I pray this chickenshit move against Obama drives Democrats to the ballots in droves.
Its nice to pretend we live in a just society, but we don't.
Yea, they intentionally went the chickenshit way to avoid provoking such a reaction. They're hoping this is dogwhistle-y enough that it won't register except for the party faithful.
I pray this chickenshit move against Obama drives Democrats to the ballots in droves.
Its nice to pretend we live in a just society, but we don't.
Yea, they intentionally went the chickenshit way to avoid provoking such a reaction. They're hoping this is dogwhistle-y enough that it won't register except for the party faithful.
They don't have to worry about upsetting democrats. They are already disengaged Janet Jackson idiots doing the GOP's work for them. That a guy like Brownback is going to get reelected even in shitty Kansas is an embarrassment to america.
Republicans can screech impeachment and file a hundred law suits and still get the house and senate come november.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I pray this chickenshit move against Obama drives Democrats to the ballots in droves.
"Well, on the one hand, Republicans are trying to sue our president for doing his job despite a situation which they created. On the other hand, the Democrats have got a president who is being sued. I guess both sides are bad, I'll just stay home and watch TV."
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
I pray this chickenshit move against Obama drives Democrats to the ballots in droves.
Its nice to pretend we live in a just society, but we don't.
Liberals think the Executive branch is a King, therefore there are only elections every four years, and then tend to play video-games during midterm elections. They're so silly.
EDIT - They probably also think he's should have fired and arrested Congress by now. Because he can do that apparently.
EDIT EDIT - I don't understand how any American who took a government or civics class in public school not know how this works.
Have we figured out where the House's suit is filed/heard? Like, does this kind of thing go directly to SCOTUS since it's one branch vs another branch, or... a District Court or what?
If the President is a "public minister" then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. But I don't think he counts as one, so it would have to be the DC Circuit. But since Congress almost certainly has no standing, it should be dismissed at that level.
If the President is a "public minister" then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. But I don't think he counts as one, so it would have to be the DC Circuit. But since Congress almost certainly has no standing, it should be dismissed at that level.
That's kind of what I figured...
I wonder who decides/how it's decided if POTUS is a "public minister".
I'm kinda curious what the hell the vote was for from a technical stand point. They didn't pass a law or anything.
grand·stand
ˈgran(d)ˌstand/Submit
verb derogatory
gerund or present participle: grandstanding
seek to attract applause or favorable attention from spectators or the media.
"they accused him of political grandstanding"
If the President is a "public minister" then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. But I don't think he counts as one, so it would have to be the DC Circuit. But since Congress almost certainly has no standing, it should be dismissed at that level.
You mean the DC Circuit Court with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat that the Republicans have refused to seat properly because Obama is packing the court?
The one that just decided to take the ACA law at face value instead of intent?
That DC Circuit Court? Yeah I'm sure they will definitely hear this case fairly.
If the President is a "public minister" then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. But I don't think he counts as one, so it would have to be the DC Circuit. But since Congress almost certainly has no standing, it should be dismissed at that level.
You mean the DC Circuit Court with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat that the Republicans have refused to seat properly because Obama is packing the court?
The one that just decided to take the ACA law at face value instead of intent?
That DC Circuit Court? Yeah I'm sure they will definitely hear this case fairly.
If the President is a "public minister" then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. But I don't think he counts as one, so it would have to be the DC Circuit. But since Congress almost certainly has no standing, it should be dismissed at that level.
You mean the DC Circuit Court with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat that the Republicans have refused to seat properly because Obama is packing the court?
The one that just decided to take the ACA law at face value instead of intent?
That DC Circuit Court? Yeah I'm sure they will definitely hear this case fairly.
The DC Circuit court has more than three judges.
Yea, overall the DC Circuit is 7-4 towards the D side.
Honestly this could be disposed of for a lot of reasons, including a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If it gets to SCOTUS, which it will not, the political question doctrine probably trumps.
Even if that didn't do it, the executive branch has a metric shit ton of discretionary authority with regard to the execution of laws and there's a statute authorizing delayed implementation of taxation mechanisms, meaning that under the old executive-power trichotomy Obama is at the peak "most powerful, most discretion" level.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If the President is a "public minister" then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. But I don't think he counts as one, so it would have to be the DC Circuit. But since Congress almost certainly has no standing, it should be dismissed at that level.
You mean the DC Circuit Court with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat that the Republicans have refused to seat properly because Obama is packing the court?
The one that just decided to take the ACA law at face value instead of intent?
That DC Circuit Court? Yeah I'm sure they will definitely hear this case fairly.
That was a panel of the circuit court, and if you recall, Reid killed the filibuster system for judicial appointments, and so now the DC Circuit court is actually full.
If the President is a "public minister" then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. But I don't think he counts as one, so it would have to be the DC Circuit. But since Congress almost certainly has no standing, it should be dismissed at that level.
You mean the DC Circuit Court with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat that the Republicans have refused to seat properly because Obama is packing the court?
The one that just decided to take the ACA law at face value instead of intent?
That DC Circuit Court? Yeah I'm sure they will definitely hear this case fairly.
That was a panel of the circuit court, and if you recall, Reid killed the filibuster system for judicial appointments, and so now the DC Circuit court is actually full.
If Boehner wants to stop Democrats from raising money and rallying the base in this upcoming election because of the threat of impeachment, he pretty much needs to stop pussyfooting around it and say impeachment is off the table now and in the future as far as he's concerned.
His recent comments are all present-tense and vague, so of course people are going to take the looming threat of impeachment seriously, particularly when 57% of the Republican base wants to impeach Obama. He needs to come right out and say it won't happen or people will (rightly) assume that it's coming.
Fifty-seven percent of Republicans in a recent poll support impeachment of the president of the United States. So when Republicans say, “No, we don’t really mean it,” they mean it. These same Republicans before the shutdown said, “No, we’re not going to shut down the government.” And they couldn’t help themselves. Now, they say, “We’re not actually going to impeach the president.” They won’t be able to help themselves. The reason that Steve Scalise on Sunday refused to rule out impeachment was a) he knows that 57 percent of his base wants impeachment, and b) he knows that the majority of his caucus in a leadership election wants to impeach the president. So they are going to be fueled by this lawsuit-impeachment fervor, and we’re going to continue to talk about issues that matter to voters across the country.
Democrats need to keep a firm hold of the Senate in this upcoming election or else impeachment will happen, and depending on the Republican advantage...
Let's just not let it get that far.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited July 2014
Depending on the Republican advantage we get President Joe Biden. They're not going to be willing or able to do two bullshit impeachments to get Boehner in the oval.
Successfully impeaching Obama emboldens Republicans to pull more bullshit tactics to get their way, and distracts Obama from doing his job. I want him getting shit done, not getting caught up in Republican whargarbl.
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.
If they impeach him, they're not winning another election until the 20s.
Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?
Yeah exactly, people act like the clinton impeachment lead to some democratic surge, and it did for Clinton's personal numbers, but it didn't mean diddly for actual democratic congressional make ups that I can recall. Even in 98 the GOP still held control, they just lost more seats than they were expected to lose.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Oh Wow.
What a coincidence.
Its nice to pretend we live in a just society, but we don't.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yea, they intentionally went the chickenshit way to avoid provoking such a reaction. They're hoping this is dogwhistle-y enough that it won't register except for the party faithful.
The man is so very good at speeches.
They don't have to worry about upsetting democrats. They are already disengaged Janet Jackson idiots doing the GOP's work for them. That a guy like Brownback is going to get reelected even in shitty Kansas is an embarrassment to america.
Republicans can screech impeachment and file a hundred law suits and still get the house and senate come november.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
While Preacher does get overly pessimistic, he's great to have around because you know that it wont get that bad.
Or at least, that's what I tell myself to get to sleep each night.
Pretty much all of it with regards to the Senate. House is unlikely yes. By the way, Brownback is behind.
"Well, on the one hand, Republicans are trying to sue our president for doing his job despite a situation which they created. On the other hand, the Democrats have got a president who is being sued. I guess both sides are bad, I'll just stay home and watch TV."
Any and all polling that takes place outside of the Faux News ecosystem?
Liberals think the Executive branch is a King, therefore there are only elections every four years, and then tend to play video-games during midterm elections. They're so silly.
EDIT - They probably also think he's should have fired and arrested Congress by now. Because he can do that apparently.
EDIT EDIT - I don't understand how any American who took a government or civics class in public school not know how this works.
What's your point?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
That's kind of what I figured...
I wonder who decides/how it's decided if POTUS is a "public minister".
Thanks Phobos.
I too am curious as to whether it was a required procedural thing or just election-season ad-material.
The GOP have convinced themselves that if they vote that they have standing, then it becomes true. ("Myth 2")
How conveeeeeenient for them.
You mean the DC Circuit Court with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat that the Republicans have refused to seat properly because Obama is packing the court?
The one that just decided to take the ACA law at face value instead of intent?
That DC Circuit Court? Yeah I'm sure they will definitely hear this case fairly.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
The DC Circuit court has more than three judges.
That...sounds like a law. So shouldn't the Senate vote on it and the President sign it for it to matter?
Maybe the president should sue the House for failure to pass laws the right way.
Yea, overall the DC Circuit is 7-4 towards the D side.
You get a lawsuit, you get a lawsuit, EVERYBODY GETS A LAWSUIT!
Even if that didn't do it, the executive branch has a metric shit ton of discretionary authority with regard to the execution of laws and there's a statute authorizing delayed implementation of taxation mechanisms, meaning that under the old executive-power trichotomy Obama is at the peak "most powerful, most discretion" level.
You rang?
That was a panel of the circuit court, and if you recall, Reid killed the filibuster system for judicial appointments, and so now the DC Circuit court is actually full.
Oh, I didn't know they had finally filled it.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
That's not accurate.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast-toss-up-or-tilt-gop/
The senate is likely to be extremely close, guys. I know you don't like hearing that but it's true.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
His recent comments are all present-tense and vague, so of course people are going to take the looming threat of impeachment seriously, particularly when 57% of the Republican base wants to impeach Obama. He needs to come right out and say it won't happen or people will (rightly) assume that it's coming.
Democrats need to keep a firm hold of the Senate in this upcoming election or else impeachment will happen, and depending on the Republican advantage...
Let's just not let it get that far.
Remind me, who was the president after Bill Clinton was impeached?
Remind me, who has actually built a case for Obama's impeachment to the national level of Clinton's?
Yeah exactly, people act like the clinton impeachment lead to some democratic surge, and it did for Clinton's personal numbers, but it didn't mean diddly for actual democratic congressional make ups that I can recall. Even in 98 the GOP still held control, they just lost more seats than they were expected to lose.
pleasepaypreacher.net