SCOTUS Strikes Down Three "Recess" Appointments by President Obama

[Jackie S]

I guess they did not buy the President's definition of "recess"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ments/8528059/

Even the left leaning side of the Court couldn't let this get by.

I started a thread earlier in the week about The Speaker Of The House filing a frivilous lawsuite challenging the President's abuse of Executive Orders. Maybe I am being to hasty in condemning this.

If they can get a fast track to the SCOTUS, the Court just might see fit to tell the President that he is not a King.

Nobody else seems to have the balls to do it.

[Jewish Lawyer]

For a tenured and distinguished full Professor of the Law, a Law Review President from Harvard, and a summa cum laude graduate who rarely ever even smoked weed, and the greatest statist world leader since Stalin, you would think his highness could have seen it coming!

[Yssup Rider]

Is a lawsuite anything like a hot tub suite?

[Whirlaway]

Obama: A "constitutional scholar" who gets it wrong more often than right !

A joke of a scholar and a pathetic president of the people.

Makes you wonder how much Obama's Harvard grades were curved.

[Jackie S]

Maybe they let him use a teleprompter during test.

He sure can't put a complete thought together without one now.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Maybe they let him use a teleprompter during test.

He sure can't put a complete thought together without one now.

I think he gave blow jobs to the right vote bundlers - even then, who voted and how often was important.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is a lawsuite anything like a hot tub suite?

It depends on who is in the hot water.

[Whirlaway]

If Billy Clinton is involved..you betcha.

[i'va biggen]

Right wing circle jerk with whirrly as pivot man...

[Jackie S]

I wonder what would happen if the President just told SCOTUS to fuck off, and continued business as usual.

The Court has no policing power. The Attorney General would not do anything. The House could impeach, but the Senate would never convict.

President Lincoln disobeyed the Courts mandates several times in order to carry out his wartime Policies. President Roosevelt did the same with many of his New Deal programs.

It would be interesting, to say the least.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I wonder what would happen if the President just told SCOTUS to fuck off, and continued business as usual.

The Court has no policing power. The Attorney General would not do anything. The House could impeach, but the Senate would never convict.

President Lincoln disobeyed the Courts mandates several times in order to carry out his wartime Policies. President Roosevelt did the same with many of his New Deal programs.

It would be interesting, to say the least.

actually, as you just described it, NOTHING thing would happen other than a right wing circle jerk media circus. Which is kinda what we've had the past six years, isn't it?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

actually, as you just described it, NOTHING thing would happen other than a right wing circle jerk media circus. Which is kinda what we've had the past six years, isn't it?

Jesus H. Christ, you are a stupid Mother Fucker... "Shit Eater" ... LOLing you... "Shit Eater"...

[CuteOldGuy]

SCOTUS got another one right! How about that? Unanimous, even!

[Sidewinder]

Before you say that the President is free to ignore Supreme Court rulings, you might want to take a basic undergrad Constitutional Law class.

There are a lot of Supreme Court rulings that establish very basic rights.

"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during questioning." And so on. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a Supreme Court ruling.

Incidentally, the Miranda ruling did not break new ground. From the opinion, delivered by Mr Chief Justice Warren: "We start here, as we did in Escobedo, with the premise that our holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings. We have undertaken a thorough reexamination of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it. That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution -- that "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and that "the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel" -- rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured "for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it," Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 19 U. S. 387 (1821)."

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah. That's the way it used to be. Back when the US was a free country.