Friday, January 25, 2013

Obama's NLRB appointments ruled "Unconstituional"

President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the  Constitution, a federal court of appeals ruled today, also raising questions about Obama’s pick for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board.
The court called the appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 “an unconstitutional act,” because it took place when the Senate was in an “intrasession” recess, rather than an “intersession” recess. President Obama appointed Richard Cordray to be head of the CFPB at the same time.

See article here

So, what about the hundreds of decisions made by these illegal appointees which have impacted numerous businesses?

There needs to be a better way. This president ignores the constitution and does what he wants knowing that it will be years before the Supreme Court hears the case and overturns it.


74 comments:

Sarkazein said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarkazein said...

We, as taxpayers, have to pay Obama's lawyers to defend his shredding of our Constitution. Private money has to be used to defend the US Constitution.
So much for the oath...

John E. Foddrill Sr. said...

Obama campaign co-chairman / Mayor Julian Castro, City Attorney Michael Bernard ( brother of White House Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard) and other city “leaders” follow in Obama’s footsteps………….. "It's déjà vu all over again"- Yogi Berra

Texas Public Radio / KSTX reports that San Antonio TX city “leaders” are at the center of a federal civil rights lawsuit being filed by the Texas Civil Rights Project of Austin TX.

A second lawsuit - SA13CV0051XR- was filed on 1/17/2013 naming City defendants (Mayor Castro, CM Sculley, City Attorney Bernard, Council members (past and present), Chief McManus, etc) in their official AND individual capacities for Constitutional violations including the act of banning a law –abiding citizen from City Hall/Council meetings for reporting long-term, widespread public /police corruption, bond fraud, accounting fraud and the theft/misuse of tens of millions of tax/grant dollars.

http://tpr.org/post/banned-city-hall

http://blogs.sacurrent.com/index.php/staff/city-attorney-talks-about-banning-citizens-from-city-hall/

Anonymous said...

Bush made recess appointments as well - the practice has been going on for over 90 years. Was he "shredding" the constitution as well?

Anonymous said...

For those of you keeping score at home:
Obama: 32 recess appointments
Bush: 171 recess appointments

Who is it that is shredding the constitution?

NewGuy said...

Those of you who have actually read the case and understand the issues realize that it isn't about a president's authority to make a recess appointment. It's about a president declaring the senate to be in "the recess" when it is not and thus circumventing the "advise and consent" requirements. The "recess appointments" in question here were made at a time when the Senate was in session (according to the senate).
I have no idea how the Supreme Court will eventually rule on this case, but the unanimous decision of the DC Court makes a lot of sense to me. If the president can hold all his appointments until the Senate takes a day off and then declare them "in recess" and make his appointments without the "advice and consent" of the senate - then the constitutional clause has no teeth.

As the court said"


“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers. The checks and balances that the Constitution places on each branch of government serve as ‘self-executing safeguard[s] against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.’”

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- Look into it a little further to realize you are incorrect. Don't go by the Leftist talking heads.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- Here's a clue: Why only the NLRB appointments? (so far)

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 8:19 AM/9:27 AM is the perfect example of the "low information voter". Knows just enough to be dangerous.

NewGuy said...

Agreed Sark....the "L.I.V" makes assumptions based on the headlines and on the talking points he has heard. The number of "recess appointments" made by Bush or any other president has zero to do with this czse. But, having no supportable argument on the merits, one must redirect the argument to other issues.

Sarkazein said...

NewGuy- One thing I have learned is the Left will NEVER give Obama credit for being his own man. Everything that happens has to be blamed on others to protect the child-like President.

NewGuy said...

Currently about 300 rulings made by this unconstitutionally appointed NLRB we be subject to reversal. More by the time this gets to the Supremes.

Anonymous said...

Did you commenter even read the article? The reason the appointments were made was because of shenanigans by the republican senate. He had no choice but to circumvent the advise and consent because the senate refused to advise and consent. In an effort to suggest that this case as evidence of shredding the constitution - you simply assume he is doing everything wrong and republicans are doing everything right - neither is the case. When you start to acknowledge the dysfunction of our gov caused by BOTH parties - maybe then you can be part of the solution - now you are nothing but the biggest part of the problem. I am not incorrect - in reading the article it is a matter of incorrect action by both groups (one a necessary response to the other). I give complete credit for Obama being his own man in solving the problem in some way despite the shenanigans. You wonder why people leave this site. No one here read the article and indicated that the problem was not a power grab but an incorrect response to political BS. You are so anti OBAMA that nothing he did or does will be right. You are so biased as to be discriminatory and it is frustrating that you see the world in such black and white mentality. Now watch how many of you dunderheads try to make this about race.

Blogger said...

Anonymous You wrote " He had no choice but to circumvent the advise and consent" Do you have any idea how dangerous your type of thinking is? It is the slippery slope into fascism.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous 1:36 PM- Please name the years during Obama's first term where the Democrats were not in control of the US Senate. Also please name the Republican Senate Majority Leader during the Obama first term. Hint- Harry Reed is not a Republican.

" The reason the appointments were made was because of shenanigans by the republican senate."- A'mous

Again you don't give Obama credit for his own actions. It's the phantom Republican Senate's fault... He had to do it...
You quote the college law professor's opinion as being fact. It is just another liberals opinion presented by the MSM. The facts are NOT the law professor's opinion. He also tries to cover for the child-like President.

Sarkazein said...

Even though the Court ruled Obama abused his power the ABC article uses the majority of the article defending Obama when it should be either just stating the ruling or if it is going to editorialize and not condemn Obama's actions give equal time to the facts in the ruling. Two college professors and Carney... no slant there.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM) wrote- "You are so biased as to be discriminatory and it is frustrating that you see the world in such black and white mentality. Now watch how many of you dunderheads try to make this about race."

Now that's funny.

guy faulkes said...

The larger question of this situation is what can be done about Obama's attempt to circumvent the balance of powers mandated by the Constitution. Is this attempt an impeachable offense? We all know the Senate would never remove from office, but the House might impeach.

Sarkazein said...

History- In 2005, Senator Obama said Bush’s recess appointments were “the wrong thing to do,” to appoint people who “couldn’t get through a Senate nomination.”

And Democrat Senator Harry Reid (2005): “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block (President Bush) from doing an end run around the Senate and Constitution with his controversial nominations.” The Democrat leadership declared that Bush’s recess appointments were “an abuse of presidential power” that “ignored the will of the Senate.”

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous's quote- "You are so biased as to be discriminatory and it is frustrating that you see the world in such black and white mentality. Now watch how many of you dunderheads try to make this about race."

Anonymous declares herself a "dunderhead". Nowhere in the original post or in any of the comments in this thread does anyone say anything about "race"... except you.

Anonymous said...

Not one admission that maybe the legislature could have done their job rather than than trying to block. You are only proving my previous statements so very true. The slippery slope excuse is the worst reason to set or not set policy. Once again - black and white - no understanding or acceptance of grey.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM) uses the word- "discriminatory" |disˈkrimənəˌtôrē|
adjective
making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex : ///

Again she doesn't blame the child-like President for a faulty decision, it is racial prejudice if one does not like the way he abuses his power.

Anonymous said...

Actually I indicated it was a faulty decision as a result of faulty action - reading is fundamental.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- It's the "legislature's" fault that Obama abused his power. It's the Court's fault for making the ruling. It's Bush's fault for setting a bad example for the children. It's the mafia's fault for making him appoint those people to the NLRB. The devil made him do it...

Anonymous said...

Is it impossible to at least acknowledge devils on all sides?

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM) asks- "Is it impossible to at least acknowledge devils on all sides?"

Yes. Obama was found guilty of abuse of power, not the Republicans.... that's a fact, not a personal opinion.
-and-
Holder was found in contempt of Congress. A criminal regime.

guy faulkes said...



"Is it impossible to at least acknowledge devils on all sides?"

Certainly, but not on this issue. We are discussing a specific issue that consists of a specific incident.

We have had many discussions about liberal establishment Republicans. They certainly could be considered political devils. However, what has been done in the past does not excuse the malfeasance in this case.

guy faulkes said...

I read the original post I was responding to as saying is it possible to acknowledge. Please pardon my liberal moment of poor reading comprehension that turned my post into what amounts to a double negative.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM) wrote- "Actually I indicated it was a faulty decision as a result of faulty action - reading is fundamental."

Actually I quoted you.

Anonymous said...

Faulty decisions based on faulty actions would seem to indicate problems on all parts. Maybe I am missing something. I read the same article as you and found that the problematic action was based on the problematic approach of congress. We have serious issues on both sides of politics theses days - blaming everything on one person seems simple minded. Who is the problematic voter in this case? Sark - I am thinking it is an attempt at humor when asked about devils on all sides being limited to Obama and Holder. Once again serious issues that you do not have the mind (apparently) to tackle. BTW - what would you have done if you need to fill a position and congress refused to act?

NewGuy said...

We have a poster who believes that a congress acting within it's constitutional authority - somehow justifies a president violating the constitution. If a president can declare the senate "in recess" and then make whatever appointments he wants, what is the point of the "advice and consent" provision?

Once you accept an argument that the president can violate the constitution when congress doesn't give him his way, then we no longer have a balance of power.



Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- As Blogger stated, where do you draw the line? Will you be able to draw the line when Obama finally pushes against the Constitution (in your opinion) too far (slippery slope)?

More importantly, listen to Obama and his spokesmen in their answer to the ruling. Their rebuttal to the ruling is so un-Presidential and so divisive it is unbelievable!

Anonymous said...

So why didn't congress convene and act on his appointment recommendations - instead of the slight of hand "we are in session" - but not really? Whereas they might not have violated the constitutional intent for separation of powers - they did not do their job. My point was that everybody is dirty here. To say otherwise is absurd.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- Please name the other Presidents (if others did worse or as bad) where the Court ruled their appointments were un-Constitutional. How many other appointments had Obama not made (jobs not filled) while the Senate was either in or out? Why just the NLRB? One might ask herself.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- How about a response to the "in-your-face" hypocrisy here:


History- In 2005, Senator Obama said Bush’s recess appointments were “the wrong thing to do,” to appoint people who “couldn’t get through a Senate nomination.”

And Democrat Senator Harry Reid (2005): “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block (President Bush) from doing an end run around the Senate and Constitution with his controversial nominations.” The Democrat leadership declared that Bush’s recess appointments were “an abuse of presidential power” that “ignored the will of the Senate.”

January 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Anonymous said...

Nothing in your face here - I clearly indicated before that previous presidents did it and said both actions were wrong - on both your the presidents part and the Senate's part. The only person that has said something blatantly wrong here is you - please note the political hypocrisy of the three members of this particular court that made the ruling were republican appointments - when a similar ruling less than ten years earlier indicated they were constitutional. Did the President violate the constitution or is that the opinion of you and the republican judges - good question.

Nobody said...

Nonny is suggesting that Republicans in the Senate weren't "doing their jobs." Just rubber-stamping Obama's picks isn't doing their job -- if Republican Senators strongly object to labor puppets being placed on the NLRB, they have that prerogative. In that case, blocking an appointment IS their job. I think the term for blocking a Presidential appointment is "Borking." Wonder where that term came from? Oh yeah, Democrats blocking Judge Bork from the Supreme Court. It is Obama's job to appoint someone who can pass muster in the Senate. He can't get his incredibly liberal appointments through, so he'll thumb his nose at his opponents, violate the Constitution and proceed anyway, to the cheers of his partisans like Nonny who will try to muddle the issue with discussions of "the other side is guilty, too." Is this the same NLRB that tried to shut down the Boeing factory in South Carolina? I thought so.

guy faulkes said...

And Bingo, We have a winner. Nobody just ended the debate, such as it was. .

Sarkazein said...

You have to admit, it is amazing to watch the Leftists go to the ends of the Earth to defend Obama's disrespect for the opposition Party and in turn the US Constitution.
Nobody- Great point aout the "rubber stamp" now being "doing their job".

Sarkazein said...

The GIGANTIC hypocrisy of all political times has to be how the Leftists HATED President Bush for water boarding terrorists under medical supervision and now turn a blind eye to Obama's death list as he orders Hell Fire missiles up the tailpipes of suspected terrorists on foreign soil.

Anonymous said...

You don't have crap. The question is did Obama ask them to take up the appointment advise and consent - and they refused. It is important that Bush did the exact same thing in the exact same manner. In fact democrats created the 1 minute meeting idea to thwart Bush's nominations. Obama, being his own man, challenged this democratic shenanigan that the Republicans were glad to pick up. A little research and knowledge goes a long way. Please note, for the reading impaired, I was indicating that the system is broken and dysfunctional and both parties have blame in this. I never suggested that the senate was supposed to rubber stamp anything - they are supposed to do their job and take up the issue - and they did not. You people are clueless almost as much as you are biased. Please note one last time for the simple minded: I was not defending Obama's actions as much as saying both parties had issues and both actions were wrong. You are the ones single mindedly saying this was all on Obama.

Anonymous said...

Let's try this:

Obama says the sun is the center of the solar system.

Just seeing how many of you dolts will try to make an argument if you think Obama said it.

Anonymous said...

Lastly, this decision gets to go before the SCOTUS where people much smarter than any of us will determine if the constitution was violated. Your opinions as to whether or not it was are simply meaningless. Your opinions a to whether or not Washington is broken is important and should be expressed with your vote.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- President Bush chose to honor the Constitution. The pencil neck jug eared immature Obama chose not to. The Court found him guilty. You are bending over for the little dictator.

Are you so "in the tank" for Obama and the Democrats that you can't appreciate the fact that they violated their own rule? SCOTUS may call it a tax and decide in the little dictators favor, who knows. But now that YOU have finally researched it, you know what Obama did. Now you just want him to get away with it.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM) continues her quest to "change" America through the courts.

Anonymous said...

Sark - since you are reading impaired - not bending over for anyone I indicated that both he and the Senate likely had culpability in this case. Not in the tank for Obama - I seam to be the only one capable of seeing fault in both sides. The republicans also continued the Shenanigans from the Senate - blatantly in the face of your contention that republicans are somehow above the fray. I don't want Obama to get away with anything. I want you and your kind to realize that both approaches are contemptible political shenanigans. The POTUS should put forth a candidate that should be given immediate due consideration - period. Both sides need to straighten up and do their job. One more time for the big dolt in the room - BOTH SIDES NEED TO STOP THE CRAP AND DO THEIR JOB. I am not looking to change anything. You are so inept as to not realize that I am only advocating the correct process as outlined in the constitution( i.e. upholding the constitution) a dispute has arisen (two courts of the same standing have ruled differently on the same case) and the correct action is for the SCOTUS to evaluate the issue and make a ruling. If the SCOTUS rules against the current PRES - GREAT - I hope they bitch slap the congress for their shenanigans in the same ruling. I encourage you to spend some time before replying: http://www.rif.org/



January 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Blogger Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM) continues her quest to "change" America through the courts.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- This "both sides do it" is just weak debate on yours and others part. Obamacare passed the Supreme Court by a fluke in Justice Roberts ruling it a tax when Obama said it wasn't a tax. When the Democrats changed the rule, President Bush honored the law... the Democrat Obama did not. So it is not "exactly the same". From your first comment on this thread, it was easy to see you knew little about the case. As you were challenged, your comments show you at least started to study the case. So if nothing else, (even though as a typical liberal you accused others of not knowing the case because you didn't and were researching it to find excuses for the child-like President) at least now you know the facts in the case (except for the "exact same thing" stuff) by debating it with as little name calling and insults as a typical liberal woman is capable of.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- Your comment still reads that the Senate is supposed to rubber stamp. Please look up the word "consent". The Democrat Senate had not approved these nominees so Obama appointed them anyway. All have made horrendous rulings in their unlawful positions. This is why they would have never been approved. Often when the Senate does not act and JUST say "NO WAY TO THAT GUY" it is to allow more time for a President to come up with a better nominee. It reduces the embarrassment to all three. It may not be a perfect Utopian system as you desire, but it is mostly a good one. Better than letting your Nine in Black Robes decide instead of the people's elected representatives.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, Nobody ended the debate. The only argument Anonymous can make is repetitive drivel. He / she has no rebuttal for the fact opposing the President when they feel it necessary is a prime example of them doing their job. This is because there is no possible rebuttal.

Anonymous said...

no it didnt

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, repeating the same thing over and over and over does not win a debate. It is an admission of defeat. La La La La La does not get it here.

If you cannot rebut the fact, then at least have the grace to lose gracefully.

If you have anything new to say we would like to hear it. Please do not think we do not know there is no difference in saying "I have a brown cow" and "My cow is brown".

Anonymous said...

Nobody didn't end crap. If the process were followed, the Congress would show up and "advise and consent" without the political chicanery. Block it through proper action - not gimmickry. The SCOTUS will determine if it violated the constitution - it certainly did not shred it. Both sides do have some fault here. I don't believe in a rubber stamp - it is procedurally incorrect. I have been accused of same old drivel yet when I bring up a ruling directly opposite of the exact same situation by another judicial board and happen to mention the opposite ruling was by all republican appointees - nobody acknowledges. Once again for the simple minded - maybe Obama did wrong but maybe - just maybe his hand was forced by what the congress did wrong (I don't care who invented it) That is my rebuttal.

Anonymous said...

The debate should be about if the system is broken. Filibusters and gerrymandering are indicative of a broken system where nobody admits fault and nobody comes together to fix anything. If you think the world is black and white and only one person is to blame for everything your just as bad as the jackasses in Washington and deserve the leadership your getting. If and when you are ready to admit no one is perfect and both sides deserve to have the conversation then Welcome to America - the greatest country in the world. Polarizing absolutism is not welcome or appreciated here.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- i am just waiting for an "Uncle Sarkazein" from Anonymous (HM).

Anonymous said...

You guys keep bringing up this crap about saying the same thing blah blah blah - yet you do the exact same thing. I have acknowledged fault with Obama - have you acknowledged fault with congress? What is the debate here that I have not contributed too? Are you willing to look at the bigger picture or are just going to say everything is Obama's fault? You have only managed to display arrogance and simple mindedness. Please explain to me what the "fact" is that I am supposed to rebutt and I will be happy to tell you where you are wrong. The only fact is that Obama made appointments and declared congress out of session after they pulled "were here - but not here" crap. Whether or not that was unconstitutional is not a fact but, given two different courts ruled the exact opposite way, is still to be determined by the SCOTUS. Actions by all were less than admirable - that is a fact. Please tell me what you think the "facts" are.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- Congress did its job. Obama didn't follow the law and was busted. The process doesn't need to be changed just because the child-like President didn't get his way. The process worked, Obama was found guilty and hopefully the commies he put in place will have all their Leftist rulings declared null and void.

guy faulkes said...

Focus, Anonymous, focus. if you continue to deliver the same mistaken point, although worded differently, does it not follow logically that the answers are the same. This only needed answer is that you have never refuted Nobody's observation that the legislative branch was doing its job to place a check on the executive branch because you cannot do so. There is no fault for congress to do its job. You may not agree with the decision they made, but that is different than your accusation that they were not doing their job.

We are waiting for something from you that would do so. I expect we will have a long wait for the La La La La La to stop. Hopefully the hint I gave you will help you.

Attack the decision.

Do you not hate having to help a liberal debate just to keep a discussion going?

Anonymous said...

Guy and Sark - you are actually still missing the point. Now pay attention. You are apparently agreeing with the manner in which you think congress did its job. You think blocking the nomination means doing its job - it simply does not and this is where your feeble minded approach fails. If congress had done its job, it would have convened and provided "advise and consent" as required by the constitution. This does not mean it had to rubber stamp - it means it had to discuss and vote on the nomination. I don't care if the outcome had been the nomination had failed. If it had done that - it would have done its job. Congress, instead utilized political chicanery to prevent a vote on the nominations. You are just as bad as what you decry. Your approach indicates that as long as the outcome is what you want, let them play political games (much like what Obama has done with his definition of "in session"). You decry the fact that democrats invented this particular gimmick - but its OK as long as the result meets your desire. My remarks are that both sides were wrong in this case but that one wrong was the result of another. If you think congress did its job, the acquiescing of political one upsmanship that you support is one of the key problems in Washington. Keep sticking your head in the sand dummies. Please note: I am not suggesting what Obama did was right - that is for the SCOTUS to decide. If congress had convened and shot down Obama's nominations based on merit - then great - they would have done their job. Checks and balances are great - one reason I am looking forward to the decision by the SCOTUS - checks and balances as provided in the constitution. Obama used a political maneuver to get his way after Congress used a political maneuver to get their way - and both were wrong approaches. It is hypocritical to applaud one and decry the other.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (HM)- You want the Supremes to run the Senate.

Anonymous said...

I do not want the supremes to run the senate. I want the supremes and the senate to do their respective jobs. If the Pres needs to fill an opening and he has a name, I want the senate to convene and provide advise and consent - not rubber stamp. That means they actually have to meet and discuss and make decisions. I know I was at work on Jan 3 and 4 and they should have been too. Now that two different federal courts have ruled in opposite ways, I want the supremes to do their job and, in accordance with the constitution, determine the legality of what the Pres did. I don't care the outcome of any of it. I just want them to do their jobs without having to resort to tricks. Not a terrible difficult concept. Do you finally see the hypocrisy of saying how the Senate acted was OK but what the president did was "shred" the constitution. I don't care if appointments were blocked - if the ends justify the means for the senate, then the same is true for the Pres.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM) Wrote- " Do you finally see the hypocrisy of saying how the Senate acted was OK but what the president did was "shred" the constitution."

The Court said it. The only hypocrisy is Obama's previously posted quotes from 2005.

Before Obama shredded the Constitution, the nominees would have just faded into the sunset with little fanfare. Now those pour commies will have to list on their resume that they were fired and served illegally. I get it that you care nothing about them or their reputations, but the other way would have been better for them. Can you at least appreciate the mess Obama has made if all the boards rulings are declared null and void? Is it possible you don't know the better way to do it?

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- you will at least admit you have a history of wanting the Court to force your views on others. Fair enough?

NewGuy said...

Seems pretty simple to me. Congress didn't violate the constitution. If Obama thought they were violating it by not voting on his picks, he had the option to take it to court.

On the other hand, Obama DID violate the constitution. At least according to 3 federal judges in the DC Court of Appeals. HM may not agree, but she isn't part of the process.

Sarkazein said...

Often courts will not take appeals. Since when did we decide everything must go all the way to the Supremes? We are chipping away at the US Constitution now. Perhaps that is why.
Obama wanted to "fundamentally change" America as we know it. He will keep chipping away because the taxpayers will have to pay his lawyers. What does he have to lose? His supporters, as seen with HM will defend him and blame it on the process or on Bush. They won't even consider his actions may be caused by years of drug abuse.

guy faulkes said...

"Often courts will not take appeals.".

Sark, in this instance, do you think our liberal friend will accuse the courts of dodging the issue or acknowledge that the cases may have had no merit?

Anonymous said...

Sark - your losing steam and comprehension. The mess made by Obama was not his mess alone - he did have a a part to play - but so did congress. I am defending Obama to the end as much as saying there is culpability on all parts - one thing you will not admit. The better way to do it I have described ad infinatum previously as in "doing their job" - both congress and the Pres. I don't want the court to force my views - i want the court to interpret the constitution and do the right thing. Most of the time they get this right - sometimes they get it wrong and it is eventually corrected. Gay marriage will be made legal for all eventually as that is the right thing to do. The court will probably rule some gun control measures as unconstitutional as that is the right thing to do. New guy - you are just as hypocritical - I don't know if Obama violated the constitution as I am not part of it - but neither are you. The federal court ruled the exact opposite as a previous ruling from another federal court with the same stature - which one was right? That is why it goes to the SCOTUS - they will decide. And wow Sark - you are going to now claim drug abuse? - You are pitiful. His actions were thoruoghly vetted through a slew of advisors and lawyers before he made any action - this was not some drug induced whim - I think you must be grasping at straws at this point. Still no admission that the system is broken as well. ONCE AGAIN FOR THE COMPREHENSION IMPAIRED - OBAMA MIGHT HAVE DONE WRONG TO BE DETERMINED LATER AND I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM - I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE DONE WRONG BUT SO DID CONGRESS IMHO.

Anonymous said...

NOT - meant to say NOT defending Obama to the end

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (HM)- I am not claiming drug abuse, Obama is. He claims it in one of his autobiographies.

Nobody said...

I don't recall nonnymouse (HM, as we all know because, contrary to her claims we can read quite well and recognize her tone and writing style) being just as adamant in demanding that the Senate Democrats do their job in taking up a budget -- something they have not done in nearly four years. Where's the passion regarding that? Reid has not allowed a vote on a budget resolution all these year and...silence. But when Senate Republicans use long-standing, established and accepted rules of the Senate to block radical nominations by Obama, and Obama violates the checks and balances by decreeing in imperial fashion that the Senate is in recess when it is not so that he can appoint those same individuals to the post rather than find someone more acceptable, HM comes to the defense of her Chosen One. Simply claiming to be fair to both sides doesn't make it a fact. Amazingly you ALWAYS claim to be open-minded regarding every issue, but ALWAYS wind up siding with Obama and the liberals. It is a thin veil. Quit claiming to be so logical and fair-minded and just admit to what we all know -- you are a dedicated liberal who will defend Obama and only hope to convince others that your support of Obama and every one of his positions is the result of careful thought and consideration. It is not. You are a dedicated liberal and you always oppose conservatives.

guy faulkes said...

Nobody, you won the debate some time ago. All we are doing now is continuing to expose the big lie that anonymous keeps repeating by referring to your answer.

We have now moved on to a contention by our liberal friend that the judicial branch should not do its job either as the decision did not go the way he / she wanted.

Focus, Nonnymouse, Focus. If two courts rule differently then the issue goes to a higher court for review. That is how the system works.

When all you hear from the other side is La La La La La as they stand with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears you have beaten them.

This has tactic has not worked so anonymous is now trying to change the subject to gay marriage. Why not end the cycle with a rousing chorus of "It was Bush's fault?"

Anonymous said...

Nobody is simply wrong - about a lot of things - but I am not liberal or conservative. I think the Senate should do their job and complete the budget process and they should be admonished for not. I was also quite clear that I thought OBAMA had as much culpability in this as everyone - so wrong again. I guess the other discussion is over because you cant' attack me anymore on that - you come up with some fake thing to attack me with. I am only dedicated to right and truth. It seems as if the lack of continued discussion now that you have actually read my posts would indicate that. It also seems that the lack of admission that all parties had some culpability shows that you are incapable of considering anything other than anti - Obama. Obama is no different than your heros in politics - sometimes he is right and sometimes he is wrong. When we all realize that everyone is human with good and bad and that we need to work together somewhere in the middle - we might actually accomplish something. I will ask again if Obama says the Earth is not flat - how many want to argue?

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous (HM)- You are in fact a liberal. Many liberals deny being liberals. Most Conservatives declare their conservatism with great pride. I can't even give you middle-of-the-road, which is worse than being a liberal.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, no one attacks you because on this blog we argue points of view. The only one you have put forth is that you feel the Senate did not do its job concerning the appointments. Nobody debunked that statement. There has been nothing else to say as all you have done is repeat yourself on the topic of the thread, or try to change the subject as you were losing the debate.

Just who do you think my heroes are and do you not think I have criticized some of their actions? This should be interesting.

Nobody said...

HM,
What specifically am I wrong about? Simply saying that I am wrong about many things but not specifying those things is weak! By the way, if the SC refuses to take the case and issues a ruling of stare decisis thereby allowing the appeals court unanimous verdict against Obama to stand, that will not be an example of the court not doing its job. The court turns away literally thousands of cases every year by ruling of stare decisis. The way the system works is that cases work thei way up, and many times the appeals cout decision is final.