It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Forum Business => Member Original Diaries => Topic started by: amperfectunion on April 03, 2012, 03:43:14 PM
-
Hey folks, latest article is up, called "Obama Pitches a Temper Tantrum."
"For two days now, President Obama has attacked the Supreme Court, and has essentially double-dog dared them to overturn Obamacare."
http://amostperfectunion.com/ampu/archives/art38.htm (http://amostperfectunion.com/ampu/archives/art38.htm)
Enjoy!
-
Hey folks, latest article is up, called "Obama Pitches a Temper Tantrum."
Good work.
-
I am searching for the ink, but apparently a U.S. Appeals Court Judge took offense to what Obama said in the Rose Garden yesterday. The Obama Justice Department has been give days to respond to that Court supporting Obama's claim that overturning Obamacare would be "unprecedented."
-
Hey folks, latest article is up, called "Obama Pitches a Temper Tantrum."
Good work.
Yup, well done. The tie-in to his unelected regulatory regime is particularly relevant in light of his comments against the court. Let's hope your understanding of ego is even greater than 10%.
-
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News. The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate challenge to the health care law. It was apparent, however, that the justice who questioned the government attorney present was referring to Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's review of that law.
The source said the justice, Judge Jerry Smith, was pointed in his questioning of the government attorney, asking whether Attorney General Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.
Smith then ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1UfjIun (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1UfjIun)
-
All y'all pay attention now: THEY HAVE HEREBY ISSUED THE CHALLENGE. The DOJ may be planning on challenging the USSC striking down the law. If it does, they've definitely gone ex-Constitutional, all the way, rogue.
Powder dry.
-
All y'all pay attention now: THEY HAVE HEREBY ISSUED THE CHALLENGE. The DOJ may be planning on challenging the USSC striking down the law. If it does, they've definitely gone ex-Constitutional, all the way, rogue.
Powder dry.
As sad as it would make me, in a way, it would be a relief. Relief from the not knowing, and wondering.
-
I always thought it was a good idea to piss the people with all the power over me off. ::foilhathelicopter::
-
Hey folks, latest article is up, called "Obama Pitches a Temper Tantrum."
Good work.
Thank you!
-
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News. The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate challenge to the health care law. It was apparent, however, that the justice who questioned the government attorney present was referring to Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's review of that law.
The source said the justice, Judge Jerry Smith, was pointed in his questioning of the government attorney, asking whether Attorney General Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.
Smith then ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1UfjIun (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1UfjIun)
Yep, saw that earlier. Apparently, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case re: Obamacare right now. They issued a demand to the DoJ attorney, giving him 48 hours to explain what Obama meant by "unprecedented for SCOTUS to strike down federal law," no fewer than 3 pages, single-spaced.
Talk about a smack-down. That demand was a lot more insulting that it had to be.
And, everyone here is right. I'm not sure what Obama thinks he's going to do, but once SCOTUS speaks, that's the end of the ball game. There are no other options. He could always just ignore the ruling, but he'd get impeached over that for sure (I hope).
-
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News. The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate challenge to the health care law. It was apparent, however, that the justice who questioned the government attorney present was referring to Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's review of that law.
The source said the justice, Judge Jerry Smith, was pointed in his questioning of the government attorney, asking whether Attorney General Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.
Smith then ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1UfjIun (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r1UfjIun)
Yep, saw that earlier. Apparently, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case re: Obamacare right now. They issued a demand to the DoJ attorney, giving him 48 hours to explain what Obama meant by "unprecedented for SCOTUS to strike down federal law," no fewer than 3 pages, single-spaced.
Talk about a smack-down. That demand was a lot more insulting that it had to be.
And, everyone here is right. I'm not sure what Obama thinks he's going to do, but once SCOTUS speaks, that's the end of the ball game. There are no other options. He could always just ignore the ruling, but he'd get impeached over that for sure (I hope).
Prepping the base and shifting blame.
-
No. He won't get impeached. You're counting on the Senate, of whom the E-GOP holds no majority, having the balls??
No. It will be up to us. You, me, you, youyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyouyou, showing up and STANDING.
Jesus Christ, give us the strength, the will and Your Mighty Blessing.
"Red Dawn" on right now on AMC.
-
No. He won't get impeached. You're counting on the Senate, of whom the E-GOP holds no majority, having the balls??
No. It will be up to us. You, me, you, you...youyouyouyou, showing up and STANDING.
Jesus Christ, give us the strength, the will and Your Mighty Blessing.
"Red Dawn" on right now on AMC.
Well...not to get TOO technical, but the House does the impeaching (indicting). The Senate does the convicting. Clinton WAS impeached, just not convicted. Second only President in history. Obama's on track to be the third.
He'd have to do something grossly way over the top, though. This being an election year would make Republicans very hesitant to appear to be messing with an election with an impeachment.
Not that Obama's entire presidency has been grossly way over the top, or anything. You'd need 10 sets of hands to count all the times he's blatantly ignored the law.
-
Pan is right though, regarding the conspicuous absence of testicular fortitude among the GOP. I'm not sure they would impeach him even with their significant House majority.
But that leads to another question, one I find more ominous yet. Suppose they did impeach him, and suppose the Senate did uphold the impeachment. Legally, constitutionally, the President is ejected from office. What if he (or any other President for that matter) were to simply refuse to leave office? Who goes in there and literally drags him out? Would they actually do it?
That right there is why I think the milquetoast E-GOP doesn't take a harder stance against the criminality of this regime, because they know they lack the guts so they'd rather be passive from the start. At least that way they can fall back on plausible deniability.
-
None of them has the testicles to ponder being the congress that impeached the First Black President™.
-
Agreed, the narrative is effed up right from the start, they'd be impeaching the First Treasonous Black President™. I would tell people we can find a much much better black president than this! How about Allen West?
;)
ETA - Palin suggest West for VP.
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5390.new.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5390.new.html)
-
Agreed, the narrative is effed up right from the start, they'd be impeaching the First Treasonous Black President™. I would tell people we can find a much much better black president than this! How about Allen West?
;)
ETA - Palin suggest West for VP.
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5390.new.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5390.new.html)
Hey leave my Rep.alone,we just got him. Back to the topic at hand,I don't think he's ready for that move as much as I love the guy.
-
Agreed, the narrative is effed up right from the start, they'd be impeaching the First Treasonous Black President™. I would tell people we can find a much much better black president than this! How about Allen West?
;)
ETA - Palin suggest West for VP.
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5390.new.html (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,5390.new.html)
Hey leave my Rep.alone,we just got him. Back to the topic at hand,I don't think he's ready for that move as much as I love the guy.
Sorry, I'll tell you up front I won't leave him alone! ;)