Suing Obama

Post Reply New Topic

So out of all the pressing matters in the US and in the world, apparently the most important thing for the House of Representatives to take care of before their long August break is to give the go ahead for suing the president. Not immigration or the border crisis, not the economy, not Russia or Syria, not Gaza/Israel, not poverty, not problems with the ACA, not looking for a permanent solution to the VA problems, not wage disparity, gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination.

So, they've given up on that birth certificate thing, then?

They need to maintain the outrage. They convinced angry rural voters that Obama is a criminal but know that they can't Impeach him because their rhetoric is nonsense. A suit keeps the rhetoric flying without achieving anything.

Helps keep the people divided though...or distracted from real issues.

Decades ago, Congressional Democrats had tried to sue Nixon over his illegal bombings in South East Asia - and the courts said they weren't going to cross the boundaries of the two other branches of government, and so rejected the case. Unless the right wing element of the Supreme Court holds ideology over rule of law, I expect the same ruling in this case.

Seems to me that all recent presidents (at least since I've been following politics) have implemented policies in some situations via executive actions rather than laws passed by congress, at least in terms of directing the federal government what to do. I understand that the current political opposition does not like it, but nor too did the opposition in place when past presidents have done these things. I guess what I'm getting at, is, is there anything Obama has done via executive action that is somehow, fundamentally, less legal / more illegal that what every other president has done?

For Obama, probably less so. But you wouldn't know that listening to the right's lunatic fringe.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/30/house-approves-lawsuit-against-obama-over-alleged-abuse-executive-power/
Since the OP was remiss in stating what this suit is over, I went and found the story. Of course, in good keeping with conservative tradition, I made sure the source was Fox. This suit isn't going anywhere so no need to sweat it.

Oh, you mean when Nixon (R) tried to end the war that Johnson (D) got this country into but wouldn't permit us to win out of fear of angering the hippies and his comrades in the Kremlin?

Obama also knows about these but the only response received is from the oval office answering machine because he is always "busy" dining in $20,000 per plate fundraiser dinners with his rich friends.

Last edited by AntDog on 31 Jul 2014, 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Obama's lawlessness should be a concern to everyone, the presidency usurping more and more power and it will never give it back regardless of who is office. Don't let our country become a boiled frog. Obama is a war criminal and murderer, he's done more than enough to impeached and removed from office a hundred times over but partisan politics does not uphold the law and it wouldn't matter if it did since person next in line as alway just as bad if not worse. I believe the same about Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ etc. One long line of ****.

That is one of the worst things about our democracy is these fixed terms, it gives these politicians the power to act with impunity, the damage is already done before they be removed and punished which more times than not they never do.

The point here has nothing to do with Nixon's strategy; rather it's about how one branch of the government can not overstep into the realms of the other two branches. The Democrats discovered that about trying to sue Nixon, and hopefully the Republicans will learn the same about trying to sue Obama.

Uh huh. Just a coincidence that you tossed the Nixon / Vietnam thing in there, eh?
Like I said, that lawsuit ain't going nowhere. Typical capitol hill posturing and sabre rattling.

isn't it the other branches job to keep to the others in check. so if one over steps shouldn't the other two step into the realms of the other branch . o.O

from what I've read Obama appointed a person despite the law saying he has to get congress's approval. By appointing the person without them he broke the law, so shouldn't something be done?

Just more political posturing to throw onto the campaign ads next time around.

Since the suit is essentially over nothing, I didn't bother with a source. When the actual suit is over delaying a single portion of a bill (not eliminating it), there is absolutely ZERO chance that it will go anywhere, considering that nearly every president since Washington has issued executive orders altering legislation implementation. There is no legal precedent and no portion of the federal legal code to support it. It will be just as effective as if they had instead spent the time voting to repeal the ACA for the fifty billionth time and every one of them knows it.

The amusing thing to me, though, is that it seems to be firing up the Democrat voters a whole lot more than the Republican ones. You would think that the Repubs would go out of their way to avoid angering the Dem voters so that their voter turn-out stays lower. That is usually why they do so much better in mid-term elections. Giving the Democrats free anger inducing PR does not seem like the wisest campaign strategy.