Pretty much.
Nothing will happen.
Gov is impervious to accountability.

this

obama isnt even the lesser of the evils...theyre all evils

This post was edited by bitg_pj on May 16 2013 03:13pm

he himself would have to commit an act of murder or something to actually get in trouble, and even then, I doubt anyone would catch him.

If he killed a white baby he would get impeached.

Are you incompetent? I know you're hilariously uninformed but seriously. I was going to give you a pass on the New Black Panthers because I felt sorry for you, but mentioning what happened with the NLRB twice is pushing the tolerance I have for others being criminally uninformed. Do you think a three-judge panel, two Reagan appointees and a Bush Jr. appointee, invalidating 190 years worth of appointments is Obama "corruption" and "abuse of power?" It's looking like you're just another member of the headnodding crowd, and every time some know-nothing mouthpiece erroneously claims Obama administration foul play you just gobble it up as if it's true because you're not informed enough to know better. But then again why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Fake gaveling isn't a sufficient cause to invalidate nearly 200 years of executive authority, especially when that's their sole defense, and they offer no explanation for the fact that the executive branch has been making intrasession appointments since 1867 and recess appointments to fill vacancies that preceded a recess since 1823. Humorously the decision doesn't withstand even a textual challenge, meaning that when it goes to the Supreme Court Scalia should oppose the ruling on the basis of what he claims to believe. That or of course he'll once again expose himself as nothing but a party hack, but I think he'll find safety in 5 other justices (at least) striking this nonsense down to vote the right way.

Three bumbling judges proved that they're still political shills for the party that appointed them because that party can't win a national election to make the appointments, can't retake the Senate to impart their version of advise and consent, and despite the unprecedented level of judicial obstruction still can't block Obama's nominations and appointments enough to their liking. In other news dog bites man, stocks rise, and IOKIYAR.

Bu-but they covered up Benghazi, ACORN, and Boston was a false flag! RARRRR! Go put your face in a book, this is embarrassing.

Its funny how when the courts rule against something he likes its a "zomg uninformed" travesty, but when they butcher the constitution to pass things like Obamacare its AOK

That was a nice little tangent of insults and unrelated nonsense tho.

Either trolling or dumb, not sure which and couldn't care less. Predictably you couldn't speak a word to the actual topic. Shocking.

Maybe once Santara pulls his face from a book after having hopefully gained some education on Senate rules and a well-settled area of jurisprudence, he'll let you use it!

Yay more insults and no recognition of your hypocrisy.
Anytime someone disagrees with you they just must be bumbling uninformed idiots

How many judges and courts have to rule against the NLRB appointments, and how many people have to cite the constitution before you accept that there is some merit in the opposing side?

Its funny that the biggest shill of all wants to label anyone disagreeing with your side of being a shill

The Constitution clearly states his appointments cannot be made without senate approval unless the senate is in recess.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on May 18 2013 11:00am

You're like the Gordon Ramsey of pard

I'm only the Jon Stewart to the Bullshit Mountain.



So again, trolling or dumb. Admittedly the bar was already set on the ground when it came to your competence of government and law but thanks for tripping over it and providing a laugh. Up to this point there's only been two rulings against the NLRB that followed this thinking, one by the three-panel gong show discussed earlier and the other a 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that came with the same gaping holes in logic and the ignoring of settled law.

Just like your moronic accusations of me being a hypocrite when you don't know anything about the topic being discussed are meaningless without sufficient examples, these rulings are meaningless for the same reason. You just can't ignore 200 years of jurisprudence and 200 years of authority vested in the executive branch without a reason, or because you don't like it anymore because your party isn't heading the executive branch. This is actual hypocrisy, different than your imagined hypocrisy, and it'll play for the mouthbreathers in fantasy land but it's won't fly with people who understand Senate rules and law. These decisions have rested entirely on a contrived whining about pro forma sessions, and hilariously they still allow for inconsistencies (see: their claims of invalidation under some pro forma bodies but not others)

So thanks for trying, but maybe you'd have been better off with the same insipid attempts at insulting me. You, too, should go put your face in a book.

Edit: I'll actually settle for just one ruling, hopefully it'll reach the Supreme Court. That, to me, is a win-win scenario regardless. This nonsense either gets struck down, or there's another glowing, bright-red example than Antonin Scalia is a political shill. I'm fine with either outcome really.

This post was edited by JayKwik on May 18 2013 11:06am