Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (178670)	1/6/2012 9:40:44 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541599

I could not agree more. I'm not sure why the republicans think they should be able to call all the shots even if they are in the minority- maybe the Supreme court giving them an election went to their tiny little heads? But screw them. I hope Obama exploits the hell out of this. There really is no excuse for trying to scuttle the governance of this country just so you can weaken the legitimate president. My respect for republicans was never high, but after seeing what they've done last year, I can't imagine how low they'll sink. This year they will, no doubt, plumb new nadirs.

To: Cogito who wrote (178670)	1/6/2012 10:39:45 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541599

Legislative bodies are allowed to make their own rules as to how the constitutional mandates will be implemented and courts defer to them in doing so. The devil is in the details in this. If it could be shown that a rule somehow was a "de facto" blocking of the implementation of constitutional machinery maybe the Dems could get a legal victory. But IMH legal opinion it's a stretch. There is a good chance the whole thing could become a real mess if the appointee takes implementing actions that are later found invalid because he was invalidly appointed. It would have been better, IMHO, for Obama to have waited it out and made it a campaign issue rather than to risk the legal morass that could follow. Stylistically, this is like FDR "packing" the US Supreme Ct. wlith 6 more justices (which legallly failed).