Anything that a Democrat does in office is illegal. (new window)
Republicans get a free pass. (new window)

Obvious troll headline is obvious..

And a bit silly.

Because People in power are Stupid: Anything that a Democrat does in office is illegal. (new window)
Republicans get a free pass. (new window)

Both link go same place.

Codenamechaz: Obvious troll headline is obvious..

And a bit silly.

Hey now, I do not troll. I just went with a common meme here for Fark headlines

\I's innocent, I tells ya!

DoJ finding:

In our judgment, the text of the Constitution and precedent and practice thereunder support the conclusion that the convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments.

I NOW DECLARE THAT ALL WEBSITES MUST MARK DIRECT PDF LINKS AS SUCH.

unyon: Because People in power are Stupid: Anything that a Democrat does in office is illegal. (new window)
Republicans get a free pass. (new window)

Both link go same place.

Odd. My hangover must be kicking in.

Dereliction Of Duty:
The Constitutional Record of President Clinton (new window)

Letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales

John Yoo, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General, addressed a memorandum to Alberto Gonzales, then the Counsel to the President, dated August 1, 2002, in response to Gonzales' reported request for legal opinion on whether interrogation methods used on al Qaeda operatives would be in violation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture, and whether such actions could be the basis for prosecution in the International Criminal Court.[6] The letter is intended to supplement the memorandum sent to Gonzales the same day by Jay Bybee, to which it occasionally refers. The letter concludes that the interpretation of the Department of Justice of 18 U.S.C. s. 2340, which enacted into U.S. law the Convention Against Torture, does not conflict with the Convention Against Torture because of the reservations of the United States recorded upon ratification. It also concludes that "actions taken as part of the interrogation... cannot fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC, although it would be impossible to control the actions of a rogue prosecutor or judge." The letter in its analysis then explains the Department of Justice's interpretation of s. 2340-2340A, their interpretation of the Convention Against Torture as applied to the United States and the status of the U.S. reservations, and explains its position on the possibility of prosecution by the ICC.


/Basically, just because the DOJ gives its opinion on something, doesn't make it legal. Its just an opinion.

Y'know, I agree with the argument, but this post and headline are still the equivalent of a 6-year-old getting his brother to leave a post-it note on their parents' door saying "Kids are allowed to have all the cookies they want", and then the 6-year-old saying the note is proof that they were not in the wrong to take a whole bunch o' cookies.

meh. not that it matters to the GOP. look - I don't know if what Obama did was legal or not. I do know that the Republicans were being completely asinine by blocking his ability to appoint people to key positions in his administration. Obama found a way around a dickhole move by his political opponents who - to be fair - were borderline illegal in THEIR actions as well.

Now someone is saying that Obama is in the clear. But none of that matters, because the GOP is gonna still say the guy did something illegal. it's mean, spiteful, petty and vicious....and they absolutely will not let it go because hey - that's how they roll. smart money would shrug its shoulders and move on to the next issue...but not our Republican friends. nope - they'll scream about 'unconstitutional; this and 'illegal' that. then they'll mutter 'impeachment' and pretend like they can make it happen. All while cheering for SOPA and pretending that the war on terror isn't eroding our bill of rights protections.

I can almost see how this thread is gonna go. I'll bet if I put forth the effort, I could even write out the entire script ahead of time. that's how crazy the GOP has become...they don't think, they just read from their script and think that their outrage is over 'protecting the constitution' when what they're really upset about is that there's a black man in the white house.

Weaver95: meh. not that it matters to the GOP. look - I don't know if what Obama did was legal or not. I do know that the Republicans were being completely asinine by blocking his ability to appoint people to key positions in his administration. Obama found a way around a dickhole move by his political opponents who - to be fair - were borderline illegal in THEIR actions as well.

Now someone is saying that Obama is in the clear. But none of that matters, because the GOP is gonna still say the guy did something illegal. it's mean, spiteful, petty and vicious....and they absolutely will not let it go because hey - that's how they roll. smart money would shrug its shoulders and move on to the next issue...but not our Republican friends. nope - they'll scream about 'unconstitutional; this and 'illegal' that. then they'll mutter 'impeachment' and pretend like they can make it happen. All while cheering for SOPA and pretending that the war on terror isn't eroding our bill of rights protections.

I can almost see how this thread is gonna go. I'll bet if I put forth the effort, I could even write out the entire script ahead of time. that's how crazy the GOP has become...they don't think, they just read from their script and think that their outrage is over 'protecting the constitution' when what they're really upset about is that there's a black man in the white house.

Simply: Bush appointed a judge when the Dems filibustered in 2003. At the time, the Republicans hailed is actions as those befitting of a leader. Flash-forward 9 years and it's suddenly illegal.

/Also, I still like Teddy Roosevelt's move of 193 recess appointments between gavel bangs @ the House when the Dems were blocking him.
//Once again, it's okay when they do it.

brigid_fitch: Simply: Bush appointed a judge when the Dems filibustered in 2003. At the time, the Republicans hailed is actions as those befitting of a leader. Flash-forward 9 years and it's suddenly illegal.

/Also, I still like Teddy Roosevelt's move of 193 recess appointments between gavel bangs @ the House when the Dems were blocking him.
//Once again, it's okay when they do it.

To clarify, though:
FWIW, I hate that recess appointments have been used like this, regardless of party. That's not what they were meant for. However, if a group is going to act like a bunch of dicks and exploit a loophole to stop you from doing your job, then you have every right to pull something from your magic back of tricks to stick it to them.

brigid_fitch: brigid_fitch: Simply: Bush appointed a judge when the Dems filibustered in 2003. At the time, the Republicans hailed is actions as those befitting of a leader. Flash-forward 9 years and it's suddenly illegal.

/Also, I still like Teddy Roosevelt's move of 193 recess appointments between gavel bangs @ the House when the Dems were blocking him.
//Once again, it's okay when they do it.

To clarify, though:
FWIW, I hate that recess appointments have been used like this, regardless of party. That's not what they were meant for. However, if a group is going to act like a bunch of dicks and exploit a loophole to stop you from doing your job, then you have every right to pull something from your magic back of tricks to stick it to them.

yeah, but I'd rather have a government comprised of people who didn't act like spoiled children.

Weaver95:

yeah, but I'd rather have a government comprised of people who didn't act like spoiled children.

That would require citizens who didn't act like spoiled children.

As it is, we have a society who demands a win/lose scenario in every aspect of life. Economics, Sports, Religion, Sex and Politics. It comes from the myth of rugged individualism.

brigid_fitch: Also, I still like Teddy Roosevelt's move of 193 recess appointments between gavel bangs @ the House when the Dems were blocking him.

brigid_fitch: then you have every right to pull something from your magic back of tricks to stick it to them.

Oh, so the black president has a MAGIC BAG, is that it? He's some kind of MAGIC NEGRO? I see how it is with you people.

vernonFL: /Basically, just because the DOJ gives its opinion on something, doesn't make it legal. Its just an opinion.

Well, right, its the advice of counsel.

In the case of the Yoo memo the purpose was to provide the president with cover in the event someone got the bright idea to start indictments. That way the president could say he lacked criminal intent as he was acting in good faith under advice of counsel.

I can't see that same purpose being served here, since there are no criminal implications. At most this is a matter for civil courts to unravel as to whether the appointments are valid.

Stated another way, The appointments are legally valid or they aren't. Obama's intentions are irrelevant; he can't make the argument that the appointments are legal because he made them in good faith.

Isitoveryet: Boehner re: appointments: "... and he does so against the advise of his own legal team..."

Go cry, emo boy.

tenpoundsofcheese: That is total BS. Did the President ask the Senate to perform its advice and consent function during this time period? No, he did not. People knew about the potential appointments, 0bama knew that it wasn't going to be easy, so rather than asking he took the wimpy way out.

I am pretty sure he gave multiple speeches asking Congress to come back to do its job, and congressional democrats got gavelled down trying to bring the matter to a vote more than once.

Not that any of this matters to you, since you are a partisan hack.

tenpoundsofcheese: CPennypacker: tenpoundsofcheese: Whoa, what a surprise. Holder agreed with the President!!!

Coming from a guy who has the blood of border agents on his hands, somehow that doesn't just mean so much.

You're right. Why listen to the department of justice. Unqualified morons Partisan Hacks.

They are unqualified morons. Fast and Furious proved that as did the approval of the execution of an American Citizen. Through in rendition and Gitmo too.

You're an idiot.

blahpers: brigid_fitch: FWIW, I hate that recess appointments have been used like this, regardless of party. That's not what they were meant for. However, if a group is going to act like a bunch of dicks and exploit a loophole to stop you from doing your job, then you have every right to pull something from your magic back of tricks to stick it to them.

I wish I had a magic back.

I have a magic front.

tenpoundsofcheese: Whoa, what a surprise. Holder agreed with the President!!!

Coming from a guy who has the blood of border agents on his hands, somehow that doesn't just mean so much.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

tenpoundsofcheese: mrshowrules: DoJ finding:

In our judgment, the text of the Constitution and precedent and practice thereunder support the conclusion that the convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments.

That is total BS. Did the President ask the Senate to perform its advice and consent function during this time period? No, he did not. People knew about the potential appointments, 0bama knew that it wasn't going to be easy, so rather than asking he took the wimpy way out.

Actually he did and there was a separate thread on that.

tenpoundsofcheese: Whoa, what a surprise. Holder agreed with the President!!!

Coming from a guy who has the blood of border agents on his hands, somehow that doesn't just mean so much.

did you get this talking point off freerepublic or off an internal mailing list?

Stile4aly: In the meantime, Fox News shows how a simple set of quotation marks can make the President look like a power hungry dictator.

funny how Fox didn't use quotes on "recess" on all speculation about the President making recess appointments last month.

I've resolved to not really pay one iota of a fark to the 2012 election clusterfark and very possibly won't vote for the first time... well... ever (3 decades). But, my teabagger friend is bombarding me with Fwd:Fwd:Fwd's about this bullshiat. Almost makes me want to read about it. Almost.

tenpoundsofcheese: Did the President ask the Senate to perform its advice and consent function during this time period?

Since May, motherfarker. SINCE MAY (new window).

tenpoundsofcheese: eraser8: tenpoundsofcheese: CPennypacker: tenpoundsofcheese: Whoa, what a surprise. Holder agreed with the President!!!

Coming from a guy who has the blood of border agents on his hands, somehow that doesn't just mean so much.

You're right. Why listen to the department of justice. Unqualified morons Partisan Hacks.

They are unqualified morons. Fast and Furious proved that as did the approval of the execution of an American Citizen. Through in rendition and Gitmo too.

You're an idiot.

I don't care what a racist thinks.

Yep. You're definitely an idiot.

But, just for fun: please try to justify your "racist" claim. Try as hard as you can.

tenpoundsofcheese: You are sure, huh? Citation for him these multiple speeches about his requested appointments? got any?? any???

Well, here is video of house democrats trying to bring the vote to the floor a few days ago before the republican speaker pro tem gaveled the session closed and cut the C-span feed to hide the shenannigans.

What was your point?

mrshowrules: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.



And televisions.

Televisions kill people too.

/P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-POPCORN

gilgigamesh: tenpoundsofcheese: You are sure, huh? Citation for him these multiple speeches about his requested appointments? got any?? any???

Well, here is video of house democrats trying to bring the vote to the floor a few days ago before the republican speaker pro tem gaveled the session closed and cut the C-span feed to hide the shenannigans.

What was your point?

he has none. he's just following his script.

...and now he's gone.

Of course. All hat no cattle. What a surprise.

eraser8: But, just for fun: please try to justify your "racist" claim. Try as hard as you can.

Googling for fun, your posts in this thread tell me that you are not a racist. Racists don't defend MLK, or request evidence of baseless criticism leveled at him. Ever.

kingoomieiii: eraser8: But, just for fun: please try to justify your "racist" claim. Try as hard as you can.

Googling for fun, your posts in this thread tell me that you are not a racist. Racists don't defend MLK, or request evidence of baseless criticism leveled at him. Ever.

Something tells me that tenpoundsofcheese doesn't use the same definition of "racist" that normal people do.