What's new

GOP's (constant) " NO - NO - NO " reward

Congress (republicans) are not going to vote against a Consumer protection department that they voted for in the first place. They figured that they could vote for the legislation and then sink an appointment the the very department they supported. Now they are faced with going up against the president in an election year and would have to explain to the voters why they do not want to allow a department to have a leader who is supported by both conservatives and liberals. Yea, that will play just great during an election cycle. The republicans did not look a few moves ahead on this one and it would appear that they just got stomped.

You realize this is most likely one those deals where they voted w/o reading the bill. I believe they found out CFPB was under Fed and out of reach from Congress funding after it was passed.

Not that many on the GOP side voted for it...
 
My link


I think you mean running for re-election now that both houses can't forward the progressive agenda that was his steamroller now sucks and he will do a run around on the Constitution.
You know, like "natural born".

He is an ass.......and he is demonstrating why we have/need a separation of powers.

But it sounds like its ok by you.....
How did you deduce all of that nonsense above from my observational post? Having a bad night dude?
 
How did you deduce all of that nonsense above from my observational post? Having a bad night dude?

I think what the administration is challenging is that a pro-forma session that lasts more than three days is a recess.

Totally within Constitutional rules.....and he went against the Constitution.

Running against a congress that is only liked by freinds and family members (of congress) is probably a good strategy right now.

Like I said......losing control of one house is all he can campaign on? C'mon Tech....that in itself is quite a sad statement of Presidential accomplishments.

"I can't get anything done because of those nasty Republicans" vote Obama 2012"

Ever think the conservative majority isn't backing his extreme progressive agenda?

You think '08 was a rocker?? Stay tuned and get some fresh Tea.
 
It's ok. It's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last "My Bad" from you ! :blink:


Well "THIS" you can take to the Bank, I won't be saying "MY BAD" meaning I said the Democrats won the general election,........and then had to admit I was Wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!

BY the way ..southwind,...... W H E N are you, AND..dell...gonna commit/admit to WHO you want to win the GOP Primary ????????????????????????

(Not like I did'nt KNOW for SURE who you guys want) !!!! 🙄
 
Well "THIS" you can take to the Bank, I won't be saying "MY BAD" meaning I said the Democrats won the general election,........and then had to admit I was Wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!

BY the way ..southwind,...... W H E N are you, AND..dell...gonna commit/admit to WHO you want to win the GOP Primary ????????????????????????

(Not like I did'nt KNOW for SURE who you guys want) !!!! 🙄


Actually, its none of your business. That's why it's called a secret ballot, that is unless you're voting in a union election.


hillaryclinton2012redbackground.gif
 
I beg to differ, a vote for unionization is done by secret ballot, and are local lodge elections.
 
I beg to differ, a vote for unionization is done by secret ballot, and are local lodge elections.


Yeah, you're right, they failed to get card check through.....that would have been the end of the secret ballot.

Thank God the GOP and a few patriotic Dem's prevailed.
 
Someone on a different forum presented an interesting argument.

He argued that neither side will pursue this to the courts due to thatfact that this is a Congressional rule and not a law. Congress does not want tbe courts to determine whether or not a rule is legal or not. The rule being whether or not a pro-forma session of Congress actually meets the COTUS intent of being 'in session'.

Until that is determined Obama did not violet a law but. Congressional rule. Neither side is interested in drawing the courts into the fray over a minor rule violation. Not even sure it could be done withou violating the COTUS in terms of the separation of powers.

It is an interesting argument that seems pretty logical to me. Sounds like Obama played this one pretty well.

I personally do not agree with it but if Congress is going to play dirty then I guess the President has to as well.
 
Someone on a different forum presented an interesting argument.

He argued that neither side will pursue this to the courts due to thatfact that this is a Congressional rule and not a law. Congress does not want tbe courts to determine whether or not a rule is legal or not. The rule being whether or not a pro-forma session of Congress actually meets the COTUS intent of being 'in session'.

Until that is determined Obama did not violet a law but. Congressional rule. Neither side is interested in drawing the courts into the fray over a minor rule violation. Not even sure it could be done withou violating the COTUS in terms of the separation of powers.

It is an interesting argument that seems pretty logical to me. Sounds like Obama played this one pretty well.

I personally do not agree with it but if Congress is going to play dirty then I guess the President has to as well.

Suggest you source COTUS on pro forma....

Aside from that...........if Obama was a Black GOP President....do you actually think the DNC would move to impeach?
 
Actually, its none of your business. That's why it's called a secret ballot, that is unless you're voting in a union election.


hillaryclinton2012redbackground.gif

Wow,..did I hit a nerve !
Though you're 100% correct in your answer dell I Never thought you'd react so strongly.
 
Back
Top