Yes, elections have consequences, but not these consequences

As well, the President has exercised two vetoes in six years. Even if he exercises all four he “threatened” in the SOtU address, that would put him at the fewest number of vetoes for a president since Warren Harding. Not precisely being the veto pen dictator there.

(Yes, I realize he’s had a much more sympathetic congress to this point.)

No, I read newspaper coverage of this letter, where 18 Democrat Senators requested a delay in the implementation of the tax.

I honestly never heard of Rep. Paulsen.

Are you sure about that? The Original Poster said that obstructing is something the President gets to do. Is Mr. Glutton wrong?

There’s really no reason to take any elected GOP official, paid staffer, or pundit seriously on the whole reasoning behind anything they do. We all know why they do what they do: because it gives them more power and they think they can get away with it.

If the GOP had lost the midterms, they’d be talking about bipartisanship and how Obama is wrong for not working with the minority party.

Now that they’ve captured the Senate, you can measure in nanoseconds how fast the subject of procedural filibusters will get dropped, or brought up when a Democrat uses it. It doesn’t matter the context, they will probably say these exact words many times in the next 2 years: “Democrats are using the filibuster to obstruct governance and thwart the will of the people”. They don’t care, they know the American public has a short memory, and they simply don’t think it will bite them in the ass because they and their constituents just want their version of reality

On the Democrat side, I don’t care if they trot out any reasoning that is in line with giving the minority party a say in how things are run. We all know they aren’t hypocrites, but they act that way only because the GOP have taken obstructionism and anti-liberalism into insane stratospheres never see before. I want Democrats to use every available trick and tactic to stall or block the GOP agenda because that GOP agenda is anti-reality. Everything they do is harmful, anything to stop that is helpful

Only 76 more vetoes and he’ll draw level with Ronald Regan!

Unacceptable as a matter of policy, right? Because when you originally raised this issue, you said:

and when asked for an example, continued:

Now you’ve been offered a policy reason for it to exist. Obviously you disagree with the policy reason: et voila glorious democracy in action. But it’s foolish to claim that, because you disagree with the policy reasons, they don’t exist.

You just contradicted yourself again; you only just said that it is not obstructionist, but you sneer at us for not calling it obstructionist.

FWIW, repeal of the medical device tax has been one point that has had some measure of bipartisan agreement. Republicans and Democrats are allowed to come to agreement, ya’ know!?

There have even been reports about such in obscure news sources as the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even liberal leaning Talking Points Memo.

Curiously Talking Points Memo headlines their linked report as Some Dems Say Medical Device Tax Repeal Is A ‘Moronic’ Idea even though 34 out of the then 55 Senate Democrats voted in favor of repealing the tax (along with all the Senate Republicans).

When a Senate with a majority held by the president’s party votes, even symbolically, to take some action by a veto-proof majority then who is doing the obstructing when the president stands in its way?

I don’t think that raising taxes is a policy reason, in and of itself.

Especially when said taxes are geared towards an Act that only one party supported.

That’s the point. When the Republican House votes against the President’s wishes, it’s considered obstruction. When the Senate, in 2014, didn’t even bring amendments to the floor, it’s not. And now Presidential vetoes are somehow not obstruction.

Make up your minds.

It depends on how you define “obstruction.” It is a semantic question, and not one particularly relevant to this discussion. More importantly, see posts #5 and #27.

Exactly. The President has executive powers under the Constitution and under the laws enacted by Congress. He has a right to exercise those powers as he sees fit, regardless of who won the last Congressional election.

One can argue over whether his executive actions are good or bad policy, but executive orders generally include a line about the statute or Constitutional article or amendment that empowers that order.

If Rep. Gowdy, or any other hot-air Republican, wants to point out a specific Executive action where the statutory or Constitutional authority invoked did not actually apply, or none was given, then they’d have an argument.

I could have missed it, but I haven’t heard of any such instances. All I’ve heard about is broad arm-waving arguments, like the ones we saw a few years ago about ‘czars’ and how Obama had a bunch of them, but nowhere was there any statute saying a President could appoint czars. (They should take it up with the ghost of either Nixon or Ford, whichever of them first had an ‘energy czar’ back in the days of the first Arab oil embargo. Doonesbury even did a week or two of strips about the energy czar.)

Oh yeah: the whole semantic argument over who’s obstructing, who’s complaining about it, and who should have been complaining about it when, is one of the silliest arguments I’ve seen in a debate forum on these boards. And that’s saying a great deal.

Bwahahaha. Good one.


Let me be sure I’m following you here: you think this is about raising taxes in and of itself, AND you also think that it’s about raising taxes to support the Affordable Care Act?

And you think that the party that supports the Affordable Care Act can’t have policy reasons for funding the act that they support, since only one party supported it?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes, no other reason has been given.

Why does he and his administration keep getting overruled by the Supreme Court?

I thought he was a scholar in this area.

It doesn’t, really.

What about the instant case, known as Noel Canning? Shouldn’t Mr. Constitutional scholar and professor have known his actions in that instance were more likely than not unconstitutional?

There’s also Citizen’s United, the Medicare expansion, Hobby Lobby, and etc.


You try to refute a claim that Obama’s administration “keeps getting overruled,” by showing that a claim that his administration was overruled 9-0 13 times is false?

Agreed: the claim that the Obama administration was overruled 9-0 13 times is unambiguously false.

Now, how about your reaction to the considerably less far-reaching claim that was actually made here?