Who is the Speaker going to file a lawsuit with?

[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.

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.

Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital.

[zolace]

You're so full of bs
Where are the damages in not issuing a parking ticket......where are the damages that warrant a parking ticket....there have to be damages for a crime to be committed correct......

You believe there are no damages when the rule of law isn't followed....duly noted

[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.

Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital.

if someone believes obamacare is shit (and there's plenty of reason to) then getting more people to see that it's shit and also not like it is pretty smart.

[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.

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.

Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital.

if someone believes obamacare is shit (and there's plenty of reason to) then getting more people to see that it's shit and also not like it is pretty smart.

It takes an exceptionally shitty person to enjoy accumulating political capital at the malicious expense of the people they are supposed to represent. Motives matter, and what I have been asking you for here is a motive outside of the child-like belief that occasionally being lenient and not following the letter of the law (through punitive action) regardless of the situation is always terrible. Or more likely: outside of the malicious desire to gain points no matter who it hurts. The latter is also rather dumb as it could easily backfire.

[Rigon]

If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?

[noviapriani]

You're so full of bs
Where are the damages in not issuing a parking ticket......where are the damages that warrant a parking ticket....there have to be damages for a crime to be committed correct......

You believe there are no damages when the rule of law isn't followed....duly noted

There aren't any, which is why I don't attempt to sue my meter maid for not issuing one. Generally speaking one can express damages in dollar or utility terms for a wide variety of crimes: including illegal parking or driving.

[noviapriani]

If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?

That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability.

[zolace]

Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?

[Rigon]

If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?

That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability.

I agree with 7960, the circumstances are nothing alike. If the law allows the judge discretion in sentencing or to consider mitigating circumstances, then it is OK.

What Obama is doing is more like a judge ignoring a mandatory minimum sentence to impose what he feels is more just. That judge would be reversed on appeal and maybe censured.

[noviapriani]

If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?

That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability.

I agree with 7960, the circumstances are nothing alike. If the law allows the judge discretion in sentencing or to consider mitigating circumstances, then it is OK.

What Obama is doing is more like a judge ignoring a mandatory minimum sentence to impose what he feels is more just. That judge would be reversed on appeal and maybe censured.

So in other words you can't come up with a reason outside of "it's the law" either. I'm not very familiar with the case, but couldn't he just pass an executive order on the issue?

I understand the valid concern of the preservation of legal institutions and rule of law, but 7960s motives have nothing to do with concern for others.

[Rigon]

Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?

an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?
really? really? REALLY??

that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.

[noviapriani]

Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?

Simple question: give that that was just one symptom of how shitty the law is, can you give me one good reason why the dates should have been delayed rather than the law cancelled altogether?

[zolace]

Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?

an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?
really? really? REALLY??

that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.

No it just shows that he doesn't really give a shit about legal institutions, he is just still pissy over the Affordable Care Act in general; which is his primary motive for complaint here: not getting his way.

[Rigon]

Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?

an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?
really? really? REALLY??

that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.

No it just shows that he doesn't really give a shit about legal institutions, he is just still pissy over the Affordable Care Act in general; which is his primary motive for complaint here: not getting his way.

A law that was duly debated and passed should be modified at the whim of the president in direct conflict with text that was contained in the law?
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.

[zolace]

Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?

an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?
really? really? REALLY??

that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.

No it just shows that he doesn't really give a shit about legal institutions, he is just still pissy over the Affordable Care Act in general; which is his primary motive for complaint here: not getting his way.

A law that was duly debated and passed should be modified at the whim of the president in direct conflict with text that was contained in the law?
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.

It is true that presidents have refused to enforce certain laws before, such as Thomas Jefferson with the Alien and Sedition Acts. But all of the cases I can think of were when the president disagreed with the law, usually on Constitutional grounds, and was actively working to change or repeal the law. That's not the case with President Obama.

[Rigon]

Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?

an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?
really? really? REALLY??

that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.

No it just shows that he doesn't really give a shit about legal institutions, he is just still pissy over the Affordable Care Act in general; which is his primary motive for complaint here: not getting his way.

A law that was duly debated and passed should be modified at the whim of the president in direct conflict with text that was contained in the law?
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.

It is true that presidents have refused to enforce certain laws before, such as Thomas Jefferson with the Alien and Sedition Acts. But all of the cases I can think of were when the president disagreed with the law, usually on Constitutional grounds, and was actively working to change or repeal the law. That's not the case with President Obama.

boehner and the house tards tried to repeal the damn law 50 times, boehner himself said he wanted the employer mandate delayed, and now everyone is up in arms crying about how obama is not enforcing a part of a law they hate in the first place?

[zolace]

Obama/democrats forced through a law that everyone knew couldn't work, and now that it's not working Obama is trying to change the law on the fly and democrats with hopes of getting re-elected are running from it and him.

[noviapriani]

Obama/democrats forced through a law that everyone knew couldn't work, and now that it's not working Obama is trying to change the law on the fly and democrats with hopes of getting re-elected are running from it and him.

He's the president of the greatest country in the world. Elected properly by the Constitution/electorate of the United States of America.

I honestly don't mind if He breaks a few local, state, national, and/or international law(s), if he thinks it is in the best interest of the USA.

I say give the Man the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's not a mastermind evil genius plotting to take away our rights and liberties.

[zolace]

the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date

obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.

nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion

the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.

thanks for playing anyways.

[Rigon]

the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date

obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.

nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion

the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.

thanks for playing anyways.

Apparently the new rule of law is "Obama gets the make up the rules and laws as he goes."I wonder how this is going to go over when a republican president does the same thing.