Republicans suing Obama

[carlfense]

 

 

If the president says he's going to make things happen even if congress blocks it, doesn't that defeat the entire premise of the checks & balances system?

No.

 

 

Well (and I am rather uninformed about exactly how the government operates) isn't the whole idea of checks and balances to ensure that no branch becomes too powerful?

 

That's the basic idea. That said, nothing (and I mean that literally) that Pres. Obama has said or done can be characterized as defeating the entire premise of checks and balances.

[killer cacti]

Yes, we need to prevent the president from acting like a monarch.

 

To date, Obama has issued 291 executive orders.

George W. Bush issued 147.

 

Which of those numbers seems like overstepping?

Both.

[tschu]

Why?

 

They are subject to judicial review and are entirely within the boundaries of a president's powers. Presidents have always issued executive orders (in much greater numbers than Bush/Obama, historically) and they will continue to do so. It's a bunch of pointless rabble-rousing, i guess that 'oh gosh the government is doing stuff....it could be doing anything!'

[knapplc]

 

Yes, we need to prevent the president from acting like a monarch.

 

To date, Obama has issued 291 executive orders.

George W. Bush issued 147.

 

Which of those numbers seems like overstepping?

Both.

 

How many is OK? Because while Bush's are nearly double Obama's, (I did screw up the numbers), neither guy's are remotely close to Reagan's, and Obama halfway through his second term still hasn't eclipsed one-term president George H. W. Bush's 166.

 

But an even better question is, where was all this outrage seven, eight years ago when GW was rolling out nearly double the executive orders? Where were the lawsuits by Boehner& Co?

 

Let's not even pretend there's "equal outrage" for both situations.

[carlfense]

But an even better question is, where was all this outrage seven, eight years ago when GW was rolling out nearly double the executive orders? Where were the lawsuits by Boehner& Co?

Right. When W. unilaterally extended deadlines during the Medicare Part D rollout where were the shrill cries of tyranny, the breathless reporting, the lawsuits?

 

 

 

Not to suggest that this is all just trumped up bullsh!t designed to hide the fact that the GOP is uninterested in basic governance, of course . . .

[killer cacti]

 

 

Yes, we need to prevent the president from acting like a monarch.

 

To date, Obama has issued 291 executive orders.

George W. Bush issued 147.

 

Which of those numbers seems like overstepping?

Both.

 

How many is OK? Because while Bush's are nearly double Obama's, (I did screw up the numbers), neither guy's are remotely close to Reagan's, and Obama halfway through his second term still hasn't eclipsed one-term president George H. W. Bush's 166.

 

But an even better question is, where was all this outrage seven, eight years ago when GW was rolling out nearly double the executive orders? Where were the lawsuits by Boehner& Co?

 

Let's not even pretend there's "equal outrage" for both situations.

 

I really don't believe that it's ok at all. There's a reason for the checks and balances system. I guess in major emergency situations, the president may have to act if congress is out of session and there's a natural disaster or attack. Maybe 10-15 per term, depending on the situations.

[tschu]

Again, they are subject to judicial review

[EbylHusker]

Well, in an ideal situation, maybe they wouldn't be so great. I think everyone would probably rather see stuff go through Congress...if Congress actually functioned. But it doesn't - not even close. I wouldn't rely on Congress for sh#t, either. I'd spend all f'ing day writing EO after EO since you know Congress won't get anything useful done. Hard to blame any President for bypassing those douchebags.

[tschu]

House voted to sue Obama today, lol

 

Democrats are absolutely loving this, and I'm not being sarcastic. The GOP clownshow continues. *yakety sax*

[carlfense]

Jefferson knew that calling the king a tyrant was an irrevocable step toward confrontation with the greatest military power on earth by a confederation of states that barely had an army worthy of the name. He knew that simply using the word was enough to get his neck stretched if things went badly. Yesterday, the House of Representatives, in one way or another, called a twice-elected president a tyrant. It said, in one way or another, that he had violated his oath of office. If either or both of those is true, then there is only one remedy under the Constitution these people claim to so revere, and it is not a frivolous lawsuit. It is to bring articles of impeachment against the president.

You don't take tyrants to court, goddammit. You risk everything to overthrow them. But the House of Representatives, and the Speaker who presides over it, knows that doing their constitutional duty is a political risk, so they don't have the sand to fulfill it. Jefferson was willing to break with a king he called a tyrant even if it meant facing down the British army. John Boehner is not willing to risk impeaching a president his House called a tyrant if it means a four-point drop in a CNN poll. When cowards try to make history, history is mocked.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Farce_In_The_House

[tschu]

It's the great conundrum the GOP has now. They've spent 6 years telling us how Obama is a dictator and a tyrant, socialist communist muslim, fake birth certificate, born in Kenya, responsible for the downfall of this great nation. Well, if all of that stuff that they say is true, then they have to impeach right? Being a socialist foreign dictator who throws his power around Constitution be damned is surely very worthy of impeachment.

 

But...they can't impeach, because it's ridiculous, and they know it, and we all know it, so the GOP has essentially backed themselves into a corner where all they can do is sue, or whatever, because they have to do *something* ...but in reality their words now carry no weight because of the inaction, and their actions carry no weight because they don't reflect their words. Dem party leaders have to be giddy about this. It's hilarious, really.

[knapplc]

They should have waited until the next presidential cycle. They're so desperate to win the Senate this mid-term they're pushing this now, but it's going to backfire when they can't bring the lawsuit to fruition and they look like a joke.

 

 

 

Premature Litigation.

[Husker_x]

It's the great conundrum the GOP has now. They've spent 6 years telling us how Obama is a dictator and a tyrant, socialist communist muslim, fake birth certificate, born in Kenya, responsible for the downfall of this great nation. Well, if all of that stuff that they say is true, then they have to impeach right? Being a socialist foreign dictator who throws his power around Constitution be damned is surely very worthy of impeachment.

 

But...they can't impeach, because it's ridiculous, and they know it, and we all know it, so the GOP has essentially backed themselves into a corner where all they can do is sue, or whatever, because they have to do *something* ...but in reality their words now carry no weight because of the inaction, and their actions carry no weight because they don't reflect their words. Dem party leaders have to be giddy about this. It's hilarious, really.

 

I'd be happier about the conundrum if the county was less stupider than it is.

 

If you're a Faux News/Talk Radio aficionado, you live in an alternate reality where not only is Obama a Kenyan Marxist Socialist Muslim Tyrant, but you also believe that people are genuinely outraged about this pseudo-fact. The midterm results--whether the gains are marginal or Senate-flipping––will be misrepresented as a country crying out for a return to conservatism, demographics and issue polling be damned.

 

It would be hilarious to watch impeachment proceedings, though.

[tschu]

Yeah basically the GOP changes nothing by gaining the Senate (which they likely will do). Obama will be more than happy to veto any retarded bullsh#t that gets to his desk. Why they're going balls-to-the-wall over these midterms, I have no clue.

[Husker_x]

Yeah basically the GOP changes nothing by gaining the Senate (which they likely will do). Obama will be more than happy to veto any retarded bullsh#t that gets to his desk. Why they're going balls-to-the-wall over these midterms, I have no clue.

 

What I'm wondering is what the line will be if they fail even by one seat. You got some es-plainin to dooo.