Hey Lost -"my sides are aching from laughing." Hysteria
does that.And although hysteria may be common among
"Conservatives," it serves no good purpose, and it could be part of the
reason behind the compete inability of "Conservatives" in Congress to do
any good at all for the American people.BTW, who polls higher?
Obama or Republicans in Congress?Besides, polls measure perceptions,
that's all. GW Bush polled relatively highly in 2002, even while his
policies were setting this nation up for utter failure.Hey Riverton
Cougar -Face it. In spite of the best attempts of
"Conservatives" to sabotage the Obama Presidency, he's doing pretty
well . . . Especially when you compare him to his predecessor.The
Obama administration has been busily straightening up the mess left to it by
Republicans, and he's made considerable progress, in SPITE of the campaign
of obstructionism and political terrorism continually waged by Republicans
against the American people.
I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of a former professor of
constitutional law who used his presidential power in a way that the entire
Supreme Court agrees is unconstitutional.
@Riverton CougarConservatives need to do some fact finding. The debt, as
a percent of GDP, has gone down each year BO's been in office. The number
of federal employees and discretionary spending has gone down as well. The
issue of the size of the debt growing is because the amount of revenue (taxes)
being collected is at the lowest percent of GDP since the 50's.
Conservatives have a very poor track record of balancing the budget because they
favor more to cutting taxes for their white rich friends than they do about
perserving the opportunities for our youth and the future of our country.
"I guess you don't have much regard for human life, not aware of 9/11
or the fact Bush crushed our economy and put us on our current debt driven path.
BO has reversed the course and anyone who has their eyes open can clearly see
that."@FTSo in other words it's Bush's
fault that Obama has increased the debt by so much (in fact, it took him a
little over 3 years to match Bush's 8-year debt contribution). I don't
see how that's "reversing the course", as you say it.And as for regard for human life, I wasn't the one who responded about
Benghazi by saying "what difference does it make?". And how many died in
the terrorist attacks? It's an incredibly small number when compared to the
number of abortions performed each year in the U.S (1.2 million per year). The
DNC is the true no-regard-for-life party."As a progressive he is
desperate to stop conservatives plan to make America and oliarachy."Obama's the one who said he plans to "fundamentally transform
America". The conservatives are trying to preserve the nation.
hey LostThe Senate's duty is to vote yes or no on a President's
appointments. This Senate did neither on the NLRB (and others). The Senate has lost its usefulness when it just obstructs, by this play recess
game and other means. The Senate needs to become a meaningful institution in my
opinion, something that is not at this time, too bad.While the SC
did what it had to, vote all against Obama's try at appointments, I restate
my assertion that the real problem in today's federal gov't is the
Senate's inaction on important issues and at critical times. Like this.
GaryOthanks for the laugh.but please stop, my sides are
aching from laughing.refer to the June 20, 2014 Gallup poll on BO;
you are definitely in the minority thinking he a success.
@Riverton Cougar"As for the rest of the country who will open our eyes
and see what's going on, we know that Obama is by far the worst president
this country has ever ever had in office."Seriously? I guess you
don't have much regard for human life, not aware of 9/11 or the fact Bush
crushed our economy and put us on our current debt driven path. BO has reversed
the course and anyone who has their eyes open can clearly see that. The
SC was right in it's ruling and BO went to far with the appointments. As a
progressive he is desperate to stop conservatives plan to make America and
"Obama's actually done a pretty decent job pulling this nation out of
the hole dug for it by the last administration, all the Republican Denial and
remonstrations notwithstanding."Easy to say for someone who
believes there have been no scandals and that the economy has recovered. As for
the rest of the country who will open our eyes and see what's going on, we
know that Obama is by far the worst president this country has ever ever had in
office.The political games are nothing new. However, the extreme
incompetency (or worse, possible extreme contempt for our great nation) of the
current president has never been seen before. God bless America. With Obama at
the helm, America needs all the help she can get!
Prediction. If the Republicans happen to win the Senate and hold the House, you
will see the fillabuster become the norm for Democrats in the Senate. And, if
by chance some bills were allowed to get past the Senate (Reid would have to be
on vacation or something) then Obama will become like the first George Bush.
The veto President. We won't have Democrats complaining about fillabusters
then, will we Silo.
Hey Lost -"BO needs no help from the right to fail – he is
doing that well enough on his own."That's just wishful
thinking on your part Lost.Obama's actually done a pretty
decent job pulling this nation out of the hole dug for it by the last
administration, all the Republican Denial and remonstrations notwithstanding.I saw a Republican Senator on CNN today almost foaming at the mouth . .
. Rabidly lashing out in a wild eyed frenzy, trying to blame Obama for Iraq.It's a pity the Republican Party has degenerated to such a state.
@danish americanCan't post links, but search on 'Cloture
Attempts on Nominations: Data andHistorical Development' by the
Congressional Research Office.Politifact also has a summary of the
numbers there, available by searching 'reid blocked nominees' and
selecting the Nov 22, 2013 story.
@Silo: Sources please!
Total count of President's Judicial appointees blocked by filibuster.President Obama: 79 appointees blocked (so far)All other
Presidents: 68 appointees blocked (total)So Republicans during
Obama's 1.5 terms have blocked more judicial appointees than were blocked
in all previous administrations combined. Clearly the problem is all
“Obama was the first president to try to make recess appointments when
Congress explicitly said it was not in recess.The partisan roles
were reversed during Bush's presidency, when Senate Democrats sought ways
to prevent the president from making recess appointments. Those rules give
Senate the ability to block all recess appointments by convening for pro forma
sessions — a practice (reid) began under the Bush administration”Bush played by the rules, even when reid did everything he could to
thwart him. Now BO has to play by the rules, too – though I am sure he
will try to find a way out.Dave 4197The senate is duty bound
to stop BO’s appointments if they do not agree with them. Wish hatch had
showed some spine when slick nominated ginsberg.CHS 85,Activist judges pass de-facto legislation. Ruling on the illegal activities
of an out-of-control POTUS is not passing de-facto legislation. Sorry you
cannot see the difference.Furry,BO needs no help from the
right to fail – he is doing that well enough on his own.
Good and rational decision. Now it's time forSenators, and especially the
far right members of the Senate, to grow up, stop playing political games to try
to make the President fail, and start working for the good of the country to get
necessary things done (including an up/down vote on nominees).
Hey Brio -"That is first politically related comment of yours I
haven't been able to take issue with"You're not trying
hard enough.BTW, your suggestion that this Supreme Court is not
activist is way off.The Citizens United decision was nothing if not
an act of Political Activism on the part of this Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme
Court, who infringed on the Legislature's authority to make law.
@ CHS 85:Though the Supreme Court sometimes falls victim to doing
such things, you're obviously confusing the Supreme Court with individual
state and federal judges who like the notoriety that such activist-type
decisions give them. Sadly, that will probably continue.
But I thought it was an "activist court" who "legislates from the
@ GaryO:That is first politically related comment of yours I
haven't been able to take issue with. You're making progress.
Congratulations. Keep up the newfound objectiveness. It's refreshing.
"Supreme Court limits president's appointments power".
. . Sounds fair to me.Obviously, it wasn't a partisan
decision.The Supreme Court was unanimous on this.
now the US Senate, that old busy body institution, needs to man up and do their
job. stop playing games with Presidential appointments, like filibuster, like
play recesses. the brazen action in this situation was and is the US
Senate's refusal to consider and do their job of "advise and
Now watch and listen to the liberals whine!
The Senate leader, crybaby Reid, changes the rules to accomodate Obama. It sure
will be funny if that change comes back in the future to bite the Democrats who
supported it. Kharma says it will. Glad the Supreme Court has put the breaks
on Obama pushing to get around the rules. 9 to nothing from the Supremes. So
I doubt there will be any disagreement with the ruling.