1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Coming Soon: Higher Obamacare Premiums

justpaul Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 11:02 AM
Well, well. It would seem that an awful lot of those 18-24 year olds who voted for Obama don't want to "pay their fair share" and "help to keep premiums down". Now who would have ever guessed that liberals would not want to pay for what they insisted was necessary?
So why did he then send his U.N. Ambassador out to lie about it all being related to an internet video no one had yet seen? Was that just for kicks? Oh, right. He didn't ACTUALLY refer to Benghazi as a terrorist incident. He just made a offhand reference to terrorism in general. Just another one of those oral malfunctions he's so famous for?
That depends on whether the Court adopts the previous ruling with regard to when the vacancy occurs. The Constitution clearly states that the vacancy occurs during the recess, not vise versa. Contrary to the LA Times, which would probably support a claim that Obama has been elected to a lifetime position as President and Supreme Dictator, the existence of a longstanding precedent of illegality does not make an act legal. And if Obama and the Time want to focus on precedents, they should focus on Mr. Obama's own previous support for and use of pro forma sessions to block the presidential recess appointment power. In the original plan, the only vacancies that the president could fill with the recess power were those which occurred, meaning "became vacant", during a Senate recess. To claim that the president merely needs to wait until the Senate recesses and then he or she is free to appoint anyone he or she likes with no regard for the Senate's advise and consent role is a clear misreading of the text of the Constitution. Such a position makes the advise and consent role itself meaningless. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg should be able to understand that.
With any luck, the Court will rule that the recess power only applies when the vacancy occurs during a Senate recess, which is the clear text of the Constitution. The way Obama and far too many other presidents have read it, the recess occurs during the vacancy. That was never intended to be the case, as that gives the president the ability to ignore the Senate advice and consent completely. Obama's mistake was in presuming that he could decide for himself whether the Senate was in session, even if he had to show himself to be a huge hypocrite to do so. As for the fear that the Senate minority could then block all nominees; that was the plan the founder's set up. The intention was always that the president would work with the Senate to select nominees, not around them.
I too am shocked. Shocked that the Democrats in the Senate care more about providing freebies to illegal immigrants than they do about paying for those freebies. That they care even less about providing services to those who defended this country is simply deplorable. It is in no way surprising enough to cause any level of shock.
Fine, call it PelosiCare. She's the one who rammed it through the House.
Divisions, ethnic tensions, and class warfare are the stock and trade of the liberal/progressive/Democrat movement. Without them, neither Michelle nor Oprah would be where they are.
Yes, of course. Because every sports team chooses a name that they feel is derogatory. Next up, the Southpark Giant Douches vs. the Southpark Turd Sandwiches.
Well let's just hope that those 330,000 members all remember who it was that gave them all the one-finger salute in November, as well as who it was that gave themselves the freedom to confirm this nominee with no debate.
1 - 10 Next