down. He's the President, not the King. When was the last?Here:
United States v. Jones
Sackett v. EPA
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC
Gabelli v. SEC
Arkansas Fish & Games v. United States
PPK Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Horne v. USDA
Sekhar v. United States
Burrage v. United States
Bond v. United States
United States v. Wurie/Riley v. California
NLRB v. Noel Canning

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-times-obama-/

"A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under...the Bush administration."

[Rigon]

Politifact is being misleading? Shocking. Of course, the simple truth is the Obama admin doesn't defend laws they feel are unconstitutional.

Now if your point is that Obama is as bad as Bush? Wow...high bar there.

[noviapriani]

he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.

[umair127]

he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.

Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?

[noviapriani]

he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.

Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?

I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?

[zolace]

he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.

That's not the case at all...... anyone who voted for the bill, blindly cast partisan votes, because no one understood the bill because they didn't fukking read it.....it is a very simple concept, which isn't followed...our gov't is becoming more fraudulent every day.....rule of law is only a myth today.

[Rigon]

he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.

Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?

I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?

The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?

[noviapriani]

he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.

Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?

I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?

The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?

You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in.

[Rigon]

he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.

Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions?

So in your eyes the president is above the law?

I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car?

The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines?

You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in.

What's telling is that Obama, a lawyer, fought for and passed a law and then thought nothing of breaking it, and you're ok with it. You don't need damages, just mandamus or an injunction.