Page 39 of 80 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 796

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

  1. #381
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I supported Bush when he made John Bolton a recess appointment the exact same way.
    Oh god. That guy was such a dick. I had forgotten all about him...

  2. #382
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,098

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Spare me your being ignorant as to process. Bolton was not appointed in contradiction to standard recess protocols.
    Hardly ignorant to what is going on here. Spare us your contrived outrage. You are upset about the form of this, but substantively the Senate is in recess. The Senate is also deliberately obstructing here. If the Senate can play games and refuse the do the people's business, then the executive has greater lattitude to do the people's business.

    It would have better for all of us had the Senate just done their job and moved this to a straight up/down vote.

  3. #383
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I supported Bush when he made John Bolton a recess appointment the exact same way.
    Uhhhhh .... Bolton was appointed when the Senate was in true recess.

  4. #384
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,736

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

    A few questions for all of you whining about the Republicans gaming the rules...why didnt Harry Reid bang the gavel and present the topic of the appointee for debate? You dont need cloture to debate a topic, only to close it. If this guy wasnt going to pass Senate approval, why didnt Obama present someone else? Yes the I agree the President can nominate anyone he wants, but if he knows the person in question isnt going pass, hes wasting his time and the Senate's.

    So...why not?

    Something else I dont understand, for some 18months, treasury had tons of openings, but no takers. How is this appointment suddenly so important that Obama couldnt at least TRY the nomination process before going all out?

    Re-election...thats why.

  5. #385
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    In my opinion the rules of the game should be followed. But Republicans were not following the rules. They have been abusing the ever living **** out of the filibuster rule for five years, and in this case they completely abused the advice and consent rule by admittedly using it to try to force a change in existing law, as opposed to the legitimate purpose of vetting the candidate. So when you throw out the rule book, don't whine like a ****in baby when your opponent doesn't follow the rules either. Clear enough?
    And?

    What is wrong with holding up a process where a law is flawed and trying to correct its flaws before enacting said law? Do you go through and enact a law and create a new governmental department with flaws and no regulations or clear definition of what that department is supposed to do or do you outline the functions of that department and give it a clearly defined reason for being?

    You dont just create a new government entity with unknown power that is answerable to no one.

    And do two wrongs make a right? Just because Republicans have used the filibuster to the extreme does abuse of power and ignoring law become acceptable?
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  6. #386
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I agree. Unfortunately Republicans started jacking with the rules 2006 and they haven't stopped yet. If they had real questions about Obama's appointment I would be the first to cry foul. They should have the right to question him. But, again, they don't have a problem with the nominee. They have a problem with the law that was passed and they were trying to circumvent the advice and consent process to get a second bite at that apple. It's like trying to rob a store and complaining when the owner shoots you with an unregistered handgun. I can't get too worked up about the handgun.
    So two wrongs make a right? Actually 3 wrongs in this case.

    The Repubs are doing the exact same thing the Democrats did in early 2000's.

    The Dems wouldnt even bring up for vote several appointees from the Bush administration, the Repubs are returning the favor....(wrong IMO)...but because the Repubs are doing exactly what the Dems did, NOW you are calling foul and saying the President doesnt have to follow the rules or the law?

    I love it when one side thinks the rules dont apply to them.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  7. #387
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    If Boehner or somebody wants to take it to court they're free to, but I can tell you right now, the court will say it's ok. The clear purpose of the recess appointments clause it to enable the president to ensure that vacancies in key positions get filled promptly to avoid disrupting the government's ability to function. That is exactly what it is being used for and the courts won't let some technicality the legislature cooked up trump the clear intention of the constitution. The advice and consent requirement is there to make sure that the legislature gets input into the process, not as a level they can use to try to disable the federal government.
    Obama can appoint him to the new agency all he wants, that doesnt change the fact that the law that created the agency specifies that before said agency can function, Congressional Concent of the nominee must take place.

    So as it sits right now, we have an appointee with no department to head and no salary to collect.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  8. #388
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

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

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Hardly ignorant to what is going on here. Spare us your contrived outrage. You are upset about the form of this, but substantively the Senate is in recess.

    Are you freakin' kidding me here? substantively? kind of? for the most part?

    In the United States federal government, either house of the United States Congress (the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate) can hold a pro forma session at which no formal business is expected to be conducted.[4] This is usually to fulfill the obligation under the Constitution "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other."[5] Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session.[6] They have also been used to prevent presidents from making recess appointments.

    Pro forma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush
    By Peter Schroeder - 01/04/12 12:13 PM ET

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who previously held pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush, said Wednesday he supported President Obama's decision to ignore those sessions to push through one of his key nominees.

    "I support President Obama's decision," he said in a statement.

    The White House announced Wednesday that Obama planned to recess appoint Richard Cordray to be director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). However, Republicans immediately cried foul about the move. They argue that because the holiday break has been broken up by brief pro forma sessions, the Senate is not in recess and the appointment is illegitimate.

    Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the novel move "arrogantly circumvented the American people."

    However, the White House maintains that those sessions, typically held every three days and lasting a few seconds, are not legitimate and can be ignored for the purpose of making recess appointments. The administration cited lawyers that advised President George W. Bush when he was in office who argued that such brief sessions should be discounted.

    On the other side of the argument at that time was Reid, who began holding pro forma sessions in 2007 to block Bush nominees.

    "I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made," he said on the Senate floor in 2008, as Democrats blocked a potential recess appointment of Steven Bradbury to be the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration.
    Bradbury is one of the attorneys cited by the Obama White House in justifying the Cordray move.

    Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush - The Hill's On The Money
    The Hill, no friend of republicans, even in this article highlights the hypocritical nature of demo's in this.

    Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nevada) used the same maneuver in 2008 to prevent then-President George W. Bush from pushing through recess appointments at times when Congress was out of town. Bush did not challenge it, even though some former Bush officials have come forward this week to say presidents do have the Constitutional power to do recess appointments even when there's a pro forma session.

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday called the use of pro forma sessions a "gimmick," even though Reid used them a short time ago.

    "We're saying that this is a gimmick versus a Constitutionally-enshrined authority," said Carney. "And we feel very comfortable, as a legal matter, that the Constitution trumps gimmicks."

    Read more: A Tale Of Two President Obamas | Fox News
    What a joke Carney is...The Constitution trumps gimmicks....They are absolutely ignoring the Constitution in doing this, and thus breaking the law! Obama took an oath, that he obviously doesn't intend on, nor ever intended on upholding.


    He should be impeached, and thrown out on his ear.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #389
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,143

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Are you freakin' kidding me here? substantively? kind of? for the most part?





    The Hill, no friend of republicans, even in this article highlights the hypocritical nature of demo's in this.



    What a joke Carney is...The Constitution trumps gimmicks....They are absolutely ignoring the Constitution in doing this, and thus breaking the law! Obama took an oath, that he obviously doesn't intend on, nor ever intended on upholding.


    He should be impeached, and thrown out on his ear.


    j-mac
    with those ears that would be quite a soft landing

    let's watch the Obama administration argue they made those "recess" appointments to uphold the intent of the Constitutional language and ignored the gamesmanship (contrived originally by DEMO senate leader reid) played to pretend there was no actual "recess", intended only to thwart the provisions of the Constitution
    it is quite obvious the republicans were taking actions contrary to their obligation to 'advise and consent'
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #390
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    A few questions for all of you whining about the Republicans gaming the rules...why didnt Harry Reid bang the gavel and present the topic of the appointee for debate? You dont need cloture to debate a topic, only to close it.
    Republicans filibustered the appointment.


    If this guy wasnt going to pass Senate approval, why didnt Obama present someone else? Yes the I agree the President can nominate anyone he wants, but if he knows the person in question isnt going pass, hes wasting his time and the Senate's.
    I guess you haven't been following the thread. Republicans said that they did not object to Cordray. What they objected to was the structure of the agency that was already lawfully created. That is the whole point. The purpose of the advice and consent procedure is to allow Congress to pass judgment on a nominee. The purpose is NOT to allow Congress to make substantive changes to the AGENCY to which the nominee has been appointed.


    Something else I dont understand, for some 18months, treasury had tons of openings, but no takers. How is this appointment suddenly so important that Obama couldnt at least TRY the nomination process before going all out?
    Republicans have been holding up many nominations -- not just this one. In this case, however, because it was a new agency, it was paramount that there be someone in charge during its formative period. Folks seem to have missed the fact that Obama also recess appointed three members of the NLRB, which was necessary because the board was about to lose its ability to function for lack of a quorum.

    Re-election...thats why.
    Yes, that's why Republicans blocked a nominee who they said they liked.

Page 39 of 80 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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