The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: John Ransom Suing Obama

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,183

    Default John Ransom Suing Obama

    John Ransom is the Finance Editor at Townhall.com. This was just posted on Facebook
    I announced on the air that I'm suing Obama over violations of oath of office regarding implementation of Obamacare. Anyone want to join, let me know.

    You can't decide to not implement laws just because you passed and signed bad laws.
    Could be interesting if he carries through. I've asked before whether "executive orders" can be challenged, but there was no answer.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I've asked before whether "executive orders" can be challenged, but there was no answer.
    Sure they can...in court.

    This would have a fairly short fuse would it not? If this is a serious effort, a temporary restraining order could be requested in the US Ct of Appeals - DC Circuit. That would probably be granted as the four issues of a TRO are present... particularly timeliness and the public interest.

    The administration would then probably go straight to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to request that the TRO be lifted. Either way this decision goes, the losing party could then file for a Supreme Court action. The trick is that the Supreme Court is on vacation until Oct 1...the date this goes into effect. I don't know what the provisions are for emergency type stuff before the SCOTUS while they are out. Technically the Supreme Court term is from Oct 1 to Sept 30 so there has to be somebody "on duty" during the summer months.

    This smacks of the crisis setting of Bush v Gore in Dec 2000.
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy")
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH ("Muse")
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie")
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    Struan's Driving Us Crazy ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge

  3. #3
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    Sure they can...in court.

    This would have a fairly short fuse would it not? If this is a serious effort, a temporary restraining order could be requested in the US Ct of Appeals - DC Circuit. That would probably be granted as the four issues of a TRO are present... particularly timeliness and the public interest.

    The administration would then probably go straight to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to request that the TRO be lifted. Either way this decision goes, the losing party could then file for a Supreme Court action. The trick is that the Supreme Court is on vacation until Oct 1...the date this goes into effect. I don't know what the provisions are for emergency type stuff before the SCOTUS while they are out. Technically the Supreme Court term is from Oct 1 to Sept 30 so there has to be somebody "on duty" during the summer months.
    Well, Oct. could be within the time frame since the mandate is supposed to start 1/2014, and they want to postpone until 1/2015.

    So if restraining order were filed for now; and then WH filed for lifting; then go to the Supremes. If the restraining order were NOT lifted, then the mandate would take place 1/2014 as planned That would mean that the effects of this part of the law would become quite evident before the mid-terms. If it becomes evident to many that this law really does suck, then the Rs would have a strong position to maintain the house and gain control of the Senate ... and repeal the law?

    Then they could re-start with something sensible to focus on the core problems that bother most people: pre-existing conditions and cost containment overall. Not to mention fraud and waste in the systems in place.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Actually, Ransom states he suing over "oath of office violations", and this very well could apply to any other executive order that was used to "trump" existing laws. The "Dreamer" executive order might also come into that category.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •