Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Remember that whole "nuclear option" thing... here is one result.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Remember that whole "nuclear option" thing... here is one result.

    Looks like 2014 will be the year of regulation since Congress is still stuck in gridlock. This is one of the effects of Reid using the nuclear option to get what Obama wants here. The FDA and EPA just effectively had the leash taken off.

    Thoughts?

    Clearer path for Obama regulatory agenda after 'nuclear option' paves the way

    With congressional gridlock standing in the way of his legislative agenda, President Barack Obama is getting some fresh help in adding to his legacy in a different way through government regulation.

    When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to change Senate rules and ended threatened filibusters of most presidential nominations, it was partly to allow Obama to install his appointees at regulatory agencies and to appoint judges who in many cases will help decide the fate of the regulations those appointees issue.

    The rules changes biggest impact could be felt at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which will end up reviewing many of the regulations enacted by Obamas appointees, helping increase the chances that the effects of Obamas agenda will last long after hes left the White House.

    And by using the nuclear option Democrats will add three new Obama appointees to that important court, tilting the membership there to seven active judges appointed by Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republican presidents. A year ago the balance was four judges appointed by Republican presidents to three appointed by Democratic presidents.
    Clearer path for Obama regulatory agenda after 'nuclear option' paves the way - NBC Politics

  • #2
    Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    Looks like 2014 will be the year of regulation since Congress is still stuck in gridlock. This is one of the effects of Reid using the nuclear option to get what Obama wants here. The FDA and EPA just effectively had the leash taken off.

    Thoughts?



    Clearer path for Obama regulatory agenda after 'nuclear option' paves the way - NBC Politics
    So Obama's packing the court with leftist ideologically driven activist judges. So he's creating 9th Court of Appeals 'East' is he?

    The rules change’s biggest impact could be felt at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which will end up reviewing many of the regulations enacted by Obama’s appointees, helping increase the chances that the effects of Obama’s agenda will last long after he’s left the White House.
    Clearer path for Obama regulatory agenda after 'nuclear option' paves the way - NBC Politics

    Yeah, the country's gonna suffer for that for at least 1/2 a generation.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

      Isn't that what Franklin Roosevelt did to pack the courts with judges favorable to his perspective on the New Deal?

      This is not the first time Obama has followed Roosevelt's lead.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

        Originally posted by Good1 View Post
        Isn't that what Franklin Roosevelt did to pack the courts with judges favorable to his perspective on the New Deal?

        This is not the first time Obama has followed Roosevelt's lead.
        So if the pattern hods, ObamaCare will be the law of the land, and it will run effectively, more or less, especially after some changes and market realities are incorporated into it's policy framework, and round about 50 years from now, it'll be going broke, and sucking the general fund dry as it'll be considered as mandatory spending.

        Except that I don't think it'll run that long before the general fund is sucked dry. I'd hazard a guess that it'd be less than 10 years before it does.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          So if the pattern hods, ObamaCare will be the law of the land, and it will run effectively, more or less, especially after some changes and market realities are incorporated into it's policy framework, and round about 50 years from now, it'll be going broke, and sucking the general fund dry as it'll be considered as mandatory spending.

          Except that I don't think it'll run that long before the general fund is sucked dry. I'd hazard a guess that it'd be less than 10 years before it does.
          I think it will be the law of the land, just like Social Security became too big to withdraw it: Too many people came to count on it so whereas it seriously sucks and depletes the general fund (as you say "...sucking the general fund dry"), it got loaded in just like Obama try-to-get-Care got loaded in and too many people will be counting on it for anyone to ever dismantle it.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

            Originally posted by Good1 View Post
            I think it will be the law of the land, just like Social Security became too big to withdraw it: Too many people came to count on it so whereas it seriously sucks and depletes the general fund (as you say "...sucking the general fund dry"), it got loaded in just like Obama try-to-get-Care got loaded in and too many people will be counting on it for anyone to ever dismantle it.
            Between the other 'mandatory spending' entitlement programs, and the new ObamaCare, which will be become yet another 'mandatory spending' entitlement program the general fund isn't going to be fiscally viable for very long, I don't care how much you confiscate from the successful to try and pay for it. That and complicated by the already precarious fiscal position of the federal government, it's going to be exactly as Alexis de Tocqueville predicted: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

            This Republic, this noble experiment, will be finished. It was probably going to be finished anyway, just that ObamaCare accelerated it by 100 fold.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

              Originally posted by Good1 View Post
              Isn't that what Franklin Roosevelt did to pack the courts with judges favorable to his perspective on the New Deal?

              This is not the first time Obama has followed Roosevelt's lead.
              OK, nomenclature IS important.
              FDR absolutely totally 100 percent TRIED to pack the courts. basically the idea was to change the number of justices in the courts. And obviously, since FDR was president at the time he would be appointing the judges. This was definitely court packing, and it did not go through.

              Obama was trying to appoint three vacancies to the 9th court. These are VACANCIES that the republicans wanted to make sure remained vacant so that the court would not tilt in Obama's favour.

              To call that court packing is absolutely preposterous and really disengenuous.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                Originally posted by rocheteau View Post
                OK, nomenclature IS important.
                FDR absolutely totally 100 percent TRIED to pack the courts. basically the idea was to change the number of justices in the courts. And obviously, since FDR was president at the time he would be appointing the judges. This was definitely court packing, and it did not go through.

                Obama was trying to appoint three vacancies to the 9th court. These are VACANCIES that the republicans wanted to make sure remained vacant so that the court would not tilt in Obama's favour.

                To call that court packing is absolutely preposterous and really disengenuous.
                So this is what the USA is now...
                A President which is elected after he spends 1/2 Billon dollars of mainly corporate money to get elected.

                A Senate that need 60% to get passed and needs $3million in Election funds..

                A Congress which seats are so gerrymandered it has less than 10% approval rating and has 90%+ incumbent re-election (Cost $500k)

                And a bunch of unelected guys reading from a 200 years old document which nobody can seem to change which is growing more irrelevant as the years go by.

                And the funny thing is that some people think this will be fixed by term limits...

                The US has now the worst democracy out of the major first world countries.. It is unrepresentative, corrupt (to the point it has been legalised), gridlocked and incapable of change...

                Couple of suggestions:
                1. Use Proportional Representational Single transfer voting.. (Any one except first past the post, the worst system imaginable)

                2. Take money out of politics, it corrupts this includes Super PACS, PACS and lobbying... Campaigns publicly funded (believe me it is cheaper to p[ay for the campaign rather than having your representatives making backroom deals with any Corportation or Union...)

                3. Create away to change the constitution to reflect the wishes of the people of the day and stop running a country by people guessing what 200 year old dead guys would do. Grow up time for you to take charge.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                  Originally posted by rocheteau View Post
                  OK, nomenclature IS important.
                  FDR absolutely totally 100 percent TRIED to pack the courts. basically the idea was to change the number of justices in the courts. And obviously, since FDR was president at the time he would be appointing the judges. This was definitely court packing, and it did not go through.

                  Obama was trying to appoint three vacancies to the 9th court. These are VACANCIES that the republicans wanted to make sure remained vacant so that the court would not tilt in Obama's favour.

                  To call that court packing is absolutely preposterous and really disengenuous.
                  I get that part, Rochs. But that is not all Obama was trying to appoint...

                  In that OP article, it notes he is packing the DC court with more members (and more liberal members) than were there previously.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                    Originally posted by rocheteau View Post
                    OK, nomenclature IS important.
                    FDR absolutely totally 100 percent TRIED to pack the courts. basically the idea was to change the number of justices in the courts. And obviously, since FDR was president at the time he would be appointing the judges. This was definitely court packing, and it did not go through.

                    Obama was trying to appoint three vacancies to the 9th court. These are VACANCIES that the republicans wanted to make sure remained vacant so that the court would not tilt in Obama's favour.

                    To call that court packing is absolutely preposterous and really disengenuous.
                    You sure about that? One could argue well there is a very real difference between simply filling a vacancy and filling a vacancy with an ideology supporting what the OP article is going on about. I am not saying that Obama is the first one to think this way, but that does not negate he is trying for appointments that will have lasting implications long after he is out of office. Assuming for a moment the article is correct and 2014 becomes the year of regulation over legislation (and in the areas the article touches on) then it will be you that is absolutely wrong.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                      Think you guys are correct; but remember this------------>if more CONSERVATIVES win seats in congress, (not rinos mind you, but that might work too) and the senate flip-flops, push in a conservative President, and the EPA, the federal housing authority, the education department, along with a few others will be DISMANTLED by February 1st of that year.....along with a few more useless departments.

                      This is exactly why progressives have great fear in a conservative getting elected. Without beuracratic oversight, their power disappears into thin air.

                      Now, in all fairness.........states will still have their EPA, and their education departments too. But that kinda leaves any court in Washington out of the loop except the supreme court. The only reason the Washington court is so important is that it is the 1st court of the federal level, and that is where they will try to bring the cases for a favorable decision. Eliminate the federal level departments, and it is solved in the states supreme court, then kicked up to the supreme court itself.

                      I know, it sounds daunting to unravel what the progressives have done, with all the firewalls they have put in place to stop any change while they are out of power. And yet; Obama was given a free hand to TRANSFORM America, and things haven't gotten any (or much) better, in fact economically many would say worse. People are so pissed, the next President is going to be able to do the same thing, and we see what Obysmal did when he had all 3 branches of government for such a short time. (or need I remind you) Now turn the tables! And this isn't anywhere near as difficult because you do not have to CREATE policy or law, just eliminate departments and layers.

                      And yes, a whole lot of people in the public sector of the federal government are going to lose their jobs if/when it happens. Some will probably be able to get a job in the states as I am sure their departments would expand to pick up part of the slack. The rest of them can go to the private sector, which they have been telling us is now wonderful, and 3 more years of the matching growth they have blown their horns over, should give them no pause or worry. Or have they also been deceiving us-)

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                        Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
                        Think you guys are correct; but remember this------------>if more CONSERVATIVES win seats in congress, (not rinos mind you, but that might work too) and the senate flip-flops, push in a conservative President, and the EPA, the federal housing authority, the education department, along with a few others will be DISMANTLED by February 1st of that year.....along with a few more useless departments.

                        This is exactly why progressives have great fear in a conservative getting elected. Without beuracratic oversight, their power disappears into thin air.

                        Now, in all fairness.........states will still have their EPA, and their education departments too. But that kinda leaves any court in Washington out of the loop except the supreme court. The only reason the Washington court is so important is that it is the 1st court of the federal level, and that is where they will try to bring the cases for a favorable decision. Eliminate the federal level departments, and it is solved in the states supreme court, then kicked up to the supreme court itself.

                        I know, it sounds daunting to unravel what the progressives have done, with all the firewalls they have put in place to stop any change while they are out of power. And yet; Obama was given a free hand to TRANSFORM America, and things haven't gotten any (or much) better, in fact economically many would say worse. People are so pissed, the next President is going to be able to do the same thing, and we see what Obysmal did when he had all 3 branches of government for such a short time. (or need I remind you) Now turn the tables! And this isn't anywhere near as difficult because you do not have to CREATE policy or law, just eliminate departments and layers.

                        And yes, a whole lot of people in the public sector of the federal government are going to lose their jobs if/when it happens. Some will probably be able to get a job in the states as I am sure their departments would expand to pick up part of the slack. The rest of them can go to the private sector, which they have been telling us is now wonderful, and 3 more years of the matching growth they have blown their horns over, should give them no pause or worry. Or have they also been deceiving us-)
                        Agreed, must of what the liberal / progressives / Democrats have put into place these recent years can and should be undone. Unfortunately, the court appointments isn't one of those things, as these appointments are for life, are they not?

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                          Agreed, must of what the liberal / progressives / Democrats have put into place these recent years can and should be undone. Unfortunately, the court appointments isn't one of those things, as these appointments are for life, are they not?
                          This is true, but if I am not mistaken, without a federal arm of that department, suits would no longer go to Washingtons lower courts, but would have to be brought by the states departments. This means by elimination of the departments I have mentioned, MOST of the power that the judges you have brought up has their power to legislate in favor of the epa, federal housing authority, department of labor, and a host of others gos POOF! In other words------------->if there is NOT a federal arm of a department, it has to be adjudicated individually against the state, by the state department in question, (state EPA etc) which is much more manageable because...............each state COULD decide differently at their supreme court level, and one size fits all ruling would not happen unless it was sent to the supreme court of the United States. They could not mass their resources to stop people at one lower court in Washington, they would have to fight state, by state, by state.......kind of like they did in Wisconsin, and we both know how that turned out for them-)

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                            Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
                            This is true, but if I am not mistaken, without a federal arm of that department, suits would no longer go to Washingtons lower courts, but would have to be brought by the states departments. This means by elimination of the departments I have mentioned, MOST of the power that the judges you have brought up has their power to legislate in favor of the epa, federal housing authority, department of labor, and a host of others gos POOF! In other words------------->if there is NOT a federal arm of a department, it has to be adjudicated individually against the state, by the state department in question, (state EPA etc) which is much more manageable because...............each state COULD decide differently at their supreme court level, and one size fits all ruling would not happen unless it was sent to the supreme court of the United States. They could not mass their resources to stop people at one lower court in Washington, they would have to fight state, by state, by state.......kind of like they did in Wisconsin, and we both know how that turned out for them-)
                            I see your point.

                            So then all the tax payer would be on the hook for is the wages that these now 'no-op' judiciary appointments. Well considering how much worse it'd be if the departments stayed as they are, I think it not too high a price to pay. Figure that these rapid liberal / progressive / Democratic activist judges will become bored with lack of work and retire early anyway.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Remember that whole &quot;nuclear option&quot; thing... here is one result.

                              Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                              I get that part, Rochs. But that is not all Obama was trying to appoint...

                              In that OP article, it notes he is packing the DC court with more members (and more liberal members) than were there previously.
                              NO.
                              Since congress upped the number of judges on that court in 1978, the number of justices to sit on that court has been 11 (cut down from 12 in 2007). Obama has 3 vacancies to fill. Obama is filling vacancies. That is not court packing.
                              By your logic, if John Roberts were to die tomorrow, and Obama were to nominate a supreme court justice he would be "packing the court".
                              Pretty silly right?

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X