[quote=“Kevin_Harrelson, post:13, topic:38436”]
You could also argue that the Republicans want to do something (OK, something different), and the Democrats are stopping them!
Yes, someone could argue that, but they don’t need to because you’ve already done it. I assume you even have specific examples of Democratic obstructionism. Feel free to offer them in spite of having previously derided the “well the other side does it too” argument.
[quote=“Kevin_Harrelson, post:13, topic:38436”]
Seriously, there are two different opinions, and both sides can’t agree. Sort of like taking your wife out to supper. You scream “ribs” and she screams “fondue.” Which one is the obstructionist?
[quote=“wrecksdart, post:11, topic:38436”]
What a charming event dinner at your house must be. Has it occurred to you, though, that this is not as simple as two equally entrenched sides simply being unreasonable? You’ve acknowledged that the lawsuit may be overreaching on Congress’s part. Will you take the further step of admitting that Boehner should work on trying to deal with issues legislatively rather than through meaningless posturing?
Even the Heritage Foundation wonders about remedies in this case. (I’d paste the link, but KitKat has turded my phone.) I can’t imagine anyone actually expects a ruling in this – the lawsuit’s goal is simply to express butt-hurt, garner sympathy (aka checks), and throw the Tea Party a bone.
(And even if a court did rule for the plaintiffs, I can’t see much happening…Obama could just whip out the old Nixon playbook and start at page 1; -)
Didn’t you just say “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
I certainly would like to see executive power reigned in some, but I think for that to happen we would need to completely re-engineer how Congress is elected, so there could be a third party with a decent amount of power to temper the partisanship of the other two.
It’s funny how the GOP has fought everything Obama has done, gloated that he is an “ineffective President” (as if their obstructionism is his fault) then at the same time claimed he is some kind of powerful dictator who has too much power. You can’t have it both ways. None of this is about legislating or governing, it’s all about winning elections, and the GOP is basically pulling grand publicity stunts to try and help their flagging support.
[quote=“wrecksdart, post:11, topic:38436”][quote=“Kevin_Harrelson, post:2, topic:38436”]
This is not a partisan issue.
[/quote]Holy mother-loving bullshit, that’s disingenuous. Where the fuck were all of the right-wing law-hewing patriots when Bush was starting wars of aggression with disinformation and lies, and greatly expanding the surveillance state?
[/quote]
right-wing law-hewing patriots
These days that reads like an oxymoron. Fucking demented nutbag fruitcake arseholes.
They’ll do or say anything. Hey idiots - this is politics, not fucking WWF.
Up can’t be down today and the square root of pi next week, just because you want it to be in order to play a fucking transparent ploy. Or you know, at all.
No, that’s a Fox News narrative, but you only have half of it. The full version is: it’s an abuse of power when a Democrat does it.
Executive orders are not a new thing. Signing statements are not a new thing. The executive branch of government is tasked with executing the law. In order to do that, they need to interpret the law. So the President can add a codicil saying, in effect, “I think this law means X. The Department of Departmenting shall do the following…” Then, if Congress doesn’t like it… I’m not sure what they do. Impeach, I suppose.
The previous President used lots and lots of signing statements to the effect, “I don’t think this law counts.” That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Nobody talked back to him at the time because it is wrong to question the Commander in Chief. However, when a Democrat does it, it’s high crimes and misdemeanors.
Referring to wrecksdart’s comment on where were all the right-wing law-hewing patriots when Bush was starting wars of aggression with disinformation and lies…[quote=“Kevin_Harrelson, post:13, topic:38436”]
I was right here, complaining the entire time. Not all conservatives and libertarians fall into the “war is good” and “surveillance is good” crap.
[/quote]
Um, nope, not if by “right here” you mean boing boing, unless you had a different user name prior to 1-Feb-2014?
I’m always amused by this sort of assertion—oh, the tea party was against big government, war and presidential overreach when Bush was in office… As they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed].
Fair enough, happened to me, too. Still, every time I hear such assertions as “there was an equivalent outcry against Bush, too”, they always rings hollow to me.
I don’t deny that there may have been some little comment, but without citations and references to objections of even one tenth of what we see currently, I remain skeptical.
When I said it may be an abuse of power, I actually meant the “may” it seems a little sketchy to me. I guess the thing is I had never really heard of things like “signing statements” before Bush (and if they were merely a tool of administration then this is not wonder) so my entire relationship with them has been one of, “Wow, can the president actually do that?”
I really don’t like concentration of power in the executive, I’d love to see meaningful lawsuits that take on executive powers. I don’t know how anyone could think this is one of them, though. Like I asked above, what’s the outcome? Before suing someone, you have to know what you hope to get if you win.
Agreed. My comment was made tongue in cheek, but text doesn’t carry that emotion very well (clearly). That, and since I travel in areas that tend to lean heavily into the right-wing political spectrum, I’ve found it interesting to keep my criticisms light since that seems to bring out the nonsense spewed by folks of that ilk.
