• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On June - 26 - 2014

GOP - Tantrum

To understand the Republican way of thinking when it comes to Democratic Presidents exercising power, it would be helpful to reacquaint oneself with pronouncements from five year olds:

5 YEAR OLD: “You’re a doo-doo head!”

When translated into Republican it becomes:

JOHN BOEHNER: “The White House won’t lift a finger to provide the truth to the American people. Not only does the president regularly ignore the law, he brags about it. You know, the Constitution makes it clear that a president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws, and in my view the president has not faithfully executed the laws.”

============================

5 YEAR OLD: (When asked why he doesn’t like a vegetable) “I don’t like ’em! Just because!”

Translated into Republican:

JOHN BOEHNER: (When asked what specific executive actions of Pres. Obama’s he’s planning to challenge in court) “When I make that decision, I’ll let you know.”

The latest tactic by Republicans in The House to avoid doing anything to help the nation while Obama is President, is to sue him for not being a Republican (and for not following their lead in not leading). That is, since it is Republican policy to do nothing and since Obama is doing something which contradicts their policy, they are seeking to sue him. I believe the charge is “Driving Policy While Democrat…and Black”.

Having left the Repeal Obamacare leftovers out of the fridge for too long and its getting stale, Republicans seeking to feed their base contrived attacks on Obama that have no chance to succeed, have cooked up a new serving of faux outrage over Obama’s Executive Orders. And the graph below demonstrates how justified they are in being incensed at Obama using his Presidential power far above and beyond previous Presidents:

Whoops! Well…maybe Obama has used Executive Orders less than all previous Presidents but it’s more of an abuse because…well…damn…it’s the most a black President has ever used in the history of the US? Yeah, that works!

There is a principle about lawsuits, only a party that has been harmed can sue the party it claims has harmed them. Boehner and The House would be hard pressed to pass that initial threshold. By issuing Executive Orders that benefit Americans and don’t injure the individual or collective members of Congress, it seems difficult to imagine a judge granting The House standing to sue Pres. Obama in the first place. Add to that, the illogic of complaining about a threat to the balance of powers, that the Executive Branch is infringing on the Legislative Branch…while urging the Judicial Branch to infringe on the Executive Branch. Kind of like complaining that a driver is wrong for veering into your lane and addressing it by veering into their lane. And would a court really dare to upset the balance of powers in pursuit of trying to protect the balance of powers? Isn’t that a bit counterproductive and couldn’t that lead to a breakdown of our government as each branch retaliates by claiming authority over the other? A Constitutional Crisis over a policy used for many decades by Republican and Democratic Presidents and used less in this Presidency than ever before? Hard to imagine that this political ploy has any more chance of being accepted by a court than the Repeal Obamacare votes had a chance of prevailing.

So Republicans once again create a phony scandal/outrage that gives them something to do without doing something for America. And even Fox and their host Neil Cavuto are fed up with Republicans declaring that the only function of The House is to “fiddle while Rome is burning”, concocting one political attack after another on the Democratic Presidency and accomplishing absolutely nothing else:

If Democrats make this Republican trashing of The House of Representatives and our democracy a central issue in this years’ elections, backing it also with an agenda of what they would instead accomplish if they won control of The House, they might have a powerful argument. Nationalizing the 2014 elections by saying, “Do you want two more years of Repeal Obamacare votes and more suing and even impeaching of the President…or a functioning House passing bills on jobs, energy, immigration, etc. and moving America forward?”

It is a profound choice this year and framing the local and state elections in such nationalized and realistic terms makes a lot of sense.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

94 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. EXFANOFARIANA says:

    I have bad news for these CONs….

    When John Boehner announced his ludicrous lawsuit, President Obama gave the perfect response:

    But the President isn’t standing alone on this.

    Our grassroots supporters responded to Boehner in equally amazing fashion. In just over a week, you’ve stepped up with an incredible $2,833,474 and counting!

    That’s right — now we’re in range of hitting THREE MILLION DOLLARS since Boehner announced that he’s suing President Obama.

    If we can get there today that would be a MAJOR endorsement of President Obama’s action agenda (and an EMBARRASSING setback for Boehner’s big lawsuit).
    https://secure.actblue.com/contribute

  2. cyndibru says:

    Murph, you wrote: As to your point. No- they do not have standing. No court has ever accepted an action such as the one being proposed by Boehner.

    As to the number persons pushes impeachment. The silent cannot be counted among those opposed to it- they are just on the sidelines but rest assured they would have no choice if the measures get to the floor.

    The party you are defending, the one I belonged to and worked for, no longer exists.

    I don’t see it as “defending” anything, simply discussing possibilities and challenging what you present as a certainty.

    I think a case could be made for a suit. Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done. The claim of “no standing” is made in response to just about every lawsuit ever filed. It will be argued and one side will prevail. I don’t presume to know which side would win that argument.

    As for the rest, I would assert the measures would never get to the floor. And even if they did, the “silent” of course still have a choice. You seem to think that the moderate GOP should spend their time addressing and admonishing the fringe, “spanking” them so to speak. The more attention you pay them, the more credence they claim. Your fear gives them far more attention than they deserve.

  3. cyndibru says:

    Cyndi, why do the Republican Congresspersons not do any work? They block any Bills and don’t present any that have any chance of passing. They sure are getting paid but do nothing! Why? Could it be that they are afraid of the tea party types?

    Nirek, I could ask the same question. Why do the Dems keep proposing bills they know have no chance of passing the GOP house? Why does Harry Reid refuse to allow amendments or votes on amendments? If they have objections to bills the GOP House sends to the Senate, why doesn’t Reid take them out of his desk drawer and work on them to affect a compromise?

    The answer, IMO, is that NEITHER party wants to allow the other to claim any sort of legislative victory, except in the rare circumstances where they consider it imperative that something gets done. When they BOTH do, they’ve shown they can do it……with the budget compromise worked out by Murray and Ryan and by the veterans bill worked out by Sanders and McCain.

  4. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    This is an effort by Boehner to sidestep the impeachment problem for him (since he does seem to recall how bad this was for the House GOP with Clinton). But……

    47 members of the House have signed onto a request that the Speaker accept articles of impeachment from the House floor and 7 members of the Senate have said there are grounds for a trial.

    Your thinking is that of a moderate Republican, the kind I used to be, but the GOP is now driven from above by very wealthy people who want Obama totally neutralized and a message sent to all progressive, from alongside by the powerful media and organizational voices and lobbies that are funded (like many members of Congress) by those same folks and whose popular base is the same that from below is screaming for blood.

    Boehner would not be entertaining a suit against the President if he was not fearful that he could not, as he has not, control his own caucus. So this is red meat to divert their attention. It has done the opposite- exciting those same groups who are now touting this as a pre-impeachment exercise.

    Boehner knows that the House does not have standing. The only way this could be done, even procedurally, is to pass a bill in the House and Senate (which then the President has to sign?) to take the Executive Branch to court.

    Now, members of the House or Senate could file a suit.

    It is an issue of standing.

    In law, standing defines the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case.

    Standing exists from one of three causes and criteria:

    1) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. The “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

    2) The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief.

    3) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

    In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

    Good articles at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/26/boehner-may-not-have-the-ability-to-sue-obama-after-all.html

    http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/constitution-check-could-the-house-sue-the-president-for-refusing-to-carry-out-the-laws/

    The remedy for the failure of a President (or other member of the government) to abide by the law from within the government itself is impeachment.

    “In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
    ~H.L. Mencken

    • confuseddemocrat says:

      interesting post murph…..so you think gohmert, king or cruz won’t be jump of the chance at suing?

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Oh they will love it…AND impeachment.

        Both, and…..

        I suggest that the suit may be filed but it will not get a hearing which will take Boehner beyond November when I think he thinks there will be fewer TP and more institutional GOP in the House.

  5. Nonpartay says:

    I don’t get it. Don’t Republicans know when they’re acting like a-holes? And don’t they realize the public can see how they’re acting--and what they’re doing, which is nothing? I used to be a Republican in my youth, and I don’t recall their being this stupid back then. They still had just as lousy policies, which is why I left the conservative movement before I could even vote, but at least you had a sense that they cared to make a good impression. These days, I get the feeling they think anything they say will be acceptable just because they’re what, white? OMG….

    • LightningJoe says:

      Nonpartay, it’s just that they’ve learned a new tactic, and are sinking all of their hopes in it (yes, sinking).

      That tactic is the Big Lie, which they now use because nothing else will work for them. But the Big Lie DOES work, if you continually confuse your low-information base by shuffling in NEW Big Lies constantly, by using the times they tune in to hear the REASONS for your previous confident accusations… to put out the New Big Lies.

      If you never stop lying, and keep people in an emotional condition to accept your lies provisionally, but then just keep stirring the malinformation pot around, so that it looks (to a careless eye) to have something at the bottom of it, then the only thing that can stop your water-soup game is if your marks wise up… but that will never happen, if you keep stirring…

    • Hey Nonpartay! Welcome to the Planet. It’s not so much that they’re stupid, as it is they are fanatical and obsessed. I guess that in turn, leads to stupidity. They are so obsessed with defeating the black/socialist/Muslim/Maoist/communist in the white house, it blinds them to any constructive reality.

      • Nonpartay says:

        Thanks for the welcome, Killigore. And I agree with you that’s their problem, but don’t people eventually figure out that they’re being delusional, difficult, and dysfunctional? Or bigoted? Or hateful? Or unproductive? Or wasteful of taxpayer dollars? All the things Republicans are these days are simply awful, and even the most brainwashed ideologue should be able to figure that out eventually. This has been going on since President Obama was elected (though every time a Democrat is in the White House since Carter, we have had similar problems from that side). How long can this hateful obsession continue until they finally have their Jackie Robinson moment? I thought for sure it would happen long before this. But now I’m thinking it won’t happen at all until they get soundly defeated in the ballot box in spite of all their shenanigans with voter suppression. I mean, really. What does it take before people realize they’ve been had? Who benefits from Republican obstructionism? Certainly not the people of the United States, I don’t care what their party is.

        • Fanaticism is a very powerful thing. It’s not just the fact that president Obama is a black man, the GOPers fanaicism is also very ideological.

          A big part of the problem stems from letting the fundamentalist Christian right to have so much political influence among them. Religious and political fanaticism, when combined, results in what we’re seeing now…….gross stupidity and self destruction.

  6. confuseddemocrat says:

    Hey Murph and PVers, My question is: Will the conservative supreme court go along with this farce and provide the GOP with the cover needed to impeach the president?

    You know this lawsuit is going all the away up to SCOTUS……….

    • sillylittleme says:

      First, they have to come up with something to sue about. That’ll take at least a couple of months. They file in district court. That’ll take six months to be ironed out. If and only if it gets picked up by circuit, add another six months. Then and only then (apparently they think they’ll lose) would it even qualify to make it to the Supreme Court. They would then have to decide if it is worthy of their time. If they take it up, he could be in the last few months of his presidency.

      The only way to get rid of this, is to get rid of them. We are finding out that gerrymandering is biting them in the ass. One more tea party loss and Boehner can go back to drinking. Since that is something he actually works at.

  7. confuseddemocrat says:

    So let me guess…………..A successful lawsuit would provide the republicans with the cover for the impeachment that they sorely want.

    If some court agrees with them and says the Prez acted outside his powers (which would be spun as the president acted illegally), and the GOPers capture the senate, then GOPers can cite the court ruling that the president has failed to uphold his oath and then draft articles of impeachment.

    And of course, since Hillary was part of the administration, she would be part of an “illegal enterprise”

    This is about impeachment and the 2016 election.

  8. Fergie1 says:

    While doing some research as I love to do (!), I happened upon a quote by a British philosopher of the 19th Century!

    “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” in “Life of John Stuart Mill” (1889)

    I’m not saying that it pertains to all Conservatives as I am opposed to generilazions of such a sweeping nature, but it’s FUN to share this!

    • pinkpantheroz says:

      ROFLMAO, Fergie1! Wow, so stupid AND Conservative are not unique to this current bunch. Brilliant! :)

      • sillylittleme says:

        It’s a historical fact that not acknowledging modernity is more than just stupid. It is, for all intents and purposes, not acknowledging that with each passing generation; if you aren’t willing to bend to the way they want the world to be for them and their children that you will be left behind.

  9. Fergie1 says:

    I’m not sure which one is more nuts -- Boehner or Rumsfeld, because when I read that Boehner was going to sue President Obama for doing his job, while the GOPT obstrusted every possible avenue for the betterment of Americans, all that popped into my head was this:


    • Mopshell says:

      How do you embed a video? I’ve been trying for hours without any success whatsoever! Oh yeah, I’m a newbie… sigh.

      • pinkpantheroz says:

        Mop, quite easy once you do it a couple of times

        1. Copy the Shortcut of your video.

        2. Fill in your comment then paste the shortcut into it.

        3. Change the http. at the front bit to httpv.

        4. Submit. that’s it!

        Welcome. by the way.

    • Nirek says:

      Fergie, you just hit a grand slam with that post. Rummy and Bonehead are bat$hit crazy.

    • pinkpantheroz says:

      Right, Fergie, and who could forget the famous:
      “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” Didn’t some politician paraphrase this?

  10. VegasBabe says:

    The gov’t shutdown last October cost the country how many billions of dollars led by gopers and how much exactly would it cost us with a frivolous suit in what remains a questionable economy at best? And against a man who is a constitutional attorney? Righties never cease to amaze me.

    • James Michael Brodie says:

      Thank you, Kalima.

      So, if I read the first article correctly, Boehner is suing over presidential actions — though he fails to mention which ones. Okay. So, um, shouldn’t he know which ones if he is going to file a lawsuit? The article just pointed out what a suit would not be about and gave us one sentence on what it could be about.

      Ohio, please vote this man out…

      • Kalima says:

        Yep J M, makes you want to pick up your skirts and run for the hills, grab your smelling salts to recover from the “vapours”, or smack the silly bugger over the head with a limp noodle/doodle before you chase him out of Washington.

        What a sad excuse for the Speaker of the House being led by his nose ring by a brown stained dying herd of teabaggers. What a sad excuse for a human being. Start “The Funeral March” now. The House is falling to pieces, time to knock it down and build a new one.

    • Nirek says:

      Kalima, I perused the links and did not find anything glaring at me that was obviously detrimental to anyone or any government agency or department.

      I have to believe that the President, being a Constitutional Lawyer, would be very careful not to undermine the Constitution.

      • cyndibru says:

        I don’t know about that. They won over the recess appointments issue when they took it to court, by unanimous vote. You’d think a Constitutional Lawyer would have known better…..or maybe he did and just wanted to see if he could get away with it? A lot of Dems didn’t have an issue with it and supported the action Obama took. On that one, it was ruled that he overstepped his bounds. Could there be more? I’m pretty sure the GOP probably has a list of what they feel are transgressions, and they’re going to look at it to see what might be the best to pursue in terms of a legislative court challenge. While I’m sure it’s very frustrating when a President is blocked by Congress, there are limits on how far of an end run you can attempt. Frustration with being told “no” doesn’t change the separation of powers, and not every executive action taken regarding a passed law falls under executive discretion re: implementation of said law.

        • monicaangela says:

          It was the question of pro forma sessions that had prompted the case. Senate Democrats started such sessions in 2007 to prevent President George W. Bush from making recess appointments. Despite encouragement from his advisers to challenge the legitimacy of the sessions, he declined.

          But when Obama became president and the membership of the NLRB fell to two members because Senate Republicans blocked votes on the president’s three nominees, Obama took action. Despite the pro forma sessions, he took note of the Senate’s declaration that no business would be conducted and made his nominees recess appointees.

          Although the Supreme Court justices were unanimous on the specifics of the NLRB episode, they were sharply divided on bigger questions.

          Breyer and the court’s liberals, joined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, read the Constitution to give wide authority to the president to make recess appointments when the Senate was on any break of 10 days or longer.

          This case is in no way grounds for impeachment, or even an indication that the President is trying to “overstep his bounds” this case emphasizes the fact that congress is being well paid for doing absolutely NOTHING.

          • cyndibru says:

            Oh I completely agree it’s in no way grounds for impeachment. The Court upheld the legitimacy of the pro-forma sessions. To me, it’s a question of attempting to over-step the bounds of the separation of powers. The Senate and the House are the ones to determine if they are or are not in session, not the President. Even if some may consider how or why they do it to be “game-playing”. What totally surprised me is that quite a few people here seem to think this “tactic” began with the GOP. Either they were completely unaware that it was first done by Reid and the Dems in 2007, or conveniently ignore that in their “they just hate the President and everything he tries to do” narrative.

            • monicaangela says:

              Yes, the democrats out of desperation were the first to challenge the validity of recess appointments. The validity of recess appointments, like Senate filibusters, depend on the eye of the beholder I guess. When one side resorts to these tactics, they seem brave, especially if it is your side; if it’s the other guys, they seem dastardly.

              Southern segregationists used the filibuster to try to block advances on civil rights. More recently, Democrats used it to block President George W. Bush’s appointment of right-wing judges. (In my opinion, those judges were far out of the judicial mainstream. If those judges had been liberals, Republicans would have derided them as “activist.”)

              It is politics as usual, and it as I said in my former post, allows congress the opportunity to do absolutely nothing when the opposing party needs to fill positions. I truly hope one day, hopefully in my lifetime we will have a congress that represents the majority of the people in this country and not just the special interest they serve today. If our representatives were truly representing us they would have no problem with an up or down vote for any candidate and thereafter explanation of their vote which should always, I repeat, always be on the record, none of this yea and nay stuff, an actual congressperson by congressperson vote where each member of congress declares their position on the appointment which then gives their constituents a better opportunity to understand exactly where their ideology lies, and with that information vote to leave them in, or remove them from office during their next election.

        • MurphTheSurf3 says:

          cyndibru in reply to your impeachment point….

          47 members of the House have signed onto a request that the Speaker accept articles of impeachment from the House floor and 7 members of the Senate have said there are grounds for a trial.

          Your thinking is that of a moderate Republican, the kind I used to be, but the GOP is now driven from above by very wealthy people who want Obama totally neutralized and a message sent to all progressive, from alongside by the powerful media and organizational voices and lobbies that are funded (like many members of Congress) by those same folks and whose popular base is the same that from below is screaming for blood.

          Boehner would not be entertaining a suit against the President if he was not fearful that he could not, as he has not, control his own caucus. So this is red meat to divert their attention. It has done the opposite- exciting those same groups who are now touting this as a pre-impeachment exercise.

          Boehner knows that the House does not have standing. The only way this could be done, even procedurally, is to pass a bill in the House and Senate (which then the President has to sign?) to take the Executive Branch to court.

          Now, members of the House or Senate could file a suit.

          It is an issue of standing.

          In law, standing defines the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case.

          Standing exists from one of three causes and criteria:

          1) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. The “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

          2) The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief.

          3) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

          In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

          Good articles at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/26/boehner-may-not-have-the-ability-to-sue-obama-after-all.html

          http://planetpov.com/2014/06/26/republicans-to-sue-obama-for-not-being-republican/#comment-215122

          The remedy for the failure of a President (or other member of the government) to abide by the law from within the government itself is impeachment.

          • cyndibru says:

            As you said, members of the House could file a suit. They have standing. And as you pointed out, there are 47 of them who I’m sure would be willing to do so. Boehner is the one talking about it in the media as the Speaker, but it doesn’t have to be him that files. But why is the fact that there’s 47 House and 7 Senators who would support impeachment make you so certain that’s where the GOP as a whole wants and intends to go? Yes, you’ve got these hardliners out there. That’s 11% of the House, and 7% of the Senate. Big deal. There’s not enough of them to force their agenda, and the majority are far more pragmatic than to settle for “sending a message” to Obama and the progressives when he’ll be gone in two years anyway and if they have already won the Senate he’ll be even more limited in what he can do. They’re far more likely to use the courts to “tie him up” if he tries to go to far to get around them than they are to impeach him.

            • MurphTheSurf3 says:

              Nirek asks a good question…. the answer the GOP is now dominated by reactionaries. Those who can only react and obstruct since any movement is by definition progressive.

              As to your point. No- they do not have standing. No court has ever accepted an action such as the one being proposed by Boehner.

              As to the number persons pushes impeachment. The silent cannot be counted among those opposed to it- they are just on the sidelines but rest assured they would have no choice if the measures get to the floor.

              The party you are defending, the one I belonged to and worked for, no longer exists.

            • Nirek says:

              Cyndi, why do the Republican Congresspersons not do any work? They block any Bills and don’t present any that have any chance of passing. They sure are getting paid but do nothing! Why? Could it be that they are afraid of the tea party types?

        • kesmarn says:

          I just wish there’d been something like this kind of vigilance when Dubya took it upon himself to fight an entire trillion dollar war “off the books.” If that isn’t a use of executive power that the founders never, ever intended, I don’t know what is.

          And talk about a “pocket book” issue! I would think that any true conservative would have been and would still be outraged about that.

          We’ll all be paying for that massive and lethal blunder for years to come.

        • Nirek says:

          Cyndi, do you think “dubya” made any mistakes during his admin? Anyone who never made a mistake in life has done nothing. But that is not excusing him. I think the SC made some big blunders and nobody can tell them they are wrong. Citizens United comes to mind.

          • cyndibru says:

            Of course Bush made mistakes. I believe I said in one of my first posts here that I was sorely disappointed by the lack of fiscal restraint during the Bush administration and especially by Congress during the time when the GOP had control. And you already know my views about how we should conduct “war” if we’re going to engage in it at all.

      • sillylittleme says:

        Exactly. They have nothing. They know it. The problem is they are such sore losers that they will continue to throw tantrums until we force them back under their rocks.

    • kesmarn says:

      This is a great wealth of primary source material, Kalima. I could be reading this for hours!

      It’s fairly complex stuff, but it seems to me that a number of the President’s executive orders have been issued to modify or eliminate a number of Dubya’s executive orders! For example, I was just looking at the category for “Faith-based Initiatives,” which was apparently intended to amend Dubya’s original 2002 order.

      So — is what they’re saying that Dubya was perfectly within his rights to issue the originals, but the President has no authority to amend them or to issue his own? In short — you can only issue executive orders if you’re a Republican?

      How totally bizarre.

      But then, what else is new? :-(

      • Kalima says:

        That seems to be exactly what they are saying, kes, and it’s so obvious to any sane person. Remember the rush to put these orders in place and the endless meetings with lawyers before he left office? I do, and it was done to keep the new Obama administration in legal battles for years.

        Their hate and blatant hypocrisy in trying to do this to the President which I think will fail miserably, is stinking up not only Washington, but the rest of planet too. Like everything else they try, they will once again be the losers and the laughingstock of anyone with more than an ounce of a brain.

        Truly pathetic.

        • kesmarn says:

          Yes! Dubya even had that dreadful John Yoo fabricate legal “justifications” for torture out of whole cloth! If that isn’t an abuse of executive power, I don’t know what is.

          Since when are we a nation that takes the position that torture is legal?

          Now there is a president who should have been sued.

          • Kalima says:

            Right kes, I had forgotten about that slimy crook.

            I have to shake my head vigorously when the Right screams that a scholar of your Constitution, is breaking the Constitution that they know tiddlywinks about except for the Second Amendment which they interpret as wrongly as they do the Bible. :roll:

            • Kalima says:

              Oh Nirek, you are like thousands of solar panels lighting my way. You know just what to say when I’ve fallen off the path of trying to explain why I often have to say some of the things I am forced to say, and I thank you sincerely for your understanding. I’m sure I don’t have to defend myself to you, in fact I know that I don’t have to. :)

              So glad my words hit the spot.

              Peace.

            • Nirek says:

              Once again you string words together so coherently to make such a good point, Kalima.
              Thanks for “Second Amendment which they interpret as wrongly as they do the Bible.”

              Perfect!

  11. Beatlex says:

    Great post AdLib! The Cavuto piece was HILARIOUS!!!

  12. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    In order to win in November the GOP must:

    A) Keep their base inflamed,
    B) Keep their base engaged,
    C) Suppress the Democratic base
    D) Dispirit the Democratic base

    EVERY MOVE by the GOP in the House and Senate is geared to the midterms…EVERY MOVE.

    If NOTHING gets done they get to tell their base that THEY stopped Obama’s (add adjectives here) agenda from getting on the table AND they get to tell Obama’s base that the man has failed to deliver.

    Since EO’s are examples of things getting done the GOP must block them if they can and label them as dictatorial in a court challenge and in the upcoming impeachment trial.

    Ad Lib….your essay speaks the truth at many levels but unless those who are the Obama/Democratic base pay as much attention as the GOP base the result is not going to be good for Americans of all political shades.

    This is why I propose that the executive branch push for the impeachment of John Boehner, and take the GOP in the House and Senate to court for malicious interference with the Executive Branch its attempt to carry out its Constitutionally Prescribed Duties.

    I would do both with utmost seriousness.

    • But Murph, wouldn’t that be just as unproductive as Boehener and his bunch are being? Why can’t we just get on with the business of governing this nation? I know, but we really have to hammer home that fact that these kinds of political battles are NOT good for America.

      It galls me to actually agree with Neil Cavuto, of all people, but I think he is absolutely correct. Let’s leave the stupid shit behind and get on with the job of furthering our nation, for all of it’s people.

      • GreenChica says:

        I agree, Kilgore. I find this sort of obvious ploy to be really annoying and wouldn’t want to be guilty of it myself.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        There is a time and a place to punch back and bloody the opponent, to pound the bully into submission. In this case, in the hope that we do not get an impeachment trial that eat up his last two years.

        I think we have to punch them so hard in the face and kick them so hard in the balls that they are doubled over in pain, gasping for breath, water running from their eyes and snot from their noses, puking up their guts.

        And the last words they hear before they fall to the ground in pain is: “I didn’t break a sweat. Next time, it will be for real….”

        • Murph, I have to respectfully disagree. We should never wallow in the same gutter as these insane ideologues do.

          I know that politics is a dirty business, but I also think a big part of what president Obama is all about, is trying to make it a wee bit better. He’s a constitutional scholar and I really think he believes wholeheartedly in it’s power.

          • kesmarn says:

            I also think that the game of “duelling lawsuits” would cause the public to lose respect for the Democratic party, KT. And it would only increase gridlock.

            Things could end up being like those awful child-custody cases in which neither parent wants to be the adult in the scenario and there’s just endless mud-slinging and absurd amounts of money spent on lawyers.

            We have to always be wary of “becoming the thing we hate,” although the temptation is almost irresistible at times. (I understand those feelings, Murph.) We have to stick to the high ground.

            During the civil rights movement, there were times when the guys with the firehoses and the attack dogs seemed to have the upper hand. But people were watching. They saw the rank unfairness of what was going on.

            “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            We will go down, but we will do it with honor? And the cost will be so grave that we will regret it to our dying day. We are in a go for broke reality now, my friend. If the GOP take the Senate, they will impeach and try Obama. They will cripple him in his last two years and they will move one repeal after another through Congress forcing him to veto them. Nothing gets done and they get to blame the President and the Dems for not doing it. I am at the point of saying that we have to do what is necessary.

            • cyndibru says:

              I’m still surprised how many people of the opposite political persuasion really seem to think the GOP has impeachment as a goal. Even assuming the GOP win the Senate in November, it’s not going to happen. Sure, there’s some TP types hollering for it, but that’s just noise. There’s no political upside to impeachment. There just isn’t. They’ll get farther in the court of public opinion passing legislation and making Obama veto it, and they know it. For all the talk about “they hate him because he’s black”, that’s probably the number one reason they wouldn’t impeach him, no matter WHAT he may do. If they take the Senate, it’s all upside — they’ve shown they’ll take him to court if they feel he’s overstepping constitutional authority with executive “decisions”, and he’ll be very limited on what he can do other than say “no” to any laws they send to him. They’ll have him pretty much in check for the last two years of his presidency. No need to mess that up with attempting to impeach the first black President.

            • I really don’t see this as being all that dire. Boehner will never win his ridiculous lawsuit. He has to prove actual harm, and he simply cannot do that. There has been NO harm done to Boehner or the nation by president Obama’s actions.

              The days of the Gingrich style witch hunts are over. Sure the GOPers may threaten and pander to their base, but they have no chance of winning such a ridiculous suit. I say let them proceed. Once again they will end up blowing a giant hole in their own feet.

              Do they REALLY want to open this particular can of worms? Bush’s crimes were not that long ago and make anything president Obama has done look like lollipops and day dreams.

  13. monicaangela says:

    Excellent article AdLib,

    I continue to look in amazement at the citizens of this nation, those who sit back and watch what is happening in Washington as if it were a game, basketball, soccer, football, whatever. Each one of us sitting in front of our screens, listening to our radio at home or in the car, hearing and seeing what is happening in this country (to us) and without skipping a beat, the majority of us just move on with our lives as though the only thing we can do is spectate. It is truly sad that a nation flawed though it may be, but set up to eventually fix any flaw that was left unattended during the the time of the founders, finds itself in its present state.

    Racism is a part of this problem, homophobia is a part of this problem, corporate greed is a part of this problem, and also politicians that have been bought and paid for by those that would divide the nation in order to continue to pillage it as though it were a cheap copy of a colonized nation just boggles the mind. This act by Boehner and his handlers is obscene at best, but a definite slap in the face to every citizen in this nation who is capable of rational thinking. It is time for the electorate to get out and vote, if the citizens of this nation do not make an effort to remove these politicians from office, mainly republicans in the 2014 election, I believe the people and the nation deserves exactly what it is going to get. A devaluation to the level of a third world country or below.

    • confuseddemocrat says:

      Hello Monicaangelica, I think that the this will be the GOP modus operandi for all democratic presidents from now on. If they control the congress, they will either sue or impeach. The democratic base needs to understand that the GOP policy is to punish the country for electing a democrat.

      • monicaangela says:

        I believe you are absolutely correct confuseddemocrat, they plan to obstruct when a democrat is in office, and rape, rob and pillage when the electorate is dumb enough to put a republican in office….We need to get rid of the Republican party, or at least vote to replace them with democrats or independents.

    • pinkpantheroz says:

      I absolutely agree, Monica. The country is in dire straits with what may soon-to-be Banana Republicans in the House! Get them out by sitting them down in front of a TV screen and watching:



Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features