Prominent Legal Scholars Support Lawsuit Against "Uber-Presidency"

[Texas_tea]

Most 10 year olds have a better understanding of our coequal branches of government.

But liberals are inflicted with a disease that prevents them from seeing and understanding the truth.

Instead of arguing with POS over facts and truths that he will never be able to see or understand, perhaps the conversation would be better if we talked about treatment options for our sick little friend ...... even though there are no treatments for this infliction!

 

[Richard Savage]

Professors Turley and Foley are wrong. Speaker Boehner does not have standing to sue, and the congressional resolution is not effective to confer representative standing as it intrudes on Article III jurisdiction in violation of separation of powers limitations. The suit will not be heard. It's a loser any way you look at it.

 

[Texas_tea]

Professors Turley and Foley are wrong. Speaker Boehner does not have standing to sue, and the congressional resolution is not effective to confer representative standing as it intrudes on Article III jurisdiction in violation of separation of powers limitations. The suit will not be heard. It's a loser any way you look at it.

I agree ....

This is nothing more than simple "grand standing"!

 

[Richard Savage]

Speaker John Boehner's threat to sue the President in district court is more political (than "simple") grandstanding, which will backfire on him and those that support this "stunt". He does not have standing to sue the President, which is prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction. Any such suit will not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Even if Speaker Boehner could concoct representative standing by congressional resolution authorizing him to sue the President, the federal judiciary would not officiate a dispute between the legislative and executive branches, and would have to abstain from jurisdiction for reason of separation of powers limitations under the Constitution. It is an empty threat, and will not work. Speaker Boehner knows this, as he also knows that he has no grounds to bring charges for impeachment of the President; and this is only to generate publicity for himself and Republican members of Congress, who shall as soon disassociate themselves from him if he dares to do so.

 

[dogtowner]

Isnt it interesting that the left is always surprised when it loses scotus cases against BOs over reaches (0 for 13) ?

So rich dont be too upset uf youre wrong here too.

 

[Texas_tea]

Isnt it interesting that the left is always surprised when it loses scotus cases against BOs over reaches (0 for 13) ?

So rich dont be too upset uf youre wrong here too.

I agree that the left are always surprised when their Constitutional violations are shot down, especially under the current regime.

However, if whiner Boehner was really going to do something about BO's unlawfulness he and the leftist GOP would be talking impeachment.

Notice in his grand stand speech about suing BO, Boehner was sure to mention this was not about impeachment.

Which really means this is about nothing aka grand standing!

 

[Richard Savage]

Here is a preview of coming attractions:
‘First, there is nothing in the Constitution stipulating that all wrongs must have remedies, much less that the remedy must lie in federal court. In fact, given the Constitution’s parsimonious grant of judicial authority, just the opposite is true. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[o]ur system of government leaves many crucial decisions to the political processes. The assumption that if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing." Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 227 (1974).’ Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Senator Ron Johnson and Brooke Ericson, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Office of Personal Management, et al., Defendants, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 14-C-009, W. Griesbach, Chief Judge.

 

[Texas_tea]

Considering according to the latest poll one-third of Americans and two-thirds of Republicans want to see Obama impeached, maybe Boehner will move towards removing this criminal from office.

There is rumor on the Hill that Boehner is intending to do just that.

 

[Richard Savage]

When it comes to impeachment of the President of the United States, "polls" and "rumors" don’t count. What counts is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"; and there is no evidence that President Obama has committed any such offenses.

 

[Cruella]

When it comes to impeachment of the President of the United States, "polls" and "rumors" don’t count. What counts is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"; and there is no evidence that President Obama has committed any such offenses.

That's why there are so many agencies with crashed hard drives and missing e-mails.

 

[GBFan]

When it comes to impeachment of the President of the United States, "polls" and "rumors" don’t count. What counts is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"; and there is no evidence that President Obama has committed any such offenses.

Missing reality?

No evidence of 'high crimes and misdemeanors" ? Surely, you jest.

 

[Richard Savage]

No, there is no evidence that President Obama committed an impeachable offence. If Speaker Boehner and the Republicans are so sure that he has, then why haven't they brought impeachment proceedings? Who in Congress will lead the charge to impeach the President? Who will step up to the rostra with the articles of impeachment? Any takers out there? Where are those bold "Tea Party Patriots"?

 

[Texas_tea]

No, there is no evidence that President Obama committed an impeachable offence. If Speaker Boehner and the Republicans are so sure that he has, then why haven't they brought impeachment proceedings? Who in Congress will lead the charge to impeach the President? Who will step up to the rostra with the articles of impeachment? Any takers out there? Where are those bold "Tea Party Patriots"?

The TEA Party Patriots are the only ones leading this charge you idiot!!!!

Obstruction of justice never proves ones innocents!

F*cking sick minded liberalism ..... go figure!

 

[Richard Savage]

There has been no obstruction of justice. If there has, then why have the brave "Tea Party Patriots" brought impeachment proceedings? Are they shy?
I'll tell you why. The reason why is that they have nothing, and they know that attempting to impeach the President would be committing political suicide.

Actions speak louder than words; and while the Republicans are bold with words, they are anything but bold in action when it comes down to toeing the mark.

 

[Texas_tea]

There has been no obstruction of justice. If there has, then why have the brave "Tea Party Patriots" brought impeachment proceedings? Are they shy?
I'll tell you why. The reason why is that they have nothing, and they know that attempting to impeach the President would be committing political suicide.

Actions speak louder than words; and while the Republicans are bold with words, they are anything but bold in action when it comes down to toeing the mark.

Action does not speak louder than words .....

Obstruction of the truth TELLS THE TRUTH ......

Save you delusional BS for HuffPo ......

Insane diseased liberals .... go figure!