• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

Thunder said:
you are correct, and that is exactly what the Republicans have done.

they have turned the Constitution into tiolet paper. They have turned the Senate into an off-off-Broadway show. A very bad one.
Click to expand...

LOL .... yeah, the nerve of McConnell and the Republicans !!! Who do they think they are, Reid and the Democrats ?????? !!!!!

Oh the irony ;)
 
Eighty Deuce said:
LOL .... yeah, the nerve of McConnell and the Republicans!!!...
Click to expand...

yes, they have shown their utmost disrespect towards the Senate & democracy.

don't have enough votes to pass a bill? that's ok, all you have to do is abuse the filibuster rule & make believe you're in session when you're really on vacation, thereby peventing Recess appointment and keeping an entire federal agency from functioning.

real patriotic stuff.
 
While we are on the point, it was Harry Reid legitimized the concept of filibustering judicial nominees with Estrada in 2003. The lame hypocrit Democrats start all this stuff, and then when it is turned on them, they squeal like stuck pigs. Or just plain violate the Constitution.
 
Thunder said:
yes, they have shown their utmost disrespect towards the Senate & democracy.

don't have enough votes to pass a bill? that's ok, all you have to do is abuse the filibuster rule & make believe you're in session when you're really on vacation, thereby peventing Recess appointment and keeping an entire federal agency from functioning.

real patriotic stuff.
Click to expand...

They were just doing the Democrat jig, and following the bill as written. And the Law.
 
Thunder said:
yes, they have shown their utmost disrespect towards the Senate & democracy.

don't have enough votes to pass a bill? that's ok, all you have to do is abuse the filibuster rule & make believe you're in session when you're really on vacation, thereby peventing Recess appointment and keeping an entire federal agency from functioning.

real patriotic stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know that you consider the demo's to be imperial in their rule because they hold one house of Congress, and the Presidency (for the moment)...You've already been shown in this thread to be wrong on several occasions, and in several postings.

Give up while your behind.

j-mac
 
Eighty Deuce said:
While we are on the point, it was Harry Reid legitimized the concept of filibustering judicial nominees with Estrada in 2003....
Click to expand...

so, you see no difference between filibustering a judicial nominee, and threatening to filibuster ANY & ALL nominations for director of an agency, thereby preventing the agency from functioning?????????????????
 
j-mac said:
Yes, we know that you consider the demo's to be imperial in their rule because they hold one house of Congress,...
Click to expand...

you have a problem with the system our Founding Fathers created?

you think the Republicans should have their way...even if they don't have the votes to get their way?

sounds like you're pushing for a Republikan dictatorship.
 
Thunder said:
you have a problem with the system our Founding Fathers created?

you think the Republicans should have their way...even if they don't have the votes to get their way?

sounds like you're pushing for a Republikan dictatorship.
Click to expand...


Not at all, I wish you progressives would follow it.

j-mac
 
Thunder said:
so, you see no difference between filibustering a judicial nominee, and threatening to filibuster ANY & ALL nominations for director of an agency, thereby preventing the agency from functioning?????????????????
Click to expand...


It has already been pointed out that the very so called "agency" may be unconstitutional....Next!

j-mac
 
This is priceless, both parties complain about the filibuster and then refuse to allow for up or down votes. Its like a political carousel. :doh:shock:
 
j-mac said:
Not at all, I wish you progressives would follow it.

j-mac
Click to expand...

fine. let this guy have his up or down vote.

yea yea, I know........you guys would filibuster even Jesus Christ himself, if he was nominated to run this agency.

please show us where the Constitution says the filibuster can be used to actually prevent a Congressionally-approved government agency from functioning.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
so, you see no difference between filibustering a judicial nominee, and threatening to filibuster ANY & ALL nominations for director of an agency, thereby preventing the agency from functioning?????????????????
Click to expand...

What I see is the GOP using the rules, as practiced by Harry Reid, and Senator Obama at the time. I see them not beating around the bush, but actually sending a letter to Obama, outlining the issues. They went by the bill as written. They went by the process as already used by Reid. They went with the will of the majority of votes cast in the last election. And the President put politics ahead of principle.
 
Thunder said:
well, until the SCOTUS declares it unConstitutional, it should be allowed to function normally.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that you should be allowed to damage the economy at will until the court agrees to hear the case? Nah, you'll excuse us if we don't want your destructive mitts anywhere near an unaccountable agency with regulatory power.

You tend to abuse power.

please show us where the Constitution says the filibuster can be used to actually prevent a Congressionally-approved government agency from functioning.
Click to expand...


Already posted it...See, that's what you get for ignoring what is written, in favor of foaming at the mouth....Go look it up.

j-mac
 
Thunder said:
please link to and quote the rule that says a filibuster can be used to prevent ANYONE from leading a Federal agency, therefore perpetually hobbling the function of the agency.

thanks.
Click to expand...


Already posted it....Look it up.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
So your argument is that you should be allowed to damage the economy at will until the court agrees to hear the case? Nah, you'll excuse us if we don't want your destructive mitts anywhere near an unaccountable agency with regulatory power....
Click to expand...

sorry, but I don't respond to pathetic strawmen.

oh, and btw, the agency is not "unaccountable", as the agency director can be impeached and the agency defunded if they **** up or fail to do a good job.
 
Thunder said:
sorry, but I don't respond to pathetic strawmen.

oh, and btw, the agency is not "unaccountable", as the agency director can be impeached and the agency defunded if they **** up or fail to do a good job.
Click to expand...

While you are on a soapbox, telling us how its the GOP hamstringing the process, check out this new thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-white-house-nominee-list.html#post1060090560

As Obama also made three "Recess" appointments (two Dems, one Repub) to the NLRB in the same unConstitutional move, he never even bothered to submit the two Dems to the Senate while in session. In fact, according to the article, he only had them listed for two days while the Senate was not in session. There's your political Obama. He don't need no stinking "advise and consent" ;)
 
jackalope said:
Right, so, the GOP made their case .... AND LOST.

So, naturally, the next thing to do is throw a tantrum and refuse to carry out your constitional duties because you're really really pissed that you didn't win the debate, legislatively.
Click to expand...

Actually, i'm not pissed about anything. Am a little curious how some on the Left are so consumed in partisanship that they can't even conceive there are two sides to this issue. And certainly politics is involved. But it (politics) is and has been getting played on both sides of the aisle....
 
jackalope said:
That's not really a relevant point, is it, C. Differences of opinion in organization are properly addressed in the legislative process, not by refusing to confirm anyone to a lawfully created agency, b/c you want to kill the agency and couldn't muster up the votes to do so legislatively.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is relevant. And from what I have read the GOP is not trying to "kill the agency". Thought the Hatch write up did a nice job of laying out some details.
 
Cole said:
Actually, i'm not pissed about anything. Am a little curious how some on the Left are so consumed in partisanship that they can't even conceive there are two sides to this issue. And certainly politics is involved. But it (politics) is and has been getting played on both sides of the aisle....
Click to expand...

the you referred to was the Senate Republicans, not you, my friend :)
 
Cole said:
Yes. It is relevant. And from what I have read the GOP is not trying to "kill the agency". Thought the Hatch write up did a nice job of laying out some details.
Click to expand...

No, it's not relevant. Because having ideological or philosophical differences with the creation of a lawfully created body is not a reason to refuse to confirm anyone to the post heading up the agency. Their constitutional job is to advise and consent, not refuse to do their job.
 
jackalope said:
No, it's not relevant. Because having ideological or philosophical differences with the creation of a lawfully created body is not a reason to refuse to confirm anyone to the post heading up the agency. Their constitutional job is to advise and consent, not refuse to do their job.
Click to expand...

Guess our opinions just differ....
 
jackalope said:
No, it's not relevant. Because having ideological or philosophical differences with the creation of a lawfully created body is not a reason to refuse to confirm anyone to the post heading up the agency. Their constitutional job is to advise and consent, not refuse to do their job.
Click to expand...

indeed, refusing to allow ANYONE to run this new agency, is not why the Senate has filibuster powers.

if they don't like the agency, then vote it out or defund it...or amend it.

that is the only democratic way of dealing with this issue.
 
Thunder said:
oh, and btw, the agency is not "unaccountable", as the agency director can be impeached and the agency defunded if they **** up or fail to do a good job.
Click to expand...

Again, you really don't read anything that doesn't agree with your opinion do you?

The CFPB is not funded by congress, it is funded by the Fed. and the oversight committees do not have oversight...So I don't know where you get your info from, if anywhere, but it is wrong.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom