Friday, January 6, 2012

Quote of the Day - President Obama Edition Part 12

But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. (Applause.) I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve. (Applause.) Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans. We’re not going to let that happen.
President Obama on why it is ok for him to be a dictator.   


What is really scary are the people applauding.  We have checks and balances for a reason, people.

8 comments:

hometown guy said...

Filibustering uncontroversial presidential appointments is not a very good use of our checks and balances. And yes, i felt the same about this when it was being done to Bush, although it's been done a LOT more by the Republican congresses during Obama's term.

The Griper said...

one problem, hometown. how can he say he is acting on the behalf of the people when those same people directly elected those who act on their behalf which is the House and the Senate not the President?

hometown guy said...

A fair point, except that they are not doing so. The job of the president is to nominate persons for cabinet and official positions. The job of congress is to provide "advice and consent" to the appointment of those persons. Perhaps you see things differently, but refusing to allow a nomination to even come to a vote does not meet any logical definition of "advice and consent." It would be the job of every senator or congressperson to vote against a nominee they felt was not qualified for the position, but anything beyond that is patently obstructionist.

Just a conservative girl said...

Guy, the problem with your theory is that he never bothered to put this person up for a vote. Scott Brown has said he would support the guy. Which means he would have enough to pass. So, that means it was a democrat that would hold it up.

Deekaman said...

Wait...it will get better.

"I know you folks out there are hurtin'. Since the Republicans in Congress will only give a break to their rich Wall Street friends, I had to use an executive order to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of those mortgages that are under water. It's time Main Street got their bailout" (applause) (MSM proclaiming his wonderfulness) (the rest of us? Screwed as ususal)

The Griper said...

hometown,
"The job of congress is to provide "advice and consent" to the appointment of those persons."

hate to burst your bubble on this but Congress is made up of the "house of representatives" and the "Senate". the President does not need the advice nor the consent of the House for appointments.

and the key word in that phrase is consent. Obama did not get the required consent regardless of what you call the tactics that was used to withhold that consent.

and remember, that tactic was abiding by the rules of the Senate which is another job it has too.

so, if you want to use that section of the Constitution to argue from then it was Obama who was not acting in a Constitutional manner by appointing the man without consent as required and he left no doubt that he did so deliberately.

RSS Ronald Reagan said...

Obama keeps ratcheting up this extreme rhetoric and our guys look at him disapprovingly and write very stern letters...then roll over and let the Presitator do whatever he wants.

Doesn't it make you wish Michele Bachmann or Allen West was Speaker of the House? I'd love to see someone in the leadership start denying the President funding until he figures out how to act like a grown-up.

I don't want to hear any more of this "we're-only-one-half-of-one-third-of-the-government" stuff either. All spending bills originate in the House (which we control) that should be a pretty powerful bargaining chip. Why won't Boehner use it?

hometown guy said...

A few corrections to the things written above:

37 state attorneys-general have sent a letter to congress urging confirmation of this nomineee.

On December 8, there was an attempt to vote on the appointment. 53 senators voted aye, 45 voted nay in the procedural vote to begin debate. This was not enough to invoke cloture and thus the debate and vote were blocked by filibuster.

Now, to prevent the president from appointing anyone in a recess appointment (a LEGAL move used by other presidents in the past), the senate is meeting daily in brief pro-forma sessions. This is being done for ONLY ONE purpose - preventing recess appointments.

I have always agreed that we need up-or-down votes on nominees, and that this is no place for procedural tricks because eventually they will snowball into malarkey like this.

Do people here actually disagree with me on this? Because i get the feeling that a few years ago, we would have been in agreement.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
 
Google Analytics Alternative