Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pensito Review)   GOP voted to delay employer mandate one year ago - now they're preparing to impeach the president for delaying the employer mandate   (pensitoreview.com) divider line 109
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

1254 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2014 at 1:13 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-17 10:49:23 AM  
For farks sake, go ahead and do it. The people that already agree with you will continue to agree with you; those that don't will have their suspicions confirmed that the Republican party is a bunch of petulant children at heart.

Either way, it's not gonna make one goddamn lick of difference.
 
2014-07-17 11:01:34 AM  
TFA didn't say it, but wasn't the House bill not even brought up for debate in the Senate and never given to the President for consideration?

Isn't the suit because the President unilaterally acted to change the employer mandate (after seeing an impending clusterfark) by executive action while bypassing Congress?

Wouldn't this have been avoided if Harry had let the bill come through for debate?
 
2014-07-17 11:02:11 AM  
Everyone knows this entire dog and pony show is being foisted on the American people for no other reason than pure malice and obstructionism

/F*ck all Republicans
//in perpetuity
 
2014-07-17 11:14:54 AM  
So Obama did what the republicans wanted because it was good policy?

Gofigure
 
2014-07-17 11:17:47 AM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Isn't the suit because the President unilaterally acted to change the employer mandate (after seeing an impending clusterfark) by executive action while bypassing Congress? Wouldn't this have been avoided if Harry had let the bill come through for debate?


Precisely why the lawsuit should get thrown out. Courts usually don't want to wade into political battles between the exec and the legis that are purely political rather than legal. If an issue can get solved through the normative legislative process, there is no reason to bring into a court. Boehner can't get 218 votes for sunshine and apple pie, but that's a reason for him to resign, not a reason to sue him.
 
2014-07-17 11:41:01 AM  
Go ahead, GOP. Go on the records as being against help for businesses. There's just no way that will come back to bite you on the ass.
 
2014-07-17 11:49:29 AM  

SauronWasFramed: So Obama did what the republicans wanted because it was good policy?


Ah, no.

The individual mandate was delayed because the GOP successfully scared enough simpletons that the individual mandate was going to turn them gay and take all of their guns, and Obama decided to politically wuss out and delay the mandate to pacify the simpletons. And now the GOP want to impeach him for reacting to something that they caused.

And for some reason, it's still perfectly legal for Republicans to walk around, free as a bird. There is no justice in the world.
 
2014-07-17 11:53:27 AM  

Somacandra: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Isn't the suit because the President unilaterally acted to change the employer mandate (after seeing an impending clusterfark) by executive action while bypassing Congress? Wouldn't this have been avoided if Harry had let the bill come through for debate?

Precisely why the lawsuit should get thrown out. Courts usually don't want to wade into political battles between the exec and the legis that are purely political rather than legal. If an issue can get solved through the normative legislative process, there is no reason to bring into a court. Boehner can't get 218 votes for sunshine and apple pie, but that's a reason for him to resign, not a reason to sue him.


THIS
there is no legal issue here
there is just politics

YAWN
 
2014-07-17 12:00:37 PM  
HR 2667 would have amended Obamacare to extend employer mandate to 12/31/14.  That would have been the legal way to do it.  Obama condemned the bill, threatened a veto and had his stooges in the senate block the bill.  Then he claimed that because congress refuses to act, he'll extend the mandate to 2016 on his own, illegally.  There's got to be some checks and balances to rein in a lawless president.
 
2014-07-17 12:13:42 PM  
For me, the ACA included some good provisions and bad provisions.

I felt NFIB v. Sibelius was a clusterfark of a decision.

I feel the morons in the House are spending far too much time trying to overturn it.

I feel the idiots in the Senate need to stop sucking Obama's cock and realize that there were massive flaws in the bill that need to get fixed.

I feel Obama has far overstepped his bounds in the administration of the law.

I feel that if we turned the Obamacare situation into a drinking game that most of Fark would end up dead.
 
2014-07-17 12:16:57 PM  

ArkAngel: I feel the morons in the House are spending far too much time trying to overturn it.


This is their laser-like focus on jobs.
 
2014-07-17 12:32:35 PM  
Let's do this.  Bring it, biatches.

i595.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-17 12:39:00 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: TFA didn't say it, but wasn't the House bill not even brought up for debate in the Senate and never given to the President for consideration?

Isn't the suit because the President unilaterally acted to change the employer mandate (after seeing an impending clusterfark) by executive action while bypassing Congress?

Wouldn't this have been avoided if Harry had let the bill come through for debate?


No.  They just would have sued him over something else.  They aren't suing him because of the specific action he took.  They are suing him because they want to sue him.  The actual subject matter of the law suit is irrelevant; it is the existence of a law suit that is important.
 
2014-07-17 12:43:15 PM  
The court will now hear the suit.

coffeeforclosers.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-17 12:55:41 PM  

ArkAngel: For me, the ACA included some good provisions and bad provisions.

I felt NFIB v. Sibelius was a clusterfark of a decision.

I feel the morons in the House are spending far too much time trying to overturn it.

I feel the idiots in the Senate need to stop sucking Obama's cock and realize that there were massive flaws in the bill that need to get fixed.

I feel Obama has far overstepped his bounds in the administration of the law.

I feel that if we turned the Obamacare situation into a drinking game that most of Fark would end up dead.


You feeling things doesn't make them so.
 
2014-07-17 01:15:58 PM  

DeaH: Go ahead, GOP. Go on the records as being against help for businesses. There's just no way that will come back to bite you on the ass.


They figure because that whole "control all the wimminfolk" thing is going so well, no negative repercussions at all, that this will be a KILLER boost for them!
 
2014-07-17 01:16:55 PM  
Transition Relief Authority.  Learn it.  Know it.  Live it.
 
2014-07-17 01:17:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: HR 2667 would have amended Obamacare to extend employer mandate to 12/31/14.  That would have been the legal way to do it.  Obama condemned the bill, threatened a veto and had his stooges in the senate block the bill.  Then he claimed that because congress refuses to act, he'll extend the mandate to 2016 on his own, illegally.  There's got to be some checks and balances to rein in a lawless president.


fer fark's sake, stop phoning it in.  Either make an effort or get out.
 
2014-07-17 01:18:26 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: SkinnyHead: HR 2667 would have amended Obamacare to extend employer mandate to 12/31/14.  That would have been the legal way to do it.  Obama condemned the bill, threatened a veto and had his stooges in the senate block the bill.  Then he claimed that because congress refuses to act, he'll extend the mandate to 2016 on his own, illegally.  There's got to be some checks and balances to rein in a lawless president.

fer fark's sake, stop phoning it in.  Either make an effort or get out.


he over did it with the word "stooges", I think.
 
2014-07-17 01:19:14 PM  
The law wasn't enacted.  So they're asking for the law to be carried out as written, which is the President's job.

Why is this controversial?
 
2014-07-17 01:19:17 PM  

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

 
2014-07-17 01:19:38 PM  

ArkAngel: For me, the ACA included some good provisions and bad provisions.

I felt NFIB v. Sibelius was a clusterfark of a decision.

I feel the morons in the House are spending far too much time trying to overturn it.

I feel the idiots in the Senate need to stop sucking Obama's cock and realize that there were massive flaws in the bill that need to get fixed.

I feel Obama has far overstepped his bounds in the administration of the law.

I feel that if we turned the Obamacare situation into a drinking game that most of Fark would end up dead.


would you say you are overwhelmed with feelings?
 
2014-07-17 01:19:43 PM  
You can impeach for corruption.You can impeach for sex.But EVEN if they had a reasonable legal ground for impeachment, the rationale for impeachment is soboring and bureaucratic, no American is going to give this dog and pony show a second look.
 
2014-07-17 01:22:25 PM  
The headline seems to want to make this look like hipocrisy. It isn't.

Congress wanted to pass a law but couldn't.  President then effectively wrote law. (what the law is is irrelevant)
 
2014-07-17 01:23:04 PM  
Sooooooooo more useless, obstructionist hurpy durpy doooo. Cry more retardicans.
 
2014-07-17 01:23:06 PM  
They had so much they could have tried to drum up a lawsuit against Obama for being an empty-suit tyrant.  DACA, POW trading, the IRS doing its job, any number of made-up scandals.  And yet they ended up choosing to try to attack him for doing something they wanted him to do.

So, which Republican gets to fall on his sword, go on TV, and say that Obama delaying part of Obamacare was a bad thing?
 
2014-07-17 01:24:14 PM  
There's got to be some checks and balances to rein in a lawless president.

www.troycitydesign.com
 
2014-07-17 01:24:39 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: The court will now hear the suit.

[coffeeforclosers.files.wordpress.com image 436x792]


I would like to point out that I have more respect for the Justice Juggalo Scalia.
 
2014-07-17 01:25:40 PM  

unyon: I feel that if we turned the Obamacare situation into a drinking game that most of Fark would end up dead.


You feeling things doesn't make them so.


You gotta admit he had a point on the last one.
 
2014-07-17 01:27:35 PM  

Tricky Chicken: The headline seems to want to make this look like hipocrisy. It isn't.

Congress wanted to pass a law but couldn't.  President then effectively wrote law. (what the law is is irrelevant)


The Executive has broad authority through the Treasury to use tax policy to make laws work.  Delaying the tax penalties associated with the mandate is within his authority.
 
2014-07-17 01:29:55 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: SkinnyHead: HR 2667 would have amended Obamacare to extend employer mandate to 12/31/14.  That would have been the legal way to do it.  Obama condemned the bill, threatened a veto and had his stooges in the senate block the bill.  Then he claimed that because congress refuses to act, he'll extend the mandate to 2016 on his own, illegally.  There's got to be some checks and balances to rein in a lawless president.

fer fark's sake, stop phoning it in.  Either make an effort or get out.

You're arguing with the guy who claimed that since the president knowing signed an illegal law (SCOTUS had not ruled on ACA yet), Obama committed a criminal act. My toaster has more constitutional law experience than SkinnyHead does.
 
2014-07-17 01:31:35 PM  
They announced the lawsuit like a month before they found any grounds for the lawsuit. I'm sure it's very valid and very sincere.
 
2014-07-17 01:34:36 PM  

ImpendingCynic: Satan's Bunny Slippers: SkinnyHead: HR 2667 would have amended Obamacare to extend employer mandate to 12/31/14.  That would have been the legal way to do it.  Obama condemned the bill, threatened a veto and had his stooges in the senate block the bill.  Then he claimed that because congress refuses to act, he'll extend the mandate to 2016 on his own, illegally.  There's got to be some checks and balances to rein in a lawless president.

fer fark's sake, stop phoning it in.  Either make an effort or get out.
You're arguing with the guy who claimed that since the president knowing signed an illegal law (SCOTUS had not ruled on ACA yet), Obama committed a criminal act. My toaster has more constitutional law experience than SkinnyHead does.


Oh no, not arguing.  Merely mentioning to the (according to mods non-existent) troll that if he's gonna troll, TROLL.  Either entertain me, or STFU and get out.  shiatty trolls are infesting this place, and I for one am tired of it.  They need to set some muthafarkin TROLL STANDARDS if they're going to insist on letting them in.

All I've gotten today are this one, coconut boy, and the internet doctor in this tab.

I'm here for the damn entertainment, not these sad sacks.
 
2014-07-17 01:35:42 PM  
They are also a saying Obama is not enforcing the law on immigration but also saying they should break the law by sending child refuges home without process that the law state must happen.
 
2014-07-17 01:41:35 PM  
From Today's Congressional Testimony:

House Democrats are tapping a former assistant attorney general and a top Carter administration official to serve as witnesses against a Republican plan to sue President Barack Obama.

One of the witnesses is Walter Dellinger, a former assistant attorney general, head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General.

Under questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Dellinger came up with a novel way to explain why Barack Obama can change Obamacare but a hypothetical President Ted Cruz, who has said that he wants to repeal Obamacare, could not.

Burgess opens the segment explaining that President Cruz announces that he will suspend the individual mandate immediately after taking the oath of office. "Is it okay for him to do that, just as the president did?"

"That's actually a very good question," Dellinger begins. "What should inform the judgement is is the president acting because he just disagrees as a matter of policy with the law the Congress enacted? And that should lead us to think that we should be wary about that kind of delaying capacity if it's a policy disagreement. The president actually agrees with the act as a whole of course."


The Constitution, according to a Democrat:  A Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with.
 
2014-07-17 01:44:35 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: From Today's Congressional Testimony:

House Democrats are tapping a former assistant attorney general and a top Carter administration official to serve as witnesses against a Republican plan to sue President Barack Obama.

One of the witnesses is Walter Dellinger, a former assistant attorney general, head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General.

Under questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Dellinger came up with a novel way to explain why Barack Obama can change Obamacare but a hypothetical President Ted Cruz, who has said that he wants to repeal Obamacare, could not.

Burgess opens the segment explaining that President Cruz announces that he will suspend the individual mandate immediately after taking the oath of office. "Is it okay for him to do that, just as the president did?"

"That's actually a very good question," Dellinger begins. "What should inform the judgement is is the president acting because he just disagrees as a matter of policy with the law the Congress enacted? And that should lead us to think that we should be wary about that kind of delaying capacity if it's a policy disagreement. The president actually agrees with the act as a whole of course."

The Constitution, according to a Democrat:  A Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with.


Any President can use tax policy (Transition Relief Authority) to ensure that a law is successfully implemented.  No President can nullify a law by refusing to implement it.

Distort more.
 
2014-07-17 01:44:38 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: All I've gotten today are this one, coconut boy, and the internet doctor in this tab.


And now me.

So, seriously, Satan's Bunny Slippers, what gives? Skinnyhead actually comes in here with some salient points (unless they're just a thin tissue of lies; I haven't checked, mostly because I don't care at this point), and that's somehow trolling? Oh, I'm sure he's guilty of past transgressions or something... (so what) but how does that apply to this post or your assertion?

What constitutes trolling in your world?
 
2014-07-17 01:48:36 PM  

dangelder: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL


Are you referring to other posts or House GOP?
 
2014-07-17 01:50:56 PM  
Incidentally, does anyone remember the outcome of the House GOP lawsuit against President Bush for his lawless power grab to unilaterally delay the rollout of Medicare Part D?
 
2014-07-17 01:53:37 PM  
I hope Obama learns a lesson from this and does not try to run again.
 
2014-07-17 01:55:22 PM  

ox45tallboy: unyon: I feel that if we turned the Obamacare situation into a drinking game that most of Fark would end up dead.


You feeling things doesn't make them so.

You gotta admit he had a point on the last one.


They would already be dead from the benghazi drinking game.
 
2014-07-17 02:05:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: HR 2667 would have amended Obamacare to extend employer mandate to 12/31/14.  That would have been the legal way to do it.  Obama condemned the bill, threatened a veto and had his stooges in the senate block the bill.  Then he claimed that because congress refuses to act, he'll extend the mandate to 2016 on his own, illegally.  There's got to be some checks and balances to rein in a lawless president.


Obama didnt' condemn the bill, they were planning on delaying the employer mandate, 2667 was in response to the administrations mention of delaying the employer mandate.  the issue the administration had was the House's attempt to simultaneously delay the individual mandate.
 
2014-07-17 02:06:01 PM  

Stile4aly: Zeb Hesselgresser: From Today's Congressional Testimony:

House Democrats are tapping a former assistant attorney general and a top Carter administration official to serve as witnesses against a Republican plan to sue President Barack Obama.

One of the witnesses is Walter Dellinger, a former assistant attorney general, head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General.

Under questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Dellinger came up with a novel way to explain why Barack Obama can change Obamacare but a hypothetical President Ted Cruz, who has said that he wants to repeal Obamacare, could not.

Burgess opens the segment explaining that President Cruz announces that he will suspend the individual mandate immediately after taking the oath of office. "Is it okay for him to do that, just as the president did?"

"That's actually a very good question," Dellinger begins. "What should inform the judgement is is the president acting because he just disagrees as a matter of policy with the law the Congress enacted? And that should lead us to think that we should be wary about that kind of delaying capacity if it's a policy disagreement. The president actually agrees with the act as a whole of course."

The Constitution, according to a Democrat:  A Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with.

Any President can use tax policy (Transition Relief Authority) to ensure that a law is successfully implemented.  No President can nullify a law by refusing to implement it.

Distort more.


Right. So, a Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with. Because, reasons.
 
2014-07-17 02:09:41 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Stile4aly: Zeb Hesselgresser: From Today's Congressional Testimony:

House Democrats are tapping a former assistant attorney general and a top Carter administration official to serve as witnesses against a Republican plan to sue President Barack Obama.

One of the witnesses is Walter Dellinger, a former assistant attorney general, head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General.

Under questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Dellinger came up with a novel way to explain why Barack Obama can change Obamacare but a hypothetical President Ted Cruz, who has said that he wants to repeal Obamacare, could not.

Burgess opens the segment explaining that President Cruz announces that he will suspend the individual mandate immediately after taking the oath of office. "Is it okay for him to do that, just as the president did?"

"That's actually a very good question," Dellinger begins. "What should inform the judgement is is the president acting because he just disagrees as a matter of policy with the law the Congress enacted? And that should lead us to think that we should be wary about that kind of delaying capacity if it's a policy disagreement. The president actually agrees with the act as a whole of course."

The Constitution, according to a Democrat:  A Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with.

Any President can use tax policy (Transition Relief Authority) to ensure that a law is successfully implemented.  No President can nullify a law by refusing to implement it.

Distort more.

Right. So, a Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with. Because, reasons.


Oh, for fark's sake.

You know the President - any President - is legally empowered, by an Act of Congress, to take steps to ensure the smooth implementation of the law, yes? You also know the President is not empowered to simply ignore the law, right?
 
2014-07-17 02:10:19 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: From Today's Congressional Testimony:

House Democrats are tapping a former assistant attorney general and a top Carter administration official to serve as witnesses against a Republican plan to sue President Barack Obama.

One of the witnesses is Walter Dellinger, a former assistant attorney general, head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General.

Under questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Dellinger came up with a novel way to explain why Barack Obama can change Obamacare but a hypothetical President Ted Cruz, who has said that he wants to repeal Obamacare, could not.

Burgess opens the segment explaining that President Cruz announces that he will suspend the individual mandate immediately after taking the oath of office. "Is it okay for him to do that, just as the president did?"

"That's actually a very good question," Dellinger begins. "What should inform the judgement is is the president acting because he just disagrees as a matter of policy with the law the Congress enacted? And that should lead us to think that we should be wary about that kind of delaying capacity if it's a policy disagreement. The president actually agrees with the act as a whole of course."

The Constitution, according to a Democrat:  A Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with.


The executive branch is allowed to delay implementation of laws so long as they aren't "unreasonably delayed" or done so because the President opposes the law in question for policy reasons.  A republican president would be able to just as legally delay parts of Obamacare as Obama himself, providing he wasn't doing so because he was opposed to ever putting the law into effect.

Or do you perhaps think that President Cruz would not issue a permanently delay implementation or that President Obama is opposed to Obamacare on policy grounds?
 
2014-07-17 02:13:23 PM  

Karac: Zeb Hesselgresser: From Today's Congressional Testimony:

House Democrats are tapping a former assistant attorney general and a top Carter administration official to serve as witnesses against a Republican plan to sue President Barack Obama.

One of the witnesses is Walter Dellinger, a former assistant attorney general, head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General.

Under questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Dellinger came up with a novel way to explain why Barack Obama can change Obamacare but a hypothetical President Ted Cruz, who has said that he wants to repeal Obamacare, could not.

Burgess opens the segment explaining that President Cruz announces that he will suspend the individual mandate immediately after taking the oath of office. "Is it okay for him to do that, just as the president did?"

"That's actually a very good question," Dellinger begins. "What should inform the judgement is is the president acting because he just disagrees as a matter of policy with the law the Congress enacted? And that should lead us to think that we should be wary about that kind of delaying capacity if it's a policy disagreement. The president actually agrees with the act as a whole of course."

The Constitution, according to a Democrat:  A Democrat President can unilaterally change a law he agrees with.  A Republican  President cannot unilaterally change a law he disagrees with.

The executive branch is allowed to delay implementation of laws so long as they aren't "unreasonably delayed" or done so because the President opposes the law in question for policy reasons.  A republican president would be able to just as legally delay parts of Obamacare as Obama himself, providing he wasn't doing so because he was opposed to ever putting the law into effect.

Or do you perhaps think that President Cruz would not issue a permanently delay implementation or that President Obama is opposed to Obamacare on policy grounds?


Pretty sure he and his fellow chucklefarks already know this, they're just grasping at straws and trying to somehow spin this as "Obama bad!"
 
2014-07-17 02:18:20 PM  

incendi: Either way, it's not gonna make one goddamn lick of difference.


Except they'll spend FLUSH several million dollars in the process.
 
2014-07-17 02:18:36 PM  
GOP voted to delay employer mandate one year ago - now they're preparing to impeach the president for delaying the employer mandate being black

Simple as that.
 
2014-07-17 02:21:57 PM  

ristst: Except they'll spend FLUSH several million dollars in the process.


Happening already. I don't see any reason why impeachment proceedings would be significantly more expensive than the current ongoing witch-hunts.
 
2014-07-17 02:22:12 PM  

lilbjorn: GOP voted to delay employer mandate one year ago - now they're preparing to impeach the president for delaying the employer mandate being black

Simple as that.


liberals actually believe this
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report