Who supports John Boehner's Lawsuit ?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I faced a lot of opinions including adjectives "baseless" and "frivolous". But are you serious? The reasons for it are as obvious as day changes the night . And the majority of citizens find the House GOP plan to sue the president is a political plus.Also look for Democrats and the White House to start talking about the possibility of impeachment. If they think the lawsuit is good politics for them, they think the impeachment narrative is even better.

You see the case of bipartisan agreement is such a rare thing, but I'm glad that not in this case !!! Obama really deserves investigation as minimum and impeachment as maximum!

They're not "opinions," they're fact: Boehner lacks standing, and the suit is without merit.

And although the House is at liberty to "impeach" the president, it would be done in bad faith, as they'd never win conviction in the Senate.

 

[Jarhead]

I faced a lot of opinions including adjectives "baseless" and "frivolous". But are you serious? The reasons for it are as obvious as day changes the night . And the majority of citizens find the House GOP plan to sue the president is a political plus.Also look for Democrats and the White House to start talking about the possibility of impeachment. If they think the lawsuit is good politics for them, they think the impeachment narrative is even better.

You see the case of bipartisan agreement is such a rare thing, but I'm glad that not in this case !!! Obama really deserves investigation as minimum and impeachment as maximum!

They're not "opinions," they're fact: Boehner lacks standing, and the suit is without merit.

And although the House is at liberty to "impeach" the president, it would be done in bad faith, as they'd never win conviction in the Senate.

Fact?

Boehner lacks standing with only those that don't appreciate what he does. That is, by far, not everyone. So that makes it opinion, not fact.

The suit has not been found to not be with merit. Until a judge throws it out, it is assumed to have merit. So you don't know that as fact.

That's 2 strikes.

No one is talking about impeachment except the democrats CLAIMING the republicans are talking about impeachment.

That's 3 strikes.

Your post is flawed.

 

[gtarguy921]

I faced a lot of opinions including adjectives "baseless" and "frivolous". But are you serious? The reasons for it are as obvious as day changes the night . And the majority of citizens find the House GOP plan to sue the president is a political plus.Also look for Democrats and the White House to start talking about the possibility of impeachment. If they think the lawsuit is good politics for them, they think the impeachment narrative is even better.

Sorry.....

GOP Thinks Twice About Backing Boehner?s Lawsuit Against Obama | The Fiscal Times

Morning Plum: GOP lawsuit against Obama could play into Dems? hands - The Washington Post

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[Jarhead]

I faced a lot of opinions including adjectives "baseless" and "frivolous". But are you serious? The reasons for it are as obvious as day changes the night . And the majority of citizens find the House GOP plan to sue the president is a political plus.Also look for Democrats and the White House to start talking about the possibility of impeachment. If they think the lawsuit is good politics for them, they think the impeachment narrative is even better.

Sorry.....

GOP Thinks Twice About Backing Boehner?s Lawsuit Against Obama | The Fiscal Times

Morning Plum: GOP lawsuit against Obama could play into Dems? hands - The Washington Post

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

you cite articles that say it is not politically expedient as proof that it is unwarranted?

Really?

You are saying Boehner is a fool for the law suit because it will ruin republican political aspirations?

But congress overseeing the executive branch and ensuring the legislative body does not become obsolete means nothing to you?

You are quite naïve.

 

[Siete]

Personally, I like the lawsuit

It reeks of desperation

the House will move ahead full steam on the lawsuit, and ignore major issues like immigration reform before they take a month vacation ... why wouldn't the WH not love the lawsuit ? Theater, partisan rhetoric duly noted. The right insists on giving the left all the ammunition they need to keep the Senate and win another Presidential election.

Sue Baby, SUE ?

 

[Katzndogz]

Whatever it takes to roadblock obama. There should be 50 lawsuits and impeachment.

 

[Siete]

Whatever it takes to roadblock obama. There should be 50 lawsuits and impeachment.

roadblock Obama ... yeah, ANYTHING to keep him from running again in 2016 !!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously republicans enjoy exhibiting their ignorance and making themselves look foolish.

Boehner lacks standing and his 'lawsuit' has no merit as a consequence of the political question doctrine:

The political question doctrine could be read narrowly or more broadly. Read narrowly, the political question doctrine should be invoked only when the issue presented to the Court is one that "has been textually committed to another branch of government." That is, if the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary not resolve a particular question of constitutional interpretation, that determination must be respected. More broadly, the political question doctrine might be invoked when there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial intervention might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, or when a judicial decision might threaten the integrity of the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court's "Political Question Doctrine"

Boehner's issue with the president is political, not legal; the president is acting within his powers as Chief Executive as afforded him by the Constitution. That Boehner 'thinks' or 'believes' or 'feels' the president is not acting in accordance with the Constitution is subjective and partisan, having nothing to do with the law, the Constitution, or the courts.

 

[gtarguy921]

you cite articles that say it is not politically expedient as proof that it is unwarranted?

Really?

You are saying Boehner is a fool for the law suit because it will ruin republican political aspirations?

But congress overseeing the executive branch and ensuring the legislative body does not become obsolete means nothing to you?

You are quite naïve.


Well somebody is anyway.

The only patsies I can see from here, are those falling for the notion that this asenine, hypocritical attempt at gotcha politics enjoys bipartisan support from Congress, and the majority of American citizens.

No big surprise, coming from the same loudmouthed rubes who fell for those garbage reports about Romney's comfortable lead in 2012, like a ton of bricks.

Keep pretending Faux News and your disc jockeys aren't blowing smoke up your ass this time too. And when this stupidity comes back to bite your heroes in the ass, don't forget to spout garbage about Liberals, instead of being pissed off at the fuckers who lied to you as well.

Because that's not acceptable cult behavior.

 

[jasonnfree]

I definitely support the lawsuit. It is apparent that Barry has overstepped his legal boundaries.

Course, when you're an amateur and you have no idea how to shape or create consensus on an issue, then governing by decree is your only hope.

Imagine if this was a Republican President...

No thanks. The last one we had was a disaster. Things are better now under Obama. This is how future generations will see it.

 

[jasonnfree]

Obviously republicans enjoy exhibiting their ignorance and making themselves look foolish.

Boehner lacks standing and his 'lawsuit' has no merit as a consequence of the political question doctrine:

The political question doctrine could be read narrowly or more broadly. Read narrowly, the political question doctrine should be invoked only when the issue presented to the Court is one that "has been textually committed to another branch of government." That is, if the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary not resolve a particular question of constitutional interpretation, that determination must be respected. More broadly, the political question doctrine might be invoked when there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial intervention might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, or when a judicial decision might threaten the integrity of the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court's "Political Question Doctrine"

Boehner's issue with the president is political, not legal; the president is acting within his powers as Chief Executive as afforded him by the Constitution. That Boehner 'thinks' or 'believes' or 'feels' the president is not acting in accordance with the Constitution is subjective and partisan, having nothing to do with the law, the Constitution, or the courts.

Should be a rule that alcoholics can't serve in politics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I faced a lot of opinions including adjectives "baseless" and "frivolous". But are you serious? The reasons for it are as obvious as day changes the night . And the majority of citizens find the House GOP plan to sue the president is a political plus.Also look for Democrats and the White House to start talking about the possibility of impeachment. If they think the lawsuit is good politics for them, they think the impeachment narrative is even better.

You see the case of bipartisan agreement is such a rare thing, but I'm glad that not in this case !!! Obama really deserves investigation as minimum and impeachment as maximum!

I support the concept, but would have to see the actual complaint before I support it.

 

[Votto]

I faced a lot of opinions including adjectives "baseless" and "frivolous". But are you serious? The reasons for it are as obvious as day changes the night . And the majority of citizens find the House GOP plan to sue the president is a political plus.Also look for Democrats and the White House to start talking about the possibility of impeachment. If they think the lawsuit is good politics for them, they think the impeachment narrative is even better.

You see the case of bipartisan agreement is such a rare thing, but I'm glad that not in this case !!! Obama really deserves investigation as minimum and impeachment as maximum!

How much money do you think John can get out of Barry?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I definitely support the lawsuit. It is apparent that Barry has overstepped his legal boundaries.

Course, when you're an amateur and you have no idea how to shape or create consensus on an issue, then governing by decree is your only hope.

Imagine if this was a Republican President...

It was. Haven't you ever asked yourself why Bush and Cheney don't travel outside the country? At least other countries see them for what they are and had the balls to declare them as international war criminals.

09 June 2014
UN Could Prosecute Bush for War Crimes
UN Could Prosecute Bush for War Crimes, Says Ex-U.S. Terror Czar

The allegations made against Obama are just more chum to stir up idiots like yourself and steer you to vote for WHOEVER OR WHATEVER GOP dickhead has a chance in hell of getting elected in 2016.

You should inform the NYT that Bush hasn't been out of the country since he was in office, they seem to think he makes regular jaunts out of the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/w...-and-since-his-presidency.html?pagewanted=all

 

[OKTexas]

Personally, I like the lawsuit

It reeks of desperation

No it reeks of reality, that the commies in the senate will never uphold their oaths of office and convict and remove the bastard. The courts are the only alternative and the supreme court should take the case directly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I faced a lot of opinions including adjectives "baseless" and "frivolous". But are you serious? The reasons for it are as obvious as day changes the night . And the majority of citizens find the House GOP plan to sue the president is a political plus.Also look for Democrats and the White House to start talking about the possibility of impeachment. If they think the lawsuit is good politics for them, they think the impeachment narrative is even better.

You see the case of bipartisan agreement is such a rare thing, but I'm glad that not in this case !!! Obama really deserves investigation as minimum and impeachment as maximum!

They're not "opinions," they're fact: Boehner lacks standing, and the suit is without merit.

And although the House is at liberty to "impeach" the president, it would be done in bad faith, as they'd never win conviction in the Senate.

The idea is that Congress is going to sue, not Boehner.

Not that facts will change your opinion.

 

[Kosh]

Who supports John Boehner's Lawsuit ?

Yes in principal, but no in practical purposes.

By the time this law suit actually makes it to the courts the far left Obama will be out of office.

 

[Kosh]

Obviously republicans enjoy exhibiting their ignorance and making themselves look foolish.

Boehner lacks standing and his 'lawsuit' has no merit as a consequence of the political question doctrine:

The political question doctrine could be read narrowly or more broadly. Read narrowly, the political question doctrine should be invoked only when the issue presented to the Court is one that "has been textually committed to another branch of government." That is, if the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary not resolve a particular question of constitutional interpretation, that determination must be respected. More broadly, the political question doctrine might be invoked when there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial intervention might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, or when a judicial decision might threaten the integrity of the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court's "Political Question Doctrine"

Boehner's issue with the president is political, not legal; the president is acting within his powers as Chief Executive as afforded him by the Constitution. That Boehner 'thinks' or 'believes' or 'feels' the president is not acting in accordance with the Constitution is subjective and partisan, having nothing to do with the law, the Constitution, or the courts.

Should be a rule that alcoholics can't serve in politics.

Maybe your are right, so that would get rid of most if not all of the far left..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obviously republicans enjoy exhibiting their ignorance and making themselves look foolish.

Boehner lacks standing and his 'lawsuit' has no merit as a consequence of the political question doctrine:

The political question doctrine could be read narrowly or more broadly. Read narrowly, the political question doctrine should be invoked only when the issue presented to the Court is one that "has been textually committed to another branch of government." That is, if the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary not resolve a particular question of constitutional interpretation, that determination must be respected. More broadly, the political question doctrine might be invoked when there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial intervention might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, or when a judicial decision might threaten the integrity of the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court's "Political Question Doctrine"

Boehner's issue with the president is political, not legal; the president is acting within his powers as Chief Executive as afforded him by the Constitution. That Boehner 'thinks' or 'believes' or 'feels' the president is not acting in accordance with the Constitution is subjective and partisan, having nothing to do with the law, the Constitution, or the courts.

When the Executive Branch rewrites a law the issue is much more than political, it is all about the constitutional separation of powers because the Constitution clearly gives that power to the Legislative Branch.

By the way, since the issue has never been brought to the courts before, all you pontificating about precedents is going to be useless. I guess that is why you are lying about the issues.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The house should sue Obama if only to get the Supreme Court to cut Obamas balls off for his lawless action.