• 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!

Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim[W:88]

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
If the SCOTUS goes against Obama, the GOP House will add it to its list of faux reasons to Impeach the POTUS.
Even if the GOP doesn't take the Senate, Linc predicts the House will still Impeach Obama, just in time to ruin the Christmas of 2015.
If the GOP has the Senate, they may as well go ahead and try Mr. Obama,
since the 2016 election will be already be a referendum election, as in 2008 with Bush.


My new feel on the Senate is not on the individual candidates, but on the peripheral influences.
I'll just say the word Christie, since that's all that I need to say on that influence.

Under the radar, we have the asshole Baucus pushing a fast-track TPP that is dividing the Democrats.
The 12 countries literally make up the ring of fire we know of with volcanoes.
This one's a political volcano for the Dems.
There are some good GOPs on this issue with textiles, imports, wages, and jobs, but the Elite GOPs are just eating popcorn.

In particular, Montana will be pissed at Baucus, so I have swung MT to lean R .
Click to expand...

Only fools would try to impeach the president. One would think the Republicans would have learned their lesson when they tried that shenanigan against Clinton. Clinton was more popular with the American people after impeachment than before it. They better have some real good evidence of high crimes as I don't think the American people would put up with it.

You are right that at this moment in time the senate hinges more on the ACA than on any individual candidates. But that could change once all the names are known. Remember back in January of 2012, Mr. Generic GOP Presidential Candidate was trouncing Obama and the GOP seemed poised to win 6 or 7 senate seats. Then the names surfaced and the rest was history. I personally would like to see McConnell lose to Grimes, but the GOP picked up a net gain of 6 or 7 seats to put Reid on the back bench. Then perhaps we could get a majority leader who might put America first. I wonder if there are any more Mitchell's and Dole's in the senate or even Lott's and Daschles.

I have had the GOP picking up WV, SD and MT from the get go, I have since added AR and NC, although Hagan may be able to pull out NC. RCP has a new Michigan poll,

1/13 Conservative Intel poll of Michigan | Conservative Intelligence Briefing

I have been thinking about switch Michigan from a Democratic Hold to a Republican gain on my update number 6 1 Feb. But I would counter than with my gut feeling about Kentucky and give it to Grimes. Begich still looks good in AL and Landrieu has an 7 point lead over Cassidy. But if you add Cassidy and Maness, the two Republicans they lead Landrieu by 44-41. I probably won't switch LA to GOP until I see more evidence. Landrieu has a ton of money and is from a LA political family. She will be hard to beat, but not impossible. If Landrieu loses it will be because of her support for the ACA, Hagan also along with Pryor and all 3 are distancing themselves pretty fast from it and Landrieu had a campaign stop in Lake Charles the same day President Obama was speaking in New Orleans. Trends to come?

Here is something else I have been playing with.

Four criteria for another 2010 for the Republicans in 2014

President Obama Approval Rating of below 45%: Today he is at 42.1% disapprove 53.4%

ACA gap of 12 points in the oppose side: Today it is at 15.3%

Generic Congressional Poll lead of plus 5 points or more: Today it is at minus 0.1

Party affiliation/identification Republicans relative even with Democrats and has a total lead of at least 5 points when Independent lean Republican and Independent lean Democrat are added with the party base statistics: Today the party affiliation is 24% Republican 29% Democrat and when you include the Independent leans the Democrats lead 45-40.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
If the SCOTUS goes against Obama, the GOP House will add it to its list of faux reasons to Impeach the POTUS.
Even if the GOP doesn't take the Senate, Linc predicts the House will still Impeach Obama, just in time to ruin the Christmas of 2015.
If the GOP has the Senate, they may as well go ahead and try Mr. Obama,
since the 2016 election will be already be a referendum election, as in 2008 with Bush.


My new feel on the Senate is not on the individual candidates, but on the peripheral influences.
I'll just say the word Christie, since that's all that I need to say on that influence.

Under the radar, we have the asshole Baucus pushing a fast-track TPP that is dividing the Democrats.
The 12 countries literally make up the ring of fire we know of with volcanoes.
This one's a political volcano for the Dems.
There are some good GOPs on this issue with textiles, imports, wages, and jobs, but the Elite GOPs are just eating popcorn.

In particular, Montana will be pissed at Baucus, so I have swung MT to lean R .
Click to expand...

Only fools would try to impeach the president. One would think the Republicans would have learned their lesson when they tried that shenanigan against Clinton. Clinton was more popular with the American people after impeachment than before it. They better have some real good evidence of high crimes as I don't think the American people would put up with it.

You are right that at this moment in time the senate hinges more on the ACA than on any individual candidates. But that could change once all the names are known. Remember back in January of 2012, Mr. Generic GOP Presidential Candidate was trouncing Obama and the GOP seemed poised to win 6 or 7 senate seats. Then the names surfaced and the rest was history. I personally would like to see McConnell lose to Grimes, but the GOP picked up a net gain of 6 or 7 seats to put Reid on the back bench. Then perhaps we could get a majority leader who might put America first. I wonder if there are any more Mitchell's and Dole's in the senate or even Lott's and Daschles.

I have had the GOP picking up WV, SD and MT from the get go, I have since added AR and NC, although Hagan may be able to pull out NC. RCP has a new Michigan poll,

1/13 Conservative Intel poll of Michigan | Conservative Intelligence Briefing

I have been thinking about switch Michigan from a Democratic Hold to a Republican gain on my update number 6 1 Feb. But I would counter than with my gut feeling about Kentucky and give it to Grimes. Begich still looks good in AL and Landrieu has an 7 point lead over Cassidy. But if you add Cassidy and Maness, the two Republicans they lead Landrieu by 44-41. I probably won't switch LA to GOP until I see more evidence. Landrieu has a ton of money and is from a LA political family. She will be hard to beat, but not impossible. If Landrieu loses it will be because of her support for the ACA, Hagan also along with Pryor and all 3 are distancing themselves pretty fast from it and Landrieu had a campaign stop in Lake Charles the same day President Obama was speaking in New Orleans. Trends to come?

Here is something else I have been playing with.

Four criteria for another 2010 for the Republicans in 2014

President Obama Approval Rating of below 45%: Today he is at 42.1% disapprove 53.4%

ACA gap of 12 points in the oppose side: Today it is at 15.3%

Generic Congressional Poll lead of plus 5 points or more: Today it is at minus 0.1

Party affiliation/identification Republicans relative even with Democrats and has a total lead of at least 5 points when Independent lean Republican and Independent lean Democrat are added with the party base statistics: Today the party affiliation is 24% Republican 29% Democrat and when you include the Independent leans the Democrats lead 45-40.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Only fools would try to impeach the president. One would think the Republicans would have learned their lesson when they tried that shenanigan against Clinton. Clinton was more popular with the American people after impeachment than before it. They better have some real good evidence of high crimes as I don't think the American people would put up with it.

You are right that at this moment in time the senate hinges more on the ACA than on any individual candidates. But that could change once all the names are known. Remember back in January of 2012, Mr. Generic GOP Presidential Candidate was trouncing Obama and the GOP seemed poised to win 6 or 7 senate seats. Then the names surfaced and the rest was history. I personally would like to see McConnell lose to Grimes, but the GOP picked up a net gain of 6 or 7 seats to put Reid on the back bench. Then perhaps we could get a majority leader who might put America first. I wonder if there are any more Mitchell's and Dole's in the senate or even Lott's and Daschles.

I have had the GOP picking up WV, SD and MT from the get go, I have since added AR and NC, although Hagan may be able to pull out NC. RCP has a new Michigan poll,

1/13 Conservative Intel poll of Michigan | Conservative Intelligence Briefing

I have been thinking about switch Michigan from a Democratic Hold to a Republican gain on my update number 6 1 Feb. But I would counter than with my gut feeling about Kentucky and give it to Grimes. Begich still looks good in AL and Landrieu has an 7 point lead over Cassidy. But if you add Cassidy and Maness, the two Republicans they lead Landrieu by 44-41. I probably won't switch LA to GOP until I see more evidence. Landrieu has a ton of money and is from a LA political family. She will be hard to beat, but not impossible. If Landrieu loses it will be because of her support for the ACA, Hagan also along with Pryor and all 3 are distancing themselves pretty fast from it and Landrieu had a campaign stop in Lake Charles the same day President Obama was speaking in New Orleans. Trends to come?

Here is something else I have been playing with.

Four criteria for another 2010 for the Republicans in 2014

President Obama Approval Rating of below 45%: Today he is at 42.1% disapprove 53.4%

ACA gap of 12 points in the oppose side: Today it is at 15.3%

Generic Congressional Poll lead of plus 5 points or more: Today it is at minus 0.1

Party affiliation/identification Republicans relative even with Democrats and has a total lead of at least 5 points when Independent lean Republican and Independent lean Democrat are added with the party base statistics: Today the party affiliation is 24% Republican 29% Democrat and when you include the Independent leans the Democrats lead 45-40.
Click to expand...

T thought that Clinton was impeached by the House. Does the fact that he was acquitted by the Senate mean that the impeachment never happened, or that it didn't matter, or something else? :confused:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

polgara said:
T thought that Clinton was impeached by the House. Does the fact that he was acquitted by the Senate mean that the impeachment never happened, or that it didn't matter, or something else? :confused:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
Click to expand...

He was impeached and acquitted. Look at the House as a form of grand jury and the senate as the court in which the trail takes place. It takes a vote of 2/3rds of the senate to convicted. I suppose one could equate impeachment by the house with indictment by a grand jury. I think that is the closest I can come to explaining it. It is like when one is found not guilty of something in court, you were still indicted.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Post broken into two parts due to the quantity and quality.
Perotista said:
Four criteria for another 2010 for the Republicans in 2014
Click to expand...
Nice new syndrome.
Were these used in 2010?
President Obama Approval Rating of below 45%: Today he is at 42.1% disapprove 53.4%
Click to expand...
Based on your description on his high popularity, the President needs to GTFO out of the WH and do what he does best, campaign/work.
Mr. Obama's back to allowing the GOP to define him, though Christie's January isn't hurting him.
He needs to get his **** together before delivering a heckuva SOTU.
ACA gap of 12 points in the oppose side: Today it is at 15.3%
Click to expand...
ACA is certainly the Octopus in the Democratic fish tank, to which I say "ONE DAY AT A TIME".
Party affiliation/identification Republicans relative even with Democrats and has a total lead of at least 5 points when Independent lean Republican and Independent lean Democrat are added with the party base statistics: Today the party affiliation is 24% Republican 29% Democrat and when you include the Independent leans the Democrats lead 45-40.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't hurt Dems to bring up Gerry-Mandering early and often and then pound away on vulnerable GOPS,
just like the GOP is currently doing right now on all Television during the Olympics on vulnerable Dems with ACA.
That would be called hardball by anyone.
Time to take the gloves off.
 
Last edited:
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Generic Congressional Poll lead of plus 5 points or more: Today it is at minus 0.1 .
Click to expand...

Which party, DEM or GOP?
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
He was impeached and acquitted. Look at the House as a form of grand jury and the senate as the court in which the trail takes place. It takes a vote of 2/3rds of the senate to convicted. I suppose one could equate impeachment by the house with indictment by a grand jury. I think that is the closest I can come to explaining it. It is like when one is found not guilty of something in court, you were still indicted.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Pero. I've never understood what that meant. I hear some people say that he was impeached, and others insist he wasn't. So as a matter of legal records, he was impeached, but found "not guilty?" Basically it's just comes down to the humiliation of having been impeached, since he was acquitted, correct?
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
Post broken into two parts due to the quantity and quality.

Nice new syndrome.
Were these used in 2010?

Based on your description on his high popularity, the President needs to GTFO out of the WH and do what he does best, campaign/work.
Mr. Obama's back to allowing the GOP to define him, though Christie's January isn't hurting him.
He needs to get his **** together before delivering a heckuva SOTU.

ACA iscertainly the Octopus in the Democratic fish tank, to which I say "ONE DAY AT A TIME".
Which party are these #s for, D or R?


It wouldn't hurt Dems to bring up Gerry-Mandering early and often and then pound away on vulnerable GOPS,
just like the GOP is currently doing right now on all Television during the Olympics.
That would be called hardball by anyone.
Time to take the gloves off.
Click to expand...

The Republicans are too disliked as a party I think to have another 2010 this year. The latest Gallup poll I seen place the Republican party at a 61% disapproval rating. The Democrats are not far behind at 54%. This year could be a battle to make the people hate one party a bit more than the other. You know, a vote for the least hated party.

The just released Gallup poll on Party Affiliation has it 29% Democrat 24% Republican 45% independent. I would be almost willing to wager if things keep going on the way it has by years end independents might actually rise above 50%. More and more Americans are beginning to hate the two major parties. For party strength at the end of December of each year, both parties are at an all time low. Here, from 1940 to the present with the figures at years end or decades end for the Pew Research numbers.

Pew Research for the 1940-2000 numbers/Gallup for 2010-Today

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
1940…50……32……18
1950…48……32…..20
1960…51……29…..20
1970…47……27…..26
1980…45……27…..28
1990…38……30…..32
2000…34……30…..36
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…29……24….45………..16…………………..16………………..15 Taken Jan 8
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

polgara said:
Thanks, Pero. I've never understood what that meant. I hear some people say that he was impeached, and others insist he wasn't. So as a matter of legal records, he was impeached, but found "not guilty?" Basically it's just comes down to the humiliation of having been impeached, since he was acquitted, correct?
Click to expand...

Yep, and I do not think that really phased him. It was basically a witch hunt. If the American people cared so much about a BJ in the White House they wouldn't have had him at a 56% approval rating when the House took up impeachment. Or at 63% when the trial in the senate ended. If nothing else, this whole process made him more popular at the time.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Linc is back to being the party of the people.
We need to not just talk about the issues like some,
but offer solutions and then work diligently for them for the next 10 months until the election.

Trans-Pacific Participation is an issue we must deal with intelligently, something I don't see with Fast-Track.
I believe it to be another "new coalition issue", on the order of NSA but not the same dynamics.
NOT straight GOP or DEM.
Perotista said:
The Republicans are too disliked as a party I think to have another 2010 this year. The latest Gallup poll I seen place the Republican party at a 61% disapproval rating. The Democrats are not far behind at 54%. This year could be a battle to make the people hate one party a bit more than the other. You know, a vote for the least hated party.
Click to expand...
The party that can redefine itself in a positive way and THEN follow through may pull off a big upset, either way.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

I didn't realize how much you liked Clinton.
I have many reasons not to like him, starting with the way he continues to treat Carter, spinning aside.
Perotista said:
Yep, and I do not think that really phased him. It was basically a witch hunt. If the American people cared so much about a BJ in the White House they wouldn't have had him at a 56% approval rating when the House took up impeachment. Or at 63% when the trial in the senate ended. If nothing else, this whole process made him more popular at the time.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Yep, and I do not think that really phased him. It was basically a witch hunt. If the American people cared so much about a BJ in the White House they wouldn't have had him at a 56% approval rating when the House took up impeachment. Or at 63% when the trial in the senate ended. If nothing else, this whole process made him more popular at the time.
Click to expand...

I always thought that was more of a matter between he and his wife, personally. I think it was more his lying about it, but most people think politicians lie anyway, so what else is new? :naughty:
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
Linc is back to being the party of the people.
We need to not just talk about the issues like some,
but offer solutions and then work diligently for them for the next 10 months until the election.

Trans-Pacific Participation is an issue we must deal with intelligently, something I don't see with Fast-Track.
I believe it to be another "new coalition issue", on the order of NSA but not the same dynamics.
NOT straight GOP or DEM.
The party that can redefine itself in a positive way and THEN follow through may pull off a big upset, either way.
Click to expand...

I haven't head of trans pacific Participation, is that some kind of get out the vote issue or something like that. The NSA spying really doesn't bother me much. Not like some anyway. Let me know what I am missing.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
I didn't realize how much you liked Clinton.
I have many reasons not to like him, starting with the way he continues to treat Carter, spinning aside.
Click to expand...

Billy Boy grew on me. In 1992 I really disliked the draft dodger or was it evader. His first two years was sort of a nightmare to me. But after that he started to grow on me. In the end he came as close to balancing the budget as any president had since IKE. He adopted quite a lot of Perot's ideas, although NAFTA and the WTO to me were big mistakes.

Perhaps I seen a lot of me in him. Except I grew out of my working on the Thai Railroad once married, he never did. After he left the presidency I came to realize exactly how good a president he had been and ranked him right behind IKE and JFK as the best presidents I have personally experience, right ahead of Reagan.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

polgara said:
I always thought that was more of a matter between he and his wife, personally. I think it was more his lying about it, but most people think politicians lie anyway, so what else is new? :naughty:
Click to expand...

I may have looked at it differently if I hadn't learned about JFK and LBJ womanizing, but JFK had class. Marilyn Monroe vs. Lewinski. I actually thought it was quite funny, I mean having a BJ in the Oval Office. But I had a wild life myself when I was young. But the difference was once I married I was true blue. But then again, I had a nice Thai wife and not Hillary.

I would love nothing better than to have a few beers with Bill and reminisce, let's say about our conquests.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Trans-Pacific is something I'll bring to your blog, as it affects the Congressional races, IMO.
Some would call it NAFTA on steroids.
For instance, just the mention of Vietnam being included with it's average pay of $0.75/hr will spur debate.
Perotista said:
I haven't head of Trans acific Participation, is that some kind of get out the vote issue or something like that. The NSA spying really doesn't bother me much. Not like some anyway. Let me know what I am missing.
Click to expand...
NSA spying is a hot patato, since the GOP really put it on super-steroids last decade, not impeachable by itself.
This SCOTUS year will be historic, for the quantity and high-level of issues, another 2014 election "peripheral influence", a Linc original .
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
Trans-Pacific is something I'll bring to your blog, as it affects the Congressional races, IMO.
Some would call it NAFTA on steroids.
For instance, just the mention of Vietnam being included with it's average pay of $0.75/hr will spur debate.

NSA spying is a hot patato, since the GOP really put it on super-steroids last decade, not impeachable by itself.
This SCOTUS year will be historic, for the quantity and high-level of issues, another 2014 election "peripheral influence", a Linc original .
Click to expand...

You're talking about another free trade agreement, alright. I may have heard something on it, but I have had other things on my mind. I think about the only two things that got under my skin is the ACA and Reid's nuclear option. Most everything thing else I can live with and that includes NSA and the Patriot Act. Although if both were cut back that is fine too. As for the SCOTUS, the religious issue with the nuns piqued my interest more than the recess appointments. Although personally I think they may have been unconstitutional. But what may decide this issue is this question" Is a pro forma senate session a real senate session? I think not. But with the nuclear option in play, the whole thing is moot anyway. Also there is no need for any pro forma anything. By the way, I would come down on the side of the Nuns.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
You're talking about another free trade agreement, alright. I may have heard something on it, but I have had other things on my mind. I think about the only two things that got under my skin is the ACA and Reid's nuclear option. Most everything thing else I can live with and that includes NSA and the Patriot Act. Although if both were cut back that is fine too. As for the SCOTUS, the religious issue with the nuns piqued my interest more than the recess appointments. Although personally I think they may have been unconstitutional. But what may decide this issue is this question" Is a pro forma senate session a real senate session? I think not. But with the nuclear option in play, the whole thing is moot anyway. Also there is no need for any pro forma anything. By the way, I would come down on the side of the Nuns.
Click to expand...

Its a tough one to call really. As you indicated, the questions the Justices have to answer don't just center around what the extent of the Executive power, to make recess appointments, is but also how the founders intended for the Senate to function. Either way the chips fall, its time to settle this issue so the wailing on both sides stops whenever a President makes recess appointments.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

When you mention the Nuns, that would be the new triangle in the SCOTUS, with Catholic-raised Sotomayor joining with Roberts and Kennedy.
She will bring along some or all of the three "lefties".

I expect a "split-decision" on this Senate issue, 6-3 leaning right.
Not that there isn't case law, but I expect the SCOTUS to keep the waters muddied here.
Legislative matters of this type like ACA and VRA have been split-decisions leaning right recently.

We have other issues than ACA and Harry sir, and you'll be super pissed when you get briefed on TPP .
Perotista said:
You're talking about another free trade agreement, alright. I may have heard something on it, but I have had other things on my mind. I think about the only two things that got under my skin is the ACA and Reid's nuclear option. Most everything thing else I can live with and that includes NSA and the Patriot Act. Although if both were cut back that is fine too. As for the SCOTUS, the religious issue with the nuns piqued my interest more than the recess appointments. Although personally I think they may have been unconstitutional. But what may decide this issue is this question" Is a pro forma senate session a real senate session? I think not. But with the nuclear option in play, the whole thing is moot anyway. Also there is no need for any pro forma anything. By the way, I would come down on the side of the Nuns.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Napoleon said:
Its a tough one to call really. As you indicated, the questions the Justices have to answer don't just center around what the extent of the Executive power, to make recess appointments, is but also how the founders intended for the Senate to function. Either way the chips fall, its time to settle this issue so the wailing on both sides stops whenever a President makes recess appointments.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. Presidents have been making recess appointments since George Washington. But back then congress only met for a few months out of the year and it took perhaps a month travel time to get to the capital depending where one left from. But if I read the constitution right, recess appointments are temporary. I have never fully understood how an recess appointment becomes a permanent thing. The Constitution says:

The President shall have the Power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

At least that what I think expire means, temporary. Then what about the phase "may happen during the recess of the Senate?" Does this mean the vacancies must happen while the senate is in recess. It seems to. It seems not to be referring to previous vacancies, but only to ones that happen while the senate is in recess. But that is plain English and way too many times what I think the constitution says in plain English, the SCOTUS lets me know it means entirely something else.

But it will be interesting.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
When you mention the Nuns, that would be the new triangle in the SCOTUS, with Catholic-raised Sotomayor joining with Roberts and Kennedy.
She will bring along some or all of the three "lefties".

I expect a "split-decision" on this Senate issue, 6-3 leaning right.
Not that there isn't case law, but I expect the SCOTUS to keep the waters muddied here.
Legislative matters of this type like ACA and VRA have been split-decisions leaning right recently.

We have other issues than ACA and Harry sir, and you'll be super pissed when you get briefed on TPP .
Click to expand...

I may be my friend, but right now it is bed time as the wife is going for the baseball bat. I never liked all these free trade agreements, all they help are the trans global corporations and screws companies and workers here in the states.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Oh I agree. Presidents have been making recess appointments since George Washington. But back then congress only met for a few months out of the year and it took perhaps a month travel time to get to the capital depending where one left from. But if I read the constitution right, recess appointments are temporary. I have never fully understood how an recess appointment becomes a permanent thing. The Constitution says:

The President shall have the Power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

At least that what I think expire means, temporary. Then what about the phase "may happen during the recess of the Senate?" Does this mean the vacancies must happen while the senate is in recess. It seems to. It seems not to be referring to previous vacancies, but only to ones that happen while the senate is in recess. But that is plain English and way too many times what I think the constitution says in plain English, the SCOTUS lets me know it means entirely something else.

But it will be interesting.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says what it says and I think where they are going to struggle is in justifying allowing the Senate to effectively strip the President of his power to make recess appointments by sending some bozo in to mill around on the Senate floor and declaring that the recess doesn't count. Obviously the founders intended for the Senate to have recesses, but can the Senate basically just decide not to anymore if it has the (intended) effect of eliminating, by fiat, an explicitly named power of the Executive Branch? There are so many Constitutional questions here that it almost boggles the mind, but I do not believe that the founders intended for the Senate to use parliamentary smoke and mirrors, when they don't like a power granted to another branch of government, to circumvent the Constitutional amendment process.
 
Last edited:
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
I would agree CJ.
Could it be due to those who are bringing up all of these "firvilous faux" outrages to the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

It could be, if you consider the constitution as simply a "document" rather than the law of the land. More likely, it represents a failure on the part of the sitting President to negotiate and legislate and instead dictate. In your form of government, when one branch ignores the others and attempts to run wild, usually the other two sit up and take notice and do whatever they can to rein the renegade in.

Let's also remember it's well known government watchdogs like the ACLU who are taking the President and his administration to court, so hardly a concerted effort on the part of those who oppose Obama simply because he's Obama.

Like I said, not since Nixon has a President so ignored and abused the laws of the land and so court challenges should be expected.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Yep, and I do not think that really phased him. It was basically a witch hunt. If the American people cared so much about a BJ in the White House they wouldn't have had him at a 56% approval rating when the House took up impeachment. Or at 63% when the trial in the senate ended. If nothing else, this whole process made him more popular at the time.
Click to expand...

It's sad when people are OK with perjury. I hope no one ever lies under oath on a case your are involved with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom