- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim
You have it exactly right here Deuce, only thing is, it wasn't one appointment to the NLRB, it was three, tipping the balance of power on the board giving unhindered power to unions. Now, I understand that to you, you believe that it is proper for Obama to get these appointments, however it just isn't. We have a constitution, and law. If you really believe that it is ok when a president that you support does it, then you have NO leg to stand on when you complain if a president you disagree with does it.
See, it's not that the president isn't entitled to choose the people he wants, it is more that the congress has a say in 'advice and consent'. When President Obama appointed these people it was in the NLRB's case designed to shift power of the board, in the case of judicial appointments it was to shift the balance of the court that decides the cases brought against his administration without consideration of other courts that are in greater need of judges, and in the case of the consumer protection board, it was to have a crony in place that will further a heavy government hand against business with the force of law that congress doesn't take up, or pass.
These things are dangerous, and it isn't how the country was set up to run....You can't just ignore the law when there are obstacles to what you want.
Personally I think this is a line that needed to be crossed. These kinds of positions are important to running our country, and appointing people to these positions are a presidential power. The GOP (and the Democrats before them, under Bush) has been blocking these appointments in a blanket manner. It's not about any objection to a specific candidate, they're doing this to hamstring Obama. They have a vested interest in him failing, and they'd rather hurt the country as long as he's in power.
Furthermore, temporary appointments during recesses are an express presidential power, and Congress has taken to exploiting a loophole to try and block this ability. They made fake sessions. No actual business was conducted, it literally lasted five seconds just so they could claim to be in session. It's a blatant effort to circumvent an express constitutional power. It was unacceptable when Harry Reid did it, and it's unacceptable now.
This country needs to settle the question about exactly how much leeway Congress should have to be obstructionist regarding these positions. Take the labor board position that kicked off a lot of this: this is an important position. If the appointment was unconstitutional, that means all these decisions made come under question. The result of that? Taxpayers funding the millions of dollars in legal fees that will likely result from challenges to the board's decisions, and an eventual appointment probably re-making all of the same decisions. For what, exactly?
You have it exactly right here Deuce, only thing is, it wasn't one appointment to the NLRB, it was three, tipping the balance of power on the board giving unhindered power to unions. Now, I understand that to you, you believe that it is proper for Obama to get these appointments, however it just isn't. We have a constitution, and law. If you really believe that it is ok when a president that you support does it, then you have NO leg to stand on when you complain if a president you disagree with does it.
See, it's not that the president isn't entitled to choose the people he wants, it is more that the congress has a say in 'advice and consent'. When President Obama appointed these people it was in the NLRB's case designed to shift power of the board, in the case of judicial appointments it was to shift the balance of the court that decides the cases brought against his administration without consideration of other courts that are in greater need of judges, and in the case of the consumer protection board, it was to have a crony in place that will further a heavy government hand against business with the force of law that congress doesn't take up, or pass.
These things are dangerous, and it isn't how the country was set up to run....You can't just ignore the law when there are obstacles to what you want.