General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

6. Two honest questions

Sun Jan 19, 2014, 08:53 AM

Jan 2014

1) If the law says X must occur how can the President just wave away the law?

2) Even assuming he can just wave away the law, what is the stated rationale?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

WH delays implementation of equal coverage provsion thus enabling corporations to [View all] cali Jan 2014 OP

They got the rules laid down for the poor folks, folks what ain't got no voice Fumesucker Jan 2014 #1

it's just inexcusable. and illustrates something very ugly. cali Jan 2014 #2

Mockery works better than anger Fumesucker Jan 2014 #3

So, you agree with Issa that the IRS targeting geek tragedy Jan 2014 #43

mark me down as an apologist then because OKNancy Jan 2014 #4

It just wrong. They've had years to ensure that exactly this kind of inequity NOT be extant. cali Jan 2014 #5

They=IRS. nt geek tragedy Jan 2014 #44

Two honest questions Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #6

I only have guesses. I'm guessing the argument isn't that he's waiving the law cali Jan 2014 #7

Hypothetical scenario -- Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #8

None of the above can be sued for the harm you posit. Romulox Jan 2014 #9

The government gets sued constantly for failing to abide by its own laws/rules. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #12

The government has what is known as "Sovereign Immunity". Romulox Jan 2014 #14

Google, "filed suit against the federal government" and then list each individual story separately. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #16

"the fed. government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity" Romulox Jan 2014 #17

So if some bureaucrat decides to destroy your livelihood Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #19

Knowing something isn't the same thing as being "OK with that". It's not advocacy, it's just fact. Romulox Jan 2014 #31

I didn't say you would advocate. I'm asking if you'd resign yourself without challenge. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2014 #34

Basic administration law. joshcryer Jan 2014 #37

It's called selective enforcement Savannahmann Jan 2014 #40

Thank you for revealing yourself. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #42

Thank you very much. Savannahmann Jan 2014 #46

It was the *individual* mandate$$ that corporate insurers so desired. And that's what they got. Romulox Jan 2014 #10

More ProSense Jan 2014 #11

and your posts are an embarassment and not even tenuously related to reality or cali Jan 2014 #15

Want to ProSense Jan 2014 #18

Your posts deny reality, and really are nothing but cheerleading cali Jan 2014 #20

I really think ProSense Jan 2014 #21

I don't need to expend much energy, sadly. His record speaks for itself cali Jan 2014 #22

Well, ProSense Jan 2014 #23

I thought his legacy was going to be endless war in Syria? JoePhilly Jan 2014 #24

his foreign policy legacy is hardly anything to celebrate. cali Jan 2014 #25

Right, ending two wars, making real progress with Iran ... just awful. JoePhilly Jan 2014 #26

Hey, ProSense Jan 2014 #28

"...anti-Obama drivel based on an MSM report you don't even understand." Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #38

Cali agrees with Darrel Issa that Obama runs the IRS and geek tragedy Jan 2014 #45

There's a new one every day. woo me with science Jan 2014 #13

those who adore the President without any meacure of critical thought cali Jan 2014 #27

"provsion" "meacure" ProSense Jan 2014 #29

Gee, I wonder which way it will go... employees to get better coverage or the executives get worse? gtar100 Jan 2014 #30

Here's how it ProSense Jan 2014 #32

Regulations with actual teeth! That is so different from what we've been seeing in so many other gtar100 Jan 2014 #36

lets see frwrfpos Jan 2014 #33

The SC ruling on the Constitutionality of the ACA was late June 2012. JNinWB Jan 2014 #35

Bush tax cuts for the rich RandiFan1290 Jan 2014 #39

This post reminds me of Republicans bashing geek tragedy Jan 2014 #41