Skip to comments.
Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill
The Hill ^
| 5/9/07
| Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor
Posted on 05/08/2007 7:07:38 PM PDT by Jean S
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-239 next last
1
posted on
05/08/2007 7:07:40 PM PDT
by
Jean S
To: JeanS
This woman (another term comes to mind) thinks that she is the President of the United States! There’s no other explanation for it! Conducting foreign policy with our enemies, contradicting President Bush at every term, giving al Queada every indication that we will surrender, etc...
2
posted on
05/08/2007 7:12:38 PM PDT
by
2ndDivisionVet
(Nancy Pelosi: The Babbling Bolshevik Babushka from the City by the Bay.)
To: JeanS
You have GOT to be kidding.
One key sentence in this article is this one:
“The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.”
If they can’t secure a “certain outcome” in Congress, ya think that might be a clue to STFU????
3
posted on
05/08/2007 7:12:59 PM PDT
by
TheRobb7
(Liberalism exists to silence people who don't agree.)
To: JeanS
So much for 3 equal branches of government.
I realize Pelosi probably shook hands with the Queen of England yesterday, but that did not elevate her to Queen herself.
Typical leftists, though. If you can’t get your way, run to a liberal court!
4
posted on
05/08/2007 7:13:35 PM PDT
by
DakotaRed
(Liberals don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
To: JeanS
Bush last week wrote in his veto message, This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency. The Presidential equivalent of a poke in the eye L0L
5
posted on
05/08/2007 7:15:25 PM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
She’s drunk on her own B. S.!!!!!
6
posted on
05/08/2007 7:15:46 PM PDT
by
Aria
(NO RAPIST ENABELER FOR PRESIDENT!!!)
To: JeanS
Pelosi and company will fight this all the way to hell, caring nothing about our troops.
7
posted on
05/08/2007 7:17:28 PM PDT
by
TheLion
(How about "Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement," for a change)
To: Aria
To: JeanS
I wish she would try the courts then President Bush can stick it in their eyes too after their bone-headed rulings on Gitmo.
9
posted on
05/08/2007 7:20:11 PM PDT
by
tobyhill
(only wimps believe in retreat in defeat)
To: DakotaRed
....run to a liberal court!
....She’ll take it, to the 9th Circus, no doubt.
10
posted on
05/08/2007 7:20:35 PM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
( just b/c, you suffer from paranoia, doesn't mean they're not out to get you....Run, Fred, Run :^)
To: DakotaRed
Since the Supreme Court cannot be overturned or voted out of office, I would say they are more than equal.
11
posted on
05/08/2007 7:21:24 PM PDT
by
csmusaret
(Mnimum wage today; maximum wage tomorrow. It's the Socialist way.)
To: JeanS
The movie Flight 93 was on HBO tonight. Seeing it reminded me of the stakes in this war on Islamic extremism. It’s too bad that Pelosi and her lieutenants think that Pres. Bush is the enemy. If the Dems had supported their country, the war in Iraq would have been over three years ago. They do not care. Losing there is nothing to them compared to being out of political power. They are really evil.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
How can a party become so enslaved by left wing lunatics on the internet lead by their lord and master George Soros? How low can the democrat party go?
13
posted on
05/08/2007 7:21:43 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
To: JeanS
14
posted on
05/08/2007 7:21:56 PM PDT
by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
To: tobyhill
Unless basic Law 101 eludes me
you cant sue a standing President.
15
posted on
05/08/2007 7:22:12 PM PDT
by
doc1019
(Fred Thompson '08)
To: JeanS
The upswing in reliance on signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito then a staff attorney in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel of a 1986 memorandum making the case for “interpretive signing statements” as a tool to “increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.” Alito proposed adding signing statements to a “reasonable number of bills” as a pilot project, but warned that “Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation.”[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements
To: JeanS
LOL! Yeah, the Courts want to get involved in that! I wonder if the Courts can even hear the case before it is moot.
17
posted on
05/08/2007 7:22:35 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
To: JeanS
What do you think the US supreme Court would do with her suit?
18
posted on
05/08/2007 7:23:54 PM PDT
by
teletech
(Friends don't let friends vote DemocRAT)
To: All
You know, people say President Bush is not one of the ‘smarter presidents’. I find that offensive for many reasons; but one of the big ones is his use of signing statements. What a clever political and legal use of executive power. I can’t wait for this ‘legal action’ to come out though. . . maybe it can be drug out into 2008 and we can retake congress.
19
posted on
05/08/2007 7:24:57 PM PDT
by
edmond246
(God Bless America)
To: skinkinthegrass
20
posted on
05/08/2007 7:25:50 PM PDT
by
maxsand
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-239 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson