Jim Morin by Jim Morin

Jim Morin

Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    Cons are never that honest.

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, 8 months ago

    The US Constitution requires a simple majority in the House to impeach. An ‘impeachment’ is a Constitutional request by the House asking the Senate to investigate (but the House doesn’t seem to know this, every time they’ve impeached, they demanded the Senate find the person guilty).


    Then the Senate is supposed to vote on whether to accept the impeachment and hold an investigation. If the House has not produced ‘probable cause’ of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senators are supposed to vote NOT to investigate. A simple majority vote by the Senate determines if the investigation (and massive expense) is necessary (or not).


    But instead, when they find no ‘probable cause’, Senators have voted to investigate so they can find the impeached person innocent (with a massive waste of time and expense for no reason).


    The last time a Republican House impeached a President just before the mid-terms, they lost many seats and their speaker, so the Honorable John Boehner will do ANYTHING to prevent the House making a fool of itself again by impeaching the President.


    Including an insane lawsuit (at least a lawsuit is better than the alternative).

  3. Technojunkie

    Technojunkie GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    The lawsuit is a distraction. If they were serious they’d simply cut off funding.

  4. mextea

    mextea said, 8 months ago

    because boner does not have the balls to either cut off money to stop the savior…or impeach the savior….RINOs are a bunch of wimps.

  5. DLee4144

    DLee4144 GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    @Michael wme

    Either an impeachment or a lawsuit costs a lot of taxpayer money and can’t possibly have any effect before Obama’s term would end anyway. Assuming that they could rush the whole process through, that would make Biden president and most Americans mad at the Republicans. How do they figure this is going to work out any way that doesn’t make the entire Republican party look like idiots?

  6. Balto Bill

    Balto Bill said, 8 months ago

    @DLee4144

    Thry’re doing it to appease their "base before the midterms so they’ll show up at the polls.

  7. Ted Lind

    Ted Lind GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    Another conservative circus. They claim to want small, effective government and reduced spending but they take every opportunity to spend money on political circus while they can’t even agree among themselves to do anything that actually has a benefit to the country. If it were a company, they would all be out on the street looking for a job.

  8. cjr53

    cjr53 said, 8 months ago

    @Ted Lind

    “If it were a company, they would all be out on the street looking for a job.”
    .
    Excellent idea, let’s vote the HOR republicans out. Oh, better yet, let’s vote out all republicans.

  9. Gresch

    Gresch said, 8 months ago

    Read the job description…Laws come from Congress…

  10. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    I know, let us ask Max Waters how much time she spent going after Bush. And then let us ask how many loony liberals are still blaming everything on Bush, And then compare, which one has merit and which one is a loony liberal fantasy.

  11. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    @Gresch

    Except Obama isn’t doing anything different than previous Presidents in regards to executive orders and signing statements.

  12. 4my10851cs

    4my10851cs said, 8 months ago

    @Jase99

    it’s not that he is signing them it is what they contain

  13. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 8 months ago

    @Jase99

    Except Obama isn’t doing anything different than previous Presidents in regards to executive orders and signing statements."
    riiight, Mr. I got a Pen and a phone, let us just look at one thing he did, he changed the immigration laws on his own, Now we have a flood coming here in the name of Obama wanting amnesty all so Obama could take vore from Mitt.
    hen there are the 40 some changes he has made to his own legacy law. How is that working for you? Can you still keep it if you like it? Can you stay with your doctor? How about it will save you 2,500 a year? All those are promises from Obama who knew that it was a fantasy he sold to get re elected. Now a law he changes at will in order to negate the fall out before other elections.

  14. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 8 months ago

    Excerpts from John Boehner’s press release:

    [The House is] arguing that the president can’t unilaterally change the law, without congressional action. The president changed the law to provide relief from Obamacare for big businesses, while leaving Obamacare’s mandates intact for individuals and families. That was a legislative change, but it wasn’t the way the Legislative Branch would have done it. The House position – expressed by bipartisan votes in 2013, days after the president announced this move – was that Obamacare’s mandates should be stopped for all Americans, not just for big businesses. Rather than provide relief to all Americans, the president circumvented Congress and made his own, new law. The President of the United States doesn’t have the authority under the Constitution to do that. That’s what the House litigation will argue.

    If the House litigation succeeds, the House would immediately take up legislation – again – to stop the implementation of the employer mandate through the normal constitutional legislative process, as well as legislation to stop the law’s mandates on the rest of the nation. Such legislation has already passed the House with bipartisan support.

    As Michael Cannon of the CATO Institute explains: “[T]he [Obama administration’s] unilateral decision to delay the employer mandate is the latest indication that we do not live under a Rule of Law, but under a Rule of Rulers who write and rewrite laws at whim, without legitimate authority, and otherwise compel behavior to suit their ends. Congress gave neither the IRS nor the president any authority to delay the imposition of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. In the section of the law creating that mandate, Congress included several provisions indicating the mandate will take effect in 2014. In case those provisions were not clear enough, Section 4980H further clarifies: ‘(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.’ It is hard to see how the will of the people’s elected representatives – including President Obama, who signed that effective date into law – could have been expressed more clearly, or how it could be clearer that the IRS has no legitimate power to delay the mandate.”

    There are plenty of legal scholars who believe the House has standing if the litigation is initiated in the manner we’ve described, and not all of those scholars are conservatives. For example, Harvard University law professor Lawrence Tribe (who was Obama’s Constitutional Law Professor) recently told the Washington Post: “The House as an institution may well have standing to challenge at least some of the President’s unilateral suspensions and revisions of statutory deadlines and specific mandates in the Affordable Care Act and other congressional legislation. . .It’s not an open-and-shut case, but the House would have at least a plausible basis for claiming standing. On the merits, at least some of the actions the House might challenge are probably consistent with the separation of powers. . .”


    Key Points on the House Legislation vs. Obama’s Overreach

  15. Gresch

    Gresch said, 8 months ago

    @Jase99

    then he shouldn’t have a problem defending his overreach….

  16. Refresh Comments.