21–30 of 97 posts
Why is the lawsuit against Obama? Shouldn't it be against the USG or the part of the government that passed the law (or against the NSA for the data collection)? It seems strange to sue an individual politician, president or not.
Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base. Everything…
Both parties are slowly merging into one anyway: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-... The only notable difference these days is the fringes (where Rand Paul and Tea Party reside) vs the single party.
Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base. Everything…
Both parties are slowly merging into one anyway: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-... The only notable difference these days is the fringes (where Rand Paul and Tea Party reside) vs the single party.
A much less bizarre example would be the way the parties have moved towards each other on issues like national security, the finance industry, etc.
My two minutes of internet research says that this is going to get tossed. A President can't be sued for actions taken as President, but can be sued for personal actions. A Daily Beast article mentions this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/can-bachman...
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_79_1738
which states,
> The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history."
If Obama signs a law that says everyone who sells beer has to pay a fine, and you sue him over it, and it's found to be an unjust law, then what you can't do is demand that he personally pay you for the lost business.
What you can do is get the law he signed thrown out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both parties are slowly merging into one anyway: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/boehner-to-... The only notable difference these days is the fringes (where Rand Paul and Tea Party reside) vs the single party.
Agreed. Another reason to disregard partisan politics, because the two sides are really one on the most important issues of our time.
Take a look at the comments section if you want to see political tribalism at its best. > I thought Bush orchestrated the Patriot Act... who knew..? > Regardless of your opinion of the surveillance, you gotta see this as a cynical political move. Bet he wouldn't sue a Republican president. Isn't good enough to disagree with Obama - a candidate has to demonstrate outrage with him to gain cred with the base. Everything…
More political theater from Rand Paul. If only he was as transparent to the average voter.
Would a similar suit by Pelosi also be theater to you?
However, suing everyone and anyone else (as Paul seems to have done), isn't.
So what Paul has done is a little political theater and a little practical. If Polosi had done the same thing, the result would be the same.
As a legislator though, it seems the far more practical way of ending phone surveillance would be to draft a bill making it explicitly illegal.
Since then, I've seen politicians vote on a law and then admit to not having read it. I've seen politicians simply not go to work because they don't want to not vote, but they also don't want to vote. And then I've seen filibustering.
While there are several laws that I disagree with that have been killed by a filibuster, I think it's entirely disgraceful that there is a tactic which can prevent a popular bill from becoming law simply because someone else decides to be an asshole for 17 hours.
And the whole voting on a bill without reading it? I think anyone caught doing that should spend the rest of their life in prison, period.
These guys are master manipulators, most or all of them are ivy league educated, top of their class, cut-throat business men and attorneys. And yet people think these are the guys that should be running a country.
The whole thing, start to finish, is a farce and it's appalling to watch.
I dislike politics in general because, really, it's all just a giant reality tv show. I lost faith when I was in high school, actually, because President Bush stood on national television and said that they couldn't find any weapons in Afghanistan and that was proof that they were there. And nobody, or at least nobody that I had exposure to, thought that was the stupidest thing they had ever heard. Since then, I've s…
Sounds about right.
The complaint - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1017524-rand-paul-co... What's frustrating is that I had to search through 5 articles/blog posts to find it. Why do media outlets post articles on any lawsuit without a link to the complaint?