Plan to Destroy America

[flockofseagulls104]

When a government official ignores the law (as Roy Moore and Donny routinely do), you have a direct threat to the rule of law.

Where was your outrage, bob-tel, when Obama ignored the law and the US Constitution on several occasions? Oh, you don't know what I'm talking about? Look it up for yourself. And spare me the weaselly justifications for it. He did exactly what you're accusing Walker of doing, ignoring the law and choosing which laws to enforce and which not, but I didn't see you lamenting about the future of democracy then. I'm not arguing that Walker is right, but your hypocrisy is burning bright.

It's obvious that you don't know a flocking thing about the law.

The Constitution means what the courts tell us it means, not what you want it to mean. At most, President Obama took arguable positions on open issues and on some of them, the courts that decided the issue disagreed with him. Every President does that. Walker's position wasn't remotely arguable. --Bob

No, bob-tel, I don't know a flocking thing about the law, because I didn't go to ethical law school, like you did. But I am of the opinion that the legal system of this country has been totally prostituted by lawyers like you who use the law as a political tool. When we view SCOTUS by the left/right balance, there is something wrong there. The truth should be the truth, regardless of your political affiliation. But what do I know about the flocking law?

https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2 ... -it-means/

I asked you to spare me the weaselly justifications for what Obama did, but, of course, you ignored me. So I will do a little bit of research for you, bob-tel. Here is a list going back to 2014 of 7 times he ignored the law to produce his desired outcome. Being from 2014, the list doesn't include the grand-daddy of all of them.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/02/14/ ... tive-will/

The truth, bob-tel, is the truth, not what you or even I want it to be. And your opinion certainly isn't the truth just because you hold it.

[silverscreenselect]

When we view SCOTUS by the left/right balance, there is something wrong there. The truth should be the truth, regardless of your political affiliation. But what do I know about the flocking law?

https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2 ... -it-means/

The problem with that article is that, with the exception of one brief quote from Jefferson, the only source cited is Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution. While that is one of the pre-eminent documents that attempts to interpret the Constitution, it's only one man's opinion, and, since Story was all of 17 years old during the Constitutional Convention, he wasn't a first hand expert of what actually went on there. Further, the statements that your article has culled from his Commentaries are at odds with his judicial record while on the Supreme Court. He was John Marshall's closest ally on the Court in terms of expanding judicial power and actually wrote the first opinion that explicitly gave the Supreme Court the authority over state courts.

So I would place a lot more credence in what Joseph Story wrote in his capacity as a Justice of the Supreme Court than in what Bryan Fischer, whose legal education consists of a graduate degree in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, claims that Story meant in his Commentaries. But what do I know about the flocking law?

[Bob78164]

Where was your outrage, bob-tel, when Obama ignored the law and the US Constitution on several occasions? Oh, you don't know what I'm talking about? Look it up for yourself. And spare me the weaselly justifications for it. He did exactly what you're accusing Walker of doing, ignoring the law and choosing which laws to enforce and which not, but I didn't see you lamenting about the future of democracy then. I'm not arguing that Walker is right, but your hypocrisy is burning bright.

It's obvious that you don't know a flocking thing about the law.

The Constitution means what the courts tell us it means, not what you want it to mean. At most, President Obama took arguable positions on open issues and on some of them, the courts that decided the issue disagreed with him. Every President does that. Walker's position wasn't remotely arguable. --Bob

No, bob-tel, I don't know a flocking thing about the law, because I didn't go to ethical law school, like you did. But I am of the opinion that the legal system of this country has been totally prostituted by lawyers like you who use the law as a political tool. When we view SCOTUS by the left/right balance, there is something wrong there. The truth should be the truth, regardless of your political affiliation. But what do I know about the flocking law?

https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2 ... -it-means/

I asked you to spare me the weaselly justifications for what Obama did, but, of course, you ignored me. So I will do a little bit of research for you, bob-tel. Here is a list going back to 2014 of 7 times he ignored the law to produce his desired outcome. Being from 2014, the list doesn't include the grand-daddy of all of them.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/02/14/ ... tive-will/

The truth, bob-tel, is the truth, not what you or even I want it to be. And your opinion certainly isn't the truth just because you hold it.

I was paying fairly close attention during the recess appointments imbroglio, so I know that portion of your article, as a minimum, is flocked up. The extent of the President's recess appointment power was an open question at the time with viable arguments in both directions. The courts now have decided it in response to President Obama's appointments, but they hadn't at the time. And the article's hand-wringing about unauthorized recess appointments causing damage with their policies is equally misplaced, because the very point of the court's decision is that any action taken by someone whose recess appointment wasn't authorized is void.

What President Obama (and many of his predecessors) did is like how, in my view, Donny ignored one law (Dodd-Frank) to use another law (the Vacancy Control Act) to make his own preferred person interim head of the CFPB instead of the person designated by the law that actually created the Bureau. So far, the courts have agreed with Donny, but we're still waiting on the final word. But even if they agree with me, that doesn't mean Donny is flouting the law. It just means he took an arguable legal position and lost.

What Walker did was different. And I think the voters of Wisconsin took a step last night toward telling him they know the difference. In a word, come November, I think he's gonna get flocked. --Bob