It's Bush's Fault!

[UncleBeer 244]

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on your own on this case, "Dan and Judy" or if you'll limit your responses to cut-&-paste. Regardless, as already pointed out, the Supremes and other high courts were unanimous on the point that O'bama had overstepped his authority. Y'know: "Law of the land" and all that malarkey that the preznit campaigned on.

NLRB v. Noel Canning, Circuit docket 12-1115 in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appealed a decision made by National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) members appointed in what President Obama determined was an intrasession Recess was decided in a three-member panel decision on January 25, 2013, that intrasession appointments were unconstitutional because the word "the" before the word "Recess" in the Constitution was determined to mean to limit it to only the intersession Recess and it further limited the power by limiting it to only those vacancies that "happen" to occur during the intersession break and not to vacancies that existed prior to the Recess.^[8] Also, on March 16, 2013, the Third Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit and held that the March 2010 appointment of Craig Becker to the NLRB was invalid because he was not appointed between sessions.^[9]

On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that President Obama overreached his executive authority in appointing members to the NLRBwhile the Senate was still formally in session.^[10] Justice Stephen Breyer, in the majority opinion, wrote that the Constitution allows for the Congress itself to determine its sessions and recesses, that "the Senate is in session when it says it is", and that the President does not have the right to unilaterally dictate Congressional sessions and make recess appointments thusly.^[11] However, the decision allows the use of recess appointments during breaks within a session for vacancies that existed prior to the break.

By the way our "constitutional scholar in chief" has a pretty sorry batting average with the Supremes: 20 unanimous defeats to date, and this from an otherwise partisan court. What do you think this means, "Dan and Judy"?

[Dan and Judy 614]

Unfortunately when I copied and pasted the above post. This quote came out looking like it was the point of view of the writer. In the actual article it is off to the side and only quotes the Dem's argument for the appointments.

"GIMMICKS DO NOT OVERRIDE THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY"

It might leave the impression that the article is biased which it does not seem to be.

[Dan and Judy 614]

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on your own on this case, "Dan and Judy" or if you'll limit your responses to cut-&-paste. Regardless, as already pointed out, the Supremes and other high courts were unanimous on the point that O'bama had overstepped his authority. Y'know: "Law of the land" and all that malarkey that the preznit campaigned on.

By the way our "constitutional scholar in chief" has a pretty sorry batting average with the Supremes: 20 unanimous defeats to date, and this from an otherwise partisan court. What do you think this means, "Dan and Judy"?

It's seems obvious to me that this is just a continuation of the tug of war between the branches of government.

It seems that less and less will be accomplished when we have one party in charge of the White House and the other in charge of Congress.

That can be good and bad at the same time.

.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Dan and Judy

[Dan and Judy 614]

If the Democrats were in charge of the House in 2002/2003 we probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place.

[UncleBeer 244]

It's seems obvious to me that this is just a continuation of the tug of war between the branches of government.

It seems that less and less will be accomplished when we have one party in charge of the White House and the other in charge of Congress.

That can be good and bad at the same time.

.

Ideally there's bipartisan cooperation there, but this odd-duck preznit has chosen to cast that aside. Remember the talks regarding the stimulus package, where O'bama invited GOP leaders to the white house, supposedly to garner their input? He then roundly rejected all of their proposals, saying "I won". Pretty childish. How's that supposed to forge a bipartisan working relationship?

The preznit opines that since Republicans won't give him everything he asks for (some of which is pretty outrageous), that they're 'obstructionists' and imagines they're his 'enemies', demonizing them at every turn while all they're doing is representing the interests of their constituents (who as I've said before, are foursquare against almost all of O'bama's initiatives). In his mind, this justifies him wiping his big patoot on the Constitution. How's that supposed to forge a bipartisan working relationship?

It's come to light that O'bama doesn't even consult the Democrats concerning his policy initiatives, and they're not happy about it either. This is a broken, dysfunctional preznitcy run by a twisted narcissist.

[UncleBeer 244]

If the Democrats were in charge of the House in 2002/2003 we probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Hey, 209 House Democrats voted for it. You didn't help re-elect any of them, did you?

[Dan and Judy 614]

Hey, 209 House Democrats voted for it. You didn't help re-elect any of them, did you?

You mis-read it. 82 voted for it, 126 voted against it. It's an easy mistake to make the way they had it laid out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You mis-read it. 82 voted for it, 126 voted against it. It's an easy mistake to make the way they had it laid out.

That's par for the course for UB. Gotta put it into colored charts for him to absorb it right. So here we go, that should help him understand how the vote fell

.

[UncleBeer 244]

You mis-read it. 82 voted for it, 126 voted against it. It's an easy mistake to make the way they had it laid out.

Yep, you're right. A 'mere' 40% of House Democrats voted for the invasion. Again: did you help any of these folks get re-elected?

[GandD 5,966]

Yep, you're right. A 'mere' 40% of House Democrats voted for the invasion. Again: did you help any of these folks get re-elected?

Aren't you assuming whoever they ran against would not have voted for it? Since we're really a two party system, how many republicans voted for it?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Aren't you assuming whoever they ran against would not have voted for it? Since we're really a two party system, how many republicans voted for it?

Math is my weakest subject but I'd say 60 percent? Or is this like NB math in which 40 is greater than 60?

[UncleBeer 244]

Since we're really a two party system...

Bernie Sanders is outraged by your comments.

Aren't you assuming whoever they ran against would not have voted for it?

Maybe some bravely voted "present" like our preznit did (and seems to continue to do on topics like ISIL...).

[Janelle2002 3,865]

What's it to you if I happen to post a chart containing (gasp) colors, and what exactly drives you to insult instead of discussing the topic at hand?

Ok.

SInce you would just looooove to hear from me, I don't agree with everything Obama does. Are you happy now?

DACA is okay, as long as they didn't make them a priority because they are already in the U.S. with their families. (failed)

Amnesty to other illegals that did not come here as a child but crossed the boarder. (failed)

In country I-601a while the rest of us have to file an I-601 and our families have to wait outside of the U.S. (failed)

Affordable insurance for all. (passed) many westernized countries have better access to healthcare and they are healthier societies. while he has failed to implement it properly it is an ideal concept that America needs to move towards

Loan Forgiveness Programs (passed) college students are drowning in debt to receive these great pieces of paper the U.S. want them to receive while after graduation they can't get a job. The loan forgiveness program is a huge help to the future of America. people can't function properly with high debt

Has Obama failed this country (no). Failure is a group effort and our U.S. government as a whole has failed us. Politics has been more of a money making scheme than helping the citizens depending on politics to make a difference. Opposition with no resolution is just that, no resolution. Politics now days brag about what they opposed. Ok, but what did you PROPOSE? nothing

They all give chocolates, roses and promises they don't intend to keep. He is not the first President to do it and will not be the last.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Hey, 209 House Democrats voted for it. You didn't help re-elect any of them, did you?

Not to mention the Vice President

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Math is my weakest subject but I'd say 60 percent? Or is this like NB math in which 40 is greater than 60?

40 is greater than 60 is denier math not NB math

[Dan and Judy 614]

Math is my weakest subject but I'd say 60 percent? Or is this like NB math in which 40 is greater than 60?

He said 40% of house Democrats voted for the bill authorizing military action. He was correct. give or take 1%

Edited September 6, 2014 by Dan and Judy