A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

I was encouraged to start a new thread so I will. Why do Cons celebrate latest SCOTUS ruling but

Posted: Jun 27, 2014

Why is this one right, but not ACA or Roe V Wade?

;

Obama 2008: Bypassing Congress Unconstitutional; I'll Reverse It - LOL

[ In Reply To ..]
Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3IWq3CXHyc

Imagine if Congress did their job! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

It doesn't matter how many EOs are written - It's the content of the EO

[ In Reply To ..]
This one violated the constitution.

My response was to the video, not the SCOTUS ruling on appointments. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Did you happen to see which post I responded to? I was showing that at least Obama has shown restraint compared to Bush and other presidents (since in the video he said he would reverse the practices of Bush). It totally was my point that if Congress would do their job instead of playing games, perhaps there might be a whole lot less executive orders.

Where was the outrage when Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 (Google that one, for sure)? And when Congress wouldn't act on an issue during the Bush administration, you'll never guess who wrote George W. Bush a letter requesting that he issue an Executive Order! (see link)

Oh, wait!

You want Congress to do their job? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
And by that, do you mean agree with the president so he doesn't have to use an EO?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. That's why we have 3 branches of government, checks and balances, you know.

Yes, I want Congress to do their job! - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You asked: "And by that, do you mean agree with the president so he doesn't have to use an EO?"

Yes, I do mean I want them to vote on issues so the president does not have to use an EO. No, I'm not concerned with how they vote. I never suggested that I wanted them to agree with him, especially since that is not even a possible scenario, just take a position.

I'm just saying take a vote one way or the other rather than refuse to bring anything to the floor (and that goes for House and Senate). Just let the people decide, through their representatives, to oppose/support an issue and send the bill to Obama and let him sign it or veto it. Done!

The obstruction, no matter who is doing it, is what I think needs to stop.

It's not how many - it's what they are - Rita

[ In Reply To ..]
The executive orders that Obama is passing are unconstitutional - they are not for designating a day as "popcorn day" or some other such thing.

A lot more would be happening in the senate if Harry Reid would at least bring the bills to the floor - but he won't bring them to the floor because that would force democrats to have to make decisions that are either unpopular with their voters or go against Obama - and Harry doesn't want that to have to happen.....so there is a stalemate in congress - but it isn't the republicans.....

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU 1000 times - Mrs. Tingles - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You hit that one right on target. Nobody cares how many EOs he's writing. He's not writing them for the benefit of the country and they are unconstitutional.

And yes, you are 100% correct on the second issue. There is a stalemate, but it isn't the republicans.

Thank you for posting this. It's nice to know at least some other people are awake when it comes to what is going on in politics.

It's too bad that's not being reported on MSM, so (sm) - Abby

[ In Reply To ..]
Obama can go out and continue to lie to the "folks." There is one senator, however, a Democrat, wish I could remember his name - who is upset that none of the bills get brought up for a vote by Dirty Harry.

Bush used this mechanism routinely. Why - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
didn't the GOP throw a hissy fit every time he did it?

Bush SHOULD have been prosecuted and HUNG, along with his cronies who lied to Congress and the American people in order to invade, attack and ruin the nation of Iraq.

Instead they're talking about impeaching President Obama for using executive orders.

Unfortunately, Obama has been trying to work with a Congress that blocks every single thing he has tried to do. They're setting him up to be the President that didn't do anything, even though that is TOTALLY the fault of the Republicans who completely refuse to work WITH him and has done so since before he was even inaugurated.

I'll never, ever forget those memorable words by Mitch McConnell, vowing to make President Obama's Presidency a failure. It may be perhaps the ONLY truth he has told during his entire term.

Apples to oranges - A conservatives reply

[ In Reply To ..]
You are comparing apples to oranges. That's like saying doctors should use the same medication on every patient because it worked for one person or its like saying a layer should try a rape case like he does a theft case.

You can't say that because the SC votes one way on one issue they should vote that way on every single issue. If that is the case then why have a SC.

We are not "celebrating", we are just happy they are upholding the law. The law states no president is allow to bypass congress. That goes for democrat presidents too. You can't say, well the law only applies to republican presidents, democrat presidents can do whatever they want, which is exactly what Obama thinks. Also per his own words he even told a crowd during his campaign he would not do this and then he turned around and did it. It was wrong and the SC was in fact correct in their decision.

Then you have the issue of the ACA. That is health care. Roe V Wade is about abortion. Abortion (and health care) has nothing to do a person so hungry with power thinking they can violate the laws and ignore the constitution and do whatever they want. What he did is what Kim Jong-un, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, or other leaders of -blank- countries do. According to the laws of our country ALL presidents (not just republican) have to follow the law as it is written.

As for the different issue - ACA I feel the SC made the incorrect decision. Imposing a law that Americans have to buy a product they don't want to own goes against the constitution. In that case they let their personal feelings (and/or money) interfere with the law. In 2012 they ruled it unconstitutional because it violated the commerce clause, which is the government cannot compel individuals to engage in commerce — that is, to purchase goods and services. So they twisted the laws and called it a tax. However, if I'm correct in my remembering, I thought it was being argued against that it was not a tax, it only turned into a tax once the democrats found out it would be approved by calling it a tax. But in all truth it boils down to they made it a law that individuals had to buy a product whether or not they want to own it. In that case the SC was indeed incorrect in their decision, but so be it, nobody is perfect.

Roe V Wade - That is a case about abortion. Not about violating the constitution by appointing people to a cabinet. You can read about it if you would like. Too lengthy to go into detail.

So, you see, it's pretty simple really. Each case is different. We don't always agree or disagree on every single circumstances, but one thing I think all conservatives can agree about is you cannot violate the laws and start doing whatever you want. Laws are put in place for a reason. There are also laws that were put into place so that we would not end up like North Korea, Cuba, China or other -blank- countries. No person who is sitting in the office of the president should be able to do that. It doesn't matter whether they are republican or democrat. The laws are supposed to apply to ALL people, not just republicans.

One thing for sure with the actions that Dear Leader is doing now I know how the North Korean people feel. I'm very happy that the SC court has ruled in favor of what is clearly stated in the Constitution. I wish all of them a safe life.

Very well said. Video you cite is noted above. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Our founding fathers got it right! And too bad for the president, but he must follow the law.

Thanks. So so sorry I should have mentioned in the post - it was your posting of the video -sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I watched your video first. I should have mentioned that in my message. I encourage everyone to watch it (though I know those who are loyal to him/their party will not). So in a nutshell, Obama says it right there in his own words. " The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America." He truly does think the laws only apply to republicans. But then that is the -blank- way of thinking. Laws only apply to everyone else but them. Stalin, Lenin, etc, That's how they all think.

Someone should ask the O why he thinks the laws don't apply to him. But then again if there is no teleprompter he will not know how to answer.

No apology necessary. - It all speaks for itself.

[ In Reply To ..]
I love this post as well!

If you're comparing Obama to Lenin and Stalin - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Then by your own definition Ronald Reagan would be Carl Marx!

Conservative politicians seem to be so blinded by their hate of the Obama presidency that they're not seeing the big picture. They just say "no" to anything he proposes. Obama has used the Executive Order less than Bush and Reagan, and conservatives are condemning him for using what is in his power as the president to do.

Bruce Bartlett, senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House, writes: (see link)

"During the presidency of George W. Bush, Republicans were huge fans of executive power and even argued in favor of the 'unitary executive,' a theory which said that the president is pretty much all-powerful and could act decisively without Congress."

Bartlett further explains: "Ironically, those who believe in congressional primacy and fear executive overreach are partially responsible for the latter. They have championed use of the filibuster in the Senate to block even the most routine legislation and executive branch appointments. There doesn't seem to be any logic to it except the assumption that whatever Obama wants is per se bad or that Republicans deserve to get something in return for every vote....

Similarly, Congress's refusal to act on many Obama initiatives creates inevitable pressure on him to act unilaterally. It would be much harder for him to do so in the face of a vote in Congress explicitly rejecting one of the policies he has implemented by executive order.

Therefore, one way Congress can restraint the president is simply by doing its job. Hold hearing on presidential proposals, have committee mark-ups and floor votes, have members of Congress stay in town once in a while instead of spending all their time raising money and running for reelection. That, rather than mindless obstructionism, is the best way for Obamaâ��s congressional critics to achieve their goals and reclaim the moral high ground."

Calling Obama a hypocrite for this is the height of hypocrisy.

No where in my post did I compare him. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I mentioned dictators names that's all. BTW, President Reagan did not bypass congress to do as he pleased. He followed the constitution and the laws of the country.

And get off this faux "hate" tirade. Nobody "hates" him. How many times do we have to repeat we are talking about issues. Jeepers! Even my special needs niece understands this. When you can't argue facts you come back with "Obama hater". We don't hate the man. I'm sure he's a very nice person in real life. The fact of the matter is he broke the law period. I don't care if he's republican, independent, democrat, communist, man, woman, white, black, green, purple or whatever color. I don't care if he has 2 heads, 1 arm, can walk, run or fly through the air. Laws need to apply to EVERYONE. Your fave does not get a free pass because he belongs to your club. You cannot say well the republicans have to abide by the laws but the democrats don't have to. A law is a law and like the saying goes "No one is above the law".

I'm not going to get into the theories of past presidents. I am focusing on what is going on in our country at this moment. Regan is not the president right now. Neither is Bush, Carter, Nixon, Roosevelt, Lincoln or George Washington. Who they followed is of no concern. The reason those names were mentioned is because they are dictators. Regan was not a dictator and Reagan followed the laws.

Hypocrisy - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

You said about Obama: "He truly does think the laws only apply to republicans. But then that is the -blank- way of thinking. Laws only apply to everyone else but them. Stalin, Lenin, etc, That's how they all think."

Oh my, just because you compared the way he thinks to Lenin and Stalin, why would anyone think you compared Obama to Lenin and Stalin?

You said: "Laws need to apply to EVERYONE. Your fave does not get a free pass because he belongs to your club. You cannot say well the republicans have to abide by the laws but the democrats don't have to. A law is a law and like the saying goes 'No one is above the law'."

Except maybe "your fave," Ronald Reagan? Does Iran Contra--Arms to Iran for hostages without approval of Congress ring a bell? Executive Order 12333 (and 380 other Executive Orders)? Yet you insist that Reagan did not bypass Congress and "followed the laws?"

I compared Obama to Bush because the video includes the subject. If someone posts something where someone discusses Bush, then I guess it shouldn't be so surprising to people if replies to the post might mention the same thing. Bush had more EOs than Obama and so did Reagan with 381. The article I posted by Ronald Reagan's senior policy analyst, Bruce Bartlett, discusses past presidents use of EOs.

We get that you don't like Obama, but pretending like he invented Executive Orders when he has signed less than any president since World War 2 is just the height of hypocrisy and defies reality.

Agreed -- absolute flaming hypocrisy. - Unreal. (nm)

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

You persist in twisting posters' words. - You lose credibility that way.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

It astounds me the copy and paste skills people have - Too bad you can't understand it

[ In Reply To ..]
Or are just refusing to and would rather twist in a poor attempt to ridicule.

So, here, let me explain:

First, I will repeat...I did not "compare" Obama to anyone. Take for instance I was to say George Bush started a war. Obama is continuing the war. That does not mean I'm comparing them. I'm simply stating they both did it. Same with people who think that laws apply to everyone else but them. Yes, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Hillary, most politicians and yes Obama. That doesn't mean I'm comparing them. They just all think the same thing. If I wanted to compare them I would have gone into detail about why. Yeah all these people DO think the laws apply to everyone else but them.

Oh and my dear, you really have no idea who I like or don't like. I don't care how many executive orders he signs. It is the content of the executive order. Signing an executive order that is lawful that helps the country and is good for the people is one thing. Signing an EO that bypasses the law and lets you become dictator and do whatever the heck you want is another thing.

I would give you a B+ for trying, but since you are angry and twisting words it is now a D+. But a nice try nonetheless as you displayed good copy and paste skills, oh wait, I take that back. I didn't underline anything in my post and if you are going to quote me, don't put in things I didn't.

Final grade = D-

Correction to my post - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The more research I'm doing about this subject (comparisons), the more I'm finding striking similarities.

So I'll take back my comment about comparison. I didn't compare them in my last post, but once I do more extensive research that verdict may change.

I'll keep you posted as to what I find.

Similar Messages:

Jul 13, 2017
My fellow Americans, we did a really good thing last November. ...

Mar 26, 2016
I am leaving for the weekend and just want to wish a Happy Easter to all who celebrate! ...

Jun 23, 2017
Can't wait! ...

Mar 06, 2014
x ...

Jul 01, 2016
I find this video totally depressing. One day at Wal-Mart the kid at the register rang up $17.76. I said, “A famous date in history.” He replied, “Huh?”. Flabbergasted, I said “This nation’s birthday”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Be9f7Ovgg ...

Oct 03, 2014
"The decent, steady, but not great jobs recovery just got a little stronger. But there are still a disturbingly large number of people who aren’t feeling the benefits of the recovery. The U.S. economy added 248,000 jobs in September, according to data released by the the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday. The unemployment rate fell below 6 percent for the first time since July 2008, dropping to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent. Yet wages are still going nowhere: Average hourly earnings ti ...

Oct 06, 2013
AND then they pretend it's President Obama's fault. ...

Apr 02, 2012
I have a questions for the liberals here. I've heard some liberal talking heads state that they believe that if the SCOTUS rules all or part of ObamaCare unconstitutional that it would actually be a good thing for the Dems and Pres Obama. Do you agree? On that same line of thinking, if the law is ruled constitutional, do you think it would be a good thing for the Republicans? In other words, if you lose you win and if you win you also win. ?? ...

Mar 28, 2012
Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Is it just me or is anyone else bothered by the fact that there are no cameras allowed during the ObamaCare arguments? I know they never allow cameras in the SC and I think I understand why they don't --- in order to prevent any distractions with grandstanding and drama by the attorneys. That, and the fact they are the highest court in the land and most judges in this country are notoriously known for hating cameras. Even still, since this ruling w ...

Nov 10, 2010
Guess she IS afraid of losing this January. The party is going on right now behind a curtain at the WH. Wonder who is paying for this? Pelosi to throw reception to celebrate 'accomplishments' of Dem Congress November 8, 2010, 2:57 pm by Christina Wilkie Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will host a reception Wednesday afternoon on Capitol Hill to celebrate "The accomplishments of the 111th Congress," according to an invit ...

Feb 05, 2011
including his son, Gamal. This is viewed as another red herring appeasement by Egyptians as he has not resigned as president and the NDP is notoriously corrupt, meaning nothing is keeping them from replacing old corrupt leaders with new corrupt leaders, as was the case with the appointment of Suleiman as VP. Nonetheless, this is at least a symbolic baby step in the right direction, behind more substantial reforms, to include the establishment of a transitional go ...

Jan 02, 2017
WTH is wrong with these people? ...

Dec 14, 2010
x ...

Jun 28, 2012
http://politicker.com/2012/06/mitt-romney-raised-100k-in-less-than-an-hour-after-the-supreme-court-healthcare-ruling/ I used to support Obama, but he has turned out to be just another lying politican.... claiming this was absolutely not a tax, now wont even admit it IS a tax since the Court stated it is. What a weasel. ...

Mar 19, 2014
I hope other states follow suit. ...

Apr 01, 2013
BIG ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS! Wish we wore the white hats here, but hopefully we'll follow. Contact your representatives? Note that the pharmacy industry makes huge profits, among the most profitable of all industries, because people will pay all they have for a drug to save themselves or loved ones. WE would because these days "poor patients" include anyone without particularly good insurance. Excerpts from the Washington Post, link below. "NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court o ...

Apr 09, 2015
A federal judge has wrongly prevented "common-sense policies" from taking effect by blocking President Barack Obama's executive action that seeks to shield millions of immigrants from deportation, and the federal government plans to continue its fight in a higher court, the White House said Wednesday. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the policies are in the best interest of the economy and supported by businesses, faith leaders and local law enforcement across the country, "includ ...

Jun 26, 2012
in the ruling’s “wait-and-see” wording because these state laws have not yet been implemented the policies and lower court legal interpretations of that portion of the law have not been exhausted. After the initial “victory” boast in her official statement, Governor Brewer later channeled her inner candor in an interview, bemoaning how the victory had become “disgraceful,” (presumably based on her perception that SCOTUS had told AZ to ‘drop d ...

Jun 28, 2012
The exact quote is, “Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so." OMG. Is this the best the TP has to offer? Is this the same Tea Party whose platform is founded on the principle that, "The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to without exception at all levels of government?" One has to wonder if he has ever read it. Then he said, "The Tea P ...

Oct 15, 2014
while two separate actions challenging MD hospital admitting privilege requirements and costly reconstruction mandates make their way to the Supreme Court's doorsteps. Fogey Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas were the only dissenting opinions. Those numbers are looking good. The day SCOTUS finally puts Texas tyranny to rest once and for all can't get here soon enough. ...

Jun 25, 2015
But maybe not for long. On what grounds would Obama dare to veto a bill that eliminates the exemption? ...

Jul 01, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/critics-say-supreme-courts-proposition-8-ruling-ta/ ...

Nov 04, 2013
had been expanded to cover making all medical abortions in Oklahoma illegal, and the Supreme Court refused to accept it. ...

Aug 19, 2017
.. ...

Oct 19, 2014
NM ...

Oct 23, 2016
I would never be able to explain my vote to my children down the road if I voted for more of what we've had for 8 years. ...

Sep 02, 2012
President Obama rose above the fray in his response to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech Thursday night by praising his work as an actor and director, citing Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River as examples of his expertise. No criticism. No speculation. Just praise for a job well done. Grace and style. I would expect nothing less. By contrast, on Meet the Press this morning, Newt graciously admitted the Eastwood thing had been a distraction, then promp ...

Feb 26, 2015
Dr dictates: Saccharomyces boulardii ASR: My she has a big artery ...

Sep 12, 2011
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/09/05/rabid-dog-briefly-mistaken-for-tea-party-candidate-2/ ...

Dec 09, 2013
Unaffordable Care Act, in case you didn't know what UCA is. Link ...