Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can't believe you're actually ignorant enough to suggest that the GOP would have passed Obamacare, or that Obamacare didn't change anything.
You're so far up your own ass you can't see the world.
ObamaCare changed everything, it is the main reason I rate Obama as the 2nd worst POTUS ever. But that does not change that it was modeled after a Repub plan or that the Repubs once it was there have not done a damn thing to get rid of it.
Why is it it still the law of the land?
"Barrycare modeled after Repub plan"
LOL
You lefties keep saying that not to convince us, because we know it's bullshit, but to convince yourself that you can still sell it to us. By the way, that Repub plan you modeled it after is also crap, but it's within state rights.
I can't believe you're actually ignorant enough to suggest that the GOP would have passed Obamacare, or that Obamacare didn't change anything.
You're so far up your own ass you can't see the world.
ObamaCare changed everything, it is the main reason I rate Obama as the 2nd worst POTUS ever. But that does not change that it was modeled after a Repub plan or that the Repubs once it was there have not done a damn thing to get rid of it.
Why is it it still the law of the land?
The individual mandate, a critical provision of President Barack Obama’s landmark Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional, a panel on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday in a case that has pitted a conservative coalition of states led by Texas against a counter-team of blue states led by California.
A three-judge panel on the New Orleans-based appeals court shipped the rest of the law back to a federal district court in Texas, charging the judge there with reassessing how much of the sprawling legislation may stand without the individual mandate provision.
Does Moscow Mitch have the Articles of Impeachment yet?Per Article 1 of the Constitution:
1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.
2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.
So either:
A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.
There are no other options.
Is that how Prosecutors can do it in regular court....start a trial with no indictments yet? What am I saying, of course CRC trumpanzess believe that....in fact, they don't need indictments or trials at all....just "Lock Her Up" is enough for them.Per Article 1 of the Constitution:
1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.
2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.
So either:
A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.
There are no other options.
He could announce that the trial starts on a certain date, and if the House doesn't show up, they start without them.
It's still law of the land, but not in its original form. And with latest ruling, its dying slowly but surely.
Individual mandate is unconstitutional, federal appellate court rules in Texas-led Affordable Care Act lawsuit
The individual mandate, a critical provision of President Barack Obama’s landmark Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional, a panel on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday in a case that has pitted a conservative coalition of states led by Texas against a counter-team of blue states led by California.
A three-judge panel on the New Orleans-based appeals court shipped the rest of the law back to a federal district court in Texas, charging the judge there with reassessing how much of the sprawling legislation may stand without the individual mandate provision.
Is that how Prosecutors can do it in regular court....start a trial with no indictments yet? What am I saying, of course CRC trumpanzess believe that....in fact, they don't need indictments or trials at all....just "Lock Her Up" is enough for them.Per Article 1 of the Constitution:
1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.
2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.
So either:
A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.
There are no other options.
He could announce that the trial starts on a certain date, and if the House doesn't show up, they start without them.
Hmmm. You see fit to drag Hillary into this? If Pelosi can play games with the articles, so can McConnell. If she wants to hold them up, he could too, and force the Senate democrats to stay in session instead of campaigning. The RNC has a lot more money to help their senators than the DNC does.Is that how Prosecutors can do it in regular court....start a trial with no indictments yet? What am I saying, of course CRC trumpanzess believe that....in fact, they don't need indictments or trials at all....just "Lock Her Up" is enough for them.Per Article 1 of the Constitution:
1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.
2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.
So either:
A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.
There are no other options.
He could announce that the trial starts on a certain date, and if the House doesn't show up, they start without them.
Hmmm. You see fit to drag Hillary into this? If Pelosi can play games with the articles, so can McConnell. If she wants to hold them up, he could too, and force the Senate democrats to stay in session instead of campaigning. The RNC has a lot more money to help their senators than the DNC does.Is that how Prosecutors can do it in regular court....start a trial with no indictments yet? What am I saying, of course CRC trumpanzess believe that....in fact, they don't need indictments or trials at all....just "Lock Her Up" is enough for them.Per Article 1 of the Constitution:
1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.
2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.
So either:
A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.
There are no other options.
He could announce that the trial starts on a certain date, and if the House doesn't show up, they start without them.
I don't really care if they call him or not. I would be uncomfortable starting my car for the next 10 years either way, if I were he.It is fun to watch the contortions of the usual suspects when they insist that SOME new witnesses absolutely must be called because the House failed to call them, but THIS witness must never be called, for reasons and stuff and just shut up.Validity of outing the whistle blower at the Senate trial might be one of the procedural things that comes up. Going to be interesting.Roberts presides over the trial to an extent.The republicans could force Roberts to rule as to whether the protected whistle blower must testify. That could be interesting.
It's up to Senate, not Roberts.
Guide to the Constitution
The second question is the extent of the Chief Justice's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings. In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice. In President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ruled on some procedural questions, but the Senate never challenged, much less overruled, any of these rulings.
True, they might vote to overrule Roberts, but the blow-back from the electorate for what "they" feel could be disastrous for the party and Trumps re-election. Kind of like winning the battle but losing the war.
It's going to interesting. I love watching history in the making.
It seems you're mixing up "rules of the Senate" with "judge ruling".
Justice presiding the trial normally follows the Senate rules in order to bring up his own rulings. Two different things.
It's still law because unfucking something is harder than not fucking it up to begin with.ObamaCare changed everything, it is the main reason I rate Obama as the 2nd worst POTUS ever. But that does not change that it was modeled after a Repub plan or that the Repubs once it was there have not done a damn thing to get rid of it.
Why is it it still the law of the land?
Holding Articles of Impeachment in the House does nothing.
If the Senate doesn’t get a chance to try Trump then Trump hasn’t been impeached.
Senate cannot start trial without Articles.
But you leftist morons believe that you could indict someone and keep him in jail indefinitely without a trial? Only communists do that.
Per Article 1 of the Constitution:
1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.
2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.
So either:
A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.
There are no other options.
The House has the authority to impeach, and they have done that. The Senate holds a trial after the impeachment to decide if they kick the president out or not.
Like I've said many times before, you guys gotta quit mixing stuff up. Sorry, but Trump has been impeached. He was impeached the second the gavel hit the desk and Pelosi said he was.
Now? It's up to the Senate to hold a trial and see if they want him removed.
And...............in case you forgot, Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate decided to keep him in office. But, he was still impeached, even though he remained in office.
It's still law because unfucking something is harder than not fucking it up to begin with.
The case is ironclad. Trump's entire defense is "So what? I can do what I want".That's because McConnell said he's going to be working with the White House to coordinate Trump's acquittal. Funny how we would get that idea.The narrative has already been set that ANY result other than conviction will be called invalid by the usual suspects.
No, that was set long ago, when it was revealed how weak the case against Trump really was.
Second hand is not ironclad, especially when the first hand witness said it didn't happen.
First hand witnesses ALL said it happened. Sondland, Volker and Morrison admitted their parts in it. Vidland and Pence's assistant were in on the call and both reported it. The other State Department witnesses heard the call between Sondland and Trump.
Per Article 1 of the Constitution:
1. The House has the Sole authority to impeach.
2.The Senate has the Sole authority to try all Impeachments.
So either:
A. Trump hasn't been impeached yet
or
B. McTurtle can dismiss, or try Trump with any rules he chooses anytime he gets a hair up his ass.
There are no other options.
The House has the authority to impeach, and they have done that. The Senate holds a trial after the impeachment to decide if they kick the president out or not.
Like I've said many times before, you guys gotta quit mixing stuff up. Sorry, but Trump has been impeached. He was impeached the second the gavel hit the desk and Pelosi said he was.
Now? It's up to the Senate to hold a trial and see if they want him removed.
And...............in case you forgot, Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate decided to keep him in office. But, he was still impeached, even though he remained in office.
No, he was not. Per your OWN WITNESS. Since the process has not been completed, you have no impeachment no matter how much you cry. Pisslosi the drunk has ZERO say on McConnell who has rightly told her to fuck off. The SCOTUS could be asked to intervene and Pisslosi would be FORCED to follow the law. So as yet, you have no impeachment.
