Boehner is suing Obama?

This'll galvanize the GOP for sure...!

---

Is she the most sagacious Judge who ever lived???

---

Seriously, I am ALL for this. Get it settled once and for all.

How I wish Obama had gone along with having congressional hearings on Bush Cheney war crimes when he took office.

They'd both be in jail, and the Republican party would have imploded rather turn into a circus party with faux strategies that have nothing to do with governing the country.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a citizen. The congress approved the war based on lies provided to them by the administration. Hearings would have wholly appropriate and legal.

The "scandals" that have been created and inflated around this administration are nothing compared to the raping of our country by the two Cheney terms.

And I can guarantee that your racist twist as a cloak against impeachment is absurd.

I bet his legacy will be remarkably positive.

I wonder which came first, Obama "exceeding" his executive authority or the House making it their mission in life from Day 1 to tie up in endless "debate" everything he's trying to get done to ensure he "fails"? Interesting question.

"Obama realized that Congress was too much bother and so just started striking out on his own doing whatever he felt like. That is why the Supreme Court just struck down his Labor nominations. This suing issue is coming up because Obama has taken too much liberty."

I realize we have more government than the House but things have a hard time getting to the Senate if they can't get through the House and even when they've gotten to the Senate, the Republican minority used its power to filibuster since the Democrats didn't always have 60 votes to end it. The court ruled today about these NLRB appointments but the appointments were actually made in 2012. Yet Boehner is just talking about suing now? If this is so egregious, where was he 2 years ago? I don't think it's any great secret that Congress has been refusing to vote on many of Obama's nominations for quite some time and key judgeships and agencies like the NLRB have had to remain shortstaffed and backlogged because of it.

And by the way, George Bush made 171 recess appointments during his 2 terms. As of a study made last year, Obama at that time was at 32. Reagan made 232. If Obama is circumventing Congress illegally, what do we call what Bush and Reagan did? But because Obama did it, he's a traitor, a dictator, an enemy of our way of life and fair government. Please...

Updated On: 6/26/14 at 01:31 PM

Obama realized that Congress was too much bother and so just started striking out on his own doing whatever he felt like.

Omniscient POVs are for novels and do not support your argument.

---

Whatever world Goth lives in really sucks.

---

Goth is right: The Supremes did indeed strike down Obama's recess appointments.Game over. However it shoud be noted that not only does congress block most Obama nominations, they no longer go into recess to stop recess appointments. These appointees were made while congress was not meeting except for a quick pseudo-session every three days so they can claim to be in session while being the congress that has worked lass days than any in the last 150 years.

And at the risk of opening a jumbo can o'worms lets' take a quick look at what I call "The Tail of Two Failures": Obama was head of state when our embassy in Benghazi was attacked and four US citizens were killed. This failure has prompted over 100 congressional investigations (and counting) and prompted the resignation of the secretary of defense. Noted Republican John McCain has repeatedly said this is "a worse scandal than Watergate" ergo, the worst scandal in US history.

Meanwhile, intelligence surrounding the Iraq war was massively incorrect. Representatives of the highest level of government made statements that Iraq possessed massive stockpiles of "Weapons of mass destruction" including having (or soon developing) nuclear weapons. After one of the most costly and bloodiest military actions in recent US history, resulting in the deaths of 4486 American soldiers, A three year inquiry found that many (if not all) claims of Iraqi capabilities were at best unsubstantiated and at worse outright lies. There was no one held accountable.

Updated On: 6/26/14 at 06:28 PM

Goth, would you please supply the full context for the infamous (to the right) "What difference does it make" quote?

Updated On: 6/26/14 at 06:51 PM

Sayeth Goth:

"Benghazi - technically an attack on "American soil" killing four including an ambassador and Herself Clinton saying "What difference does it make?" Any one of these would have gotten any other POTUS impeached immediately."

Sayeth GSLCC:

Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?
Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?
How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?
There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.
Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.
In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.
In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

Goth, you're not only strident, but dull and dim and living in a bubble. Actually you're a bore. Since you're really no fun and unfortunately an empty piñata, I'm putting down my stick and leaving.

Cheers

Updated On: 6/26/14 at 07:04 PM

"Whoever you're getting your talking points from has missed the issue. Bush made his appointments while Congress was in recess. The whole reason that Obama's people went before the Supreme Court was because he made the appointments when Congress was still in session."

Yes, Congress was still in session. Every 3 days a couple of them removed the padlock, walked into an empty chamber, found a gavel in the desk, banged it and asked each other if they wanted to go to Charlie Palmer's for lunch, banged the gavel again and walked out with utterly no business having been conducted. That's the session they were in. I know and I think deep down you know that's not really being in session but the High Court basically said if they call that being in session we feel compelled to take their word for it. They deferred to the definition set by Congress.

"They all voted that Obama was wrong to do it. And being the "Constitution scholar" that he brags himself to be, he should have known what he was doing was wrong."

Well being the constitutional scholar you brag yourself to be I'm sure you know that the Constitution is open to many different interpretations. Two Supreme Court justices, among the most learned scholars in the world can have a completely different interpretation of the exact same clause. Would you say the one of those justices who ends up being in the minority of a split decision by the court "should have known" his or her interpretation was "wrong"? Obama saw was most of us saw, that Congress being in session was a charade and he refused to allow the business of the government to be crippled by it. The Court for reasons I do understand said, look we need to take their word for it that they are in session, so they got away with it. Life goes on. But good luck trying to portray this as Obama trying to usurp Congress's authority. If they refuse to do their job, somebody has got to do what's needed to make sure the government can still function.