VST,Kidding? No. But I am not hopeful it will happen either.
I believe that both sides are correct.The President should not
(cannot)have the ability to appoint without Senate approval save for recess.But the Senate should not have the ability to do pro forma sessions such
that there is never a recess.They act on the appointments given them
by the President - up or down.Let's have both sides grow up and
This is nauseating.Why doesn't it include some of the
shenanigans of President Cheney and his little friend as they circumvented
honesty? They were doing to keep their actions hidden. This president is doing
it because the GOP in Congress is still trying to make him a one term president.
IF the Supreme Court does its duty, IF the Supreme Court enforces the separation
of the three branches of government and IF the Supreme Court forgets to allow
political stalemate to rule and reign in its chambers, the ruling will be 9 to 0
against Obama's claim of royalty. He will be told that his job description
has already been written for him and that any change to that job description
requires an amendment to the Constitution. For a President who claims to be a
Constitutional Scholar, Obama has shown nothing but contempt for that Supreme
Law of the Land. He must think that it only applies to others and not to
"I refuse to take no for an answer. ... When Congress refuses to act ... I
have an obligation as president to do what I can without them."----------------Ah yes, spoken like the dictator Pres. Obama truly
aspires to be rather than the so-called professor of Constitutional law that we
have been told he once was.The tiresome predictability of egomania
is one of its most disappointing characteristics.