• 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:
Now that there is a nuclear option, isn't this case really moot?
Could we possibly see the SCOTUS rule on the constitutionality of the "nuclear option"?
Click to expand...

Not really sure if Reid's hypocritical move to grab power will be heard by the SC.

Would these be the same usual talking points that conservative posters used defending Bush's preponderance of Executuve orders?
Click to expand...

Maybe so, I surely was a supporter of GWB as a Commander in Chief, but quite a few things he did in domestic policy, such as signing statements, and EO's I had problems with. So, don't be so foolish as to see "conservative" in the lean and just broad brush your dislike of Bush on to some sort of support of him from me on poor governance..

Did the Dems ever take Bush to Court over EOs ?
Click to expand...

Again, not sure...But, one thing, EO's are not just declaring the Senate in recess, and appointing whom they were holding session to block. That was an astonishing bit of hubris that sets a precedent making the house and senate largely ineffectual on appointments, and possibly for the passage of laws should future President's and their Congresses go down that road. It was not American at all.

But a further note, I understand that you must totally rely on the blame Bush mantra even 5 years plus in to this administration because Obama is doing exactly what you claimed Bush did, on steroids. So, the only thing you are projecting here is akin to a childs argument often heard by Teachers in the forum...."Well, Jimmy did it too!" It doesn't wash for kids, and shouldn't wash for supposed adults.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Kobie said:
Contrary to popular belief, Obama did not invent the recess appointment.
Click to expand...

The problem is in this case congress was not in recess.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Napoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the framers gave this power to the executive branch to met emergency situations as was defined back in the 1700’s. I do not think they intended recess appointments to be used other than for emergencies. I think the framers did not intent the power of recess appointments be used to circumvent the normal constitutional procedures. But this was not spelled out as such and different individuals will read it and come away with different meanings and interpretations. Unlike a lot of original intentions I doubt recess appoints was much talked about in the Federalist Papers or other documents left from that time.

But having said that, it has become common place for any president to make recess appointments regardless of if I am right about my thoughts on emergency situations or not. From time to time members the opposing party hollered about it, but everyone always settled down and went along with it after their initial tirade. Somewhere along the line congress someone in congress came up with the idea of pro forma sessions to prevent recess appointment by the executive. I would imagine congress did this because they thought a president was abusing the power of recess appointments.

Anyway, from that point on whenever it was the senate utilized pro forma sessions and no president ever had made a recess appoint during it. In other words not one president of either party ever challenged it. This president has, he set a new precedence and it has been viewed by at least the opposite party as a challenge to their constitutional powers of a co-equal branch of government.

In my mind it would seem to boil down to is a pro forma session really a session of congress? If it is, President Obama overstepped his constitutional powers. If it isn’t, anytime congress takes a recess or a vacation any president can appoint anyone to any office he wants without congressional approval. Although I will be interested in their ruling, I would like to know if key words like expire mean expire or if the appointment is permanent and if vacancies must happen during the recess in order to be filled or not. But in the overall scheme or battle between congress and the executive over recess appointments, it really doesn’t matter which way the SCOTUS, the nuclear option has ensured the president gets every appointment he wants as long as his party has control of the senate.

But if the senate was in the opposing parties hands, then this ruling will be of utmost importance as the president can no long appoint anyone as long as the Senate is in pro forma session. Interesting, yes indeed.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

AliHajiSheik said:
It's sad when people are OK with perjury. I hope no one ever lies under oath on a case your are involved with.
Click to expand...

What you stated is the big difference in how people saw it. A lot of Republicans saw it as you stated, a case of perjury, but the majority of Americans did not. They saw it as a witch hunt in which one party was trying to dispose a sitting president of another party. Clinton's rise in popularity clearly shows this.

At the time there was bipartisan support for a censure, IMO opinion a censure is what was needed, not an impeachment trial. The republicans really over reached. They were left with egg on their face. Most Americans looked at this attempt as trying to get rid of a sitting president over a sexual exploit. Not perjury. But even if it was perjury, does that qualify as a high crime or high misdemeanor to dispose of a sitting president? But that was not how it was framed for most Americans. Is lying under oath over a BJ or the definition of a BJ as having a sexual relation or not, is that an impeachable offense?

A overwhelming majority of Americans say no. 15 years later history definitely shows the Republicans way over reached. But if the republicans were right or wrong to bring impeachment articles against Clinton, I do not think history has decided yet. But it does seem to be trending against the Republicans. You should have went with a censure, it would have passed.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
If you're gonna get ridiculous and compare Obama to Nixon, you may as well compare Christie to Nixon while you're at it.

Just add these recess appts to the other faux scandals .
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a scandal, but really, you don't think there is even a Constitutional question here? Don't you think there is a separation of powers issue when the executive branch declares the Senate to be in recess, even though they have not adjourned and do not declare themselves to be in recess? If the SC lets this through, there is really no point in the Senate confirming anyone, as the President can just make appointments at will, and the Senate will be nullified.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Born Free said:
The problem is in this case congress was not in recess.
Click to expand...

Because two guys showed up for 30 seconds and gaveled it in and out between drinks?

The bigger problem here is the willful contempt of Congress by the person who called it to session by himself.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
What you stated is the big difference in how people saw it. A lot of Republicans saw it as you stated, a case of perjury, but the majority of Americans did not. They saw it as a witch hunt in which one party was trying to dispose a sitting president of another party. Clinton's rise in popularity clearly shows this.

At the time there was bipartisan support for a censure, IMO opinion a censure is what was needed, not an impeachment trial. The republicans really over reached. They were left with egg on their face. Most Americans looked at this attempt as trying to get rid of a sitting president over a sexual exploit. Not perjury. But even if it was perjury, does that qualify as a high crime or high misdemeanor to dispose of a sitting president? But that was not how it was framed for most Americans. Is lying under oath over a BJ or the definition of a BJ as having a sexual relation or not, is that an impeachable offense?

A overwhelming majority of Americans say no. 15 years later history definitely shows the Republicans way over reached. But if the republicans were right or wrong to bring impeachment articles against Clinton, I do not think history has decided yet. But it does seem to be trending against the Republicans. You should have went with a censure, it would have passed.
Click to expand...

Yours is a political analysis and you didn't present it that way, you said that it was about a BJ which it was not. It was perjury and the President was disbarred.

As for your statement: "You should have went with a censure, it would have passed." I was not in the Congress at that time and had no say on the proceedings. I am also not disappointed in the results. I thought Clinton was a good President, but I also hope he is the last of his family to hold that office. It would be best to not assume any political affiliation on my part as my words stood on their own.

As for President Obama reinventing a definition of a Senate recess, I believe he overreached. Only the Senate can decide when it is in recess.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

AliHajiSheik said:
Yours is a political analysis and you didn't present it that way, you said that it was about a BJ which it was not. It was perjury and the President was disbarred.

As for your statement: "You should have went with a censure, it would have passed." I was not in the Congress at that time and had no say on the proceedings. I am also not disappointed in the results. I thought Clinton was a good President, but I also hope he is the last of his family to hold that office. It would be best to not assume any political affiliation on my part as my words stood on their own.

As for President Obama reinventing a definition of a Senate recess, I believe he overreached. Only the Senate can decide when it is in recess.
Click to expand...

No, what I presented is how the majority of the American people looked at. When it comes to politics, perspective can be much more important than reality. To you it was about perjury, to the majority of Americans it wasn't. With me, hindsight lets me know Clinton was a darn good president, but at the time I didn't think so. I too do not want Hillary to be president, but I didn't want either Romney or Obama to win in 2012 either.

As for the recess appointments, I think it will boil down to whether a pro forma session is considered a real session. Is the senate in session or not. It is not conducting business, it is just meeting every couple to a few days to gavel it in session and then to recess. I think it is really a moot point now since Reid used the nuclear option. A minority party can't stop any appointments for what ever reason whether the senate is in recess or not.

The exception would be if the senate was in the hands of one party and the president was of the other party, then even the nuclear option would mean anything. So in this aspect whatever the SCOTUS decides could come into play. But as long as the president and the senate control is in the hands of the same party, recess appointments now mean nothing.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

He had astroturf in the back of his El Camino, bet you never had that kind of class. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
What you stated is the big difference in how people saw it. A lot of Republicans saw it as you stated, a case of perjury, but the majority of Americans did not. They saw it as a witch hunt in which one party was trying to dispose a sitting president of another party. Clinton's rise in popularity clearly shows this.

At the time there was bipartisan support for a censure, IMO opinion a censure is what was needed, not an impeachment trial. The republicans really over reached. They were left with egg on their face. Most Americans looked at this attempt as trying to get rid of a sitting president over a sexual exploit. Not perjury. But even if it was perjury, does that qualify as a high crime or high misdemeanor to dispose of a sitting president? But that was not how it was framed for most Americans. Is lying under oath over a BJ or the definition of a BJ as having a sexual relation or not, is that an impeachable offense?

A overwhelming majority of Americans say no. 15 years later history definitely shows the Republicans way over reached. But if the republicans were right or wrong to bring impeachment articles against Clinton, I do not think history has decided yet. But it does seem to be trending against the Republicans. You should have went with a censure, it would have passed.
Click to expand...

Clinton was disbarred for his perjury. The question he lied about may well have been about his sexual relations with an intern, however, there is nothing that I know of in the oath that allows certain lies, while others are off limits is there?

You want to frame it as though this thing was over the act of Clinton and Lewenski, when in reality it was about a sitting President lying to a federal Judge.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

American said:
He had astroturf in the back of his El Camino, bet you never had that kind of class. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Just like a bunch of good old other southern boys.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
No, what I presented is how the majority of the American people looked at. When it comes to politics, perspective can be much more important than reality. To you it was about perjury, to the majority of Americans it wasn't. With me, hindsight lets me know Clinton was a darn good president, but at the time I didn't think so. I too do not want Hillary to be president, but I didn't want either Romney or Obama to win in 2012 either.

As for the recess appointments, I think it will boil down to whether a pro forma session is considered a real session. Is the senate in session or not. It is not conducting business, it is just meeting every couple to a few days to gavel it in session and then to recess. I think it is really a moot point now since Reid used the nuclear option. A minority party can't stop any appointments for what ever reason whether the senate is in recess or not.

The exception would be if the senate was in the hands of one party and the president was of the other party, then even the nuclear option would mean anything. So in this aspect whatever the SCOTUS decides could come into play. But as long as the president and the senate control is in the hands of the same party, recess appointments now mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on your appointment as the spokesperson for the majority of Americans. In my opinion, when one branch (or House) is in lockstep with another (the President), on every issue, no good comes from it. If the branches can't be in agreement on something, then whatever they are trying to do probably shouldn't be done.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

j-mac said:
Clinton was disbarred for his perjury. The question he lied about may well have been about his sexual relations with an intern, however, there is nothing that I know of in the oath that allows certain lies, while others are off limits is there?

You want to frame it as though this thing was over the act of Clinton and Lewenski, when in reality it was about a sitting President lying to a federal Judge.
Click to expand...

Everyone wants to use the term I want to frame it. I framed it though the historical reference of how the majority of Americans saw it. I have no doubt Republicans believed it was all about perjury, but most other Americans didn't think so. It looked like an attempt to bring down a sitting president, a duly elected president which would amount to upturning an election result.

So the question was and it still seems to be, was perjury an impeachable offense? But in the minds of most Americans it was more than just simple question. If Clinton had lied or perjured himself over something major, say an abuse of governmental power, lied trying to cover up some governmental scandal, something to do with his job as president, things along this line bringing impeachment proceedings may have been warranted. But he perjured himself by denying a sexual relation with Lewinski. Nothing to do with his job as president. So in most peoples mind they drew a difference.

That difference may not be there in the law, you either perjured or you didn't, subject doesn't matter. But with the majority of Americans the subject matter did matter. There may be no degrees in perjury in the legal sense, but there was in the peoples mind. So was perjury over a sexual matter an impeachable offense? Most Americans thought not and so to did the senate.

Now if that perjury had occurred over the illegal use of government power, with the miss use of taxpayer monies, a whole lot of things dealing with government and his job, the American people probably would have been behind the impeachment process. But not over a BJ, whether he lied about it or not.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Everyone wants to use the term I want to frame it. I framed it though the historical reference of how the majority of Americans saw it. I have no doubt Republicans believed it was all about perjury, but most other Americans didn't think so. It looked like an attempt to bring down a sitting president, a duly elected president which would amount to upturning an election result.

So the question was and it still seems to be, was perjury an impeachable offense? But in the minds of most Americans it was more than just simple question. If Clinton had lied or perjured himself over something major, say an abuse of governmental power, lied trying to cover up some governmental scandal, something to do with his job as president, things along this line bringing impeachment proceedings may have been warranted. But he perjured himself by denying a sexual relation with Lewinski. Nothing to do with his job as president. So in most peoples mind they drew a difference.

That difference may not be there in the law, you either perjured or you didn't, subject doesn't matter. But with the majority of Americans the subject matter did matter. There may be no degrees in perjury in the legal sense, but there was in the peoples mind. So was perjury over a sexual matter an impeachable offense? Most Americans thought not and so to did the senate.

Now if that perjury had occurred over the illegal use of government power, with the miss use of taxpayer monies, a whole lot of things dealing with government and his job, the American people probably would have been behind the impeachment process. But not over a BJ, whether he lied about it or not.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where in the law there are distinctions as to levels of perjury? What the people thought, has little bearing on what the law is.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

AliHajiSheik said:
Congratulations on your appointment as the spokesperson for the majority of Americans. In my opinion, when one branch (or House) is in lockstep with another (the President), on every issue, no good comes from it. If the branches can't be in agreement on something, then whatever they are trying to do probably shouldn't be done.
Click to expand...

No, not a spokesman for the American people. Just passing on what I read, heard and experienced at the time. For me, I view the impeachment of Bill Clinton sort of as a power play for the Republicans. A big over reach on their part. But apparently you do not, but that is politics. It just seems back then there were far more people who viewed the process in my terms than yours. Does that make it right or make either own of us wrong. Not in our minds it does not. You thought it was the right thing to do, I thought of it as a vast over reach. In the end it seems most Americans thought as I. But that doesn't make that thought right or wrong, just the prevailing thought of the time.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
No, not a spokesman for the American people. Just passing on what I read, heard and experienced at the time. For me, I view the impeachment of Bill Clinton sort of as a power play for the Republicans. A big over reach on their part. But apparently you do not, but that is politics. It just seems back then there were far more people who viewed the process in my terms than yours. Does that make it right or make either own of us wrong. Not in our minds it does not. You thought it was the right thing to do, I thought of it as a vast over reach. In the end it seems most Americans thought as I. But that doesn't make that thought right or wrong, just the prevailing thought of the time.
Click to expand...

You think that bolded part is true just because you say it? :lamo
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

j-mac said:
Can you show me where in the law there are distinctions as to levels of perjury? What the people thought, has little bearing on what the law is.
Click to expand...

You're right. But what exactly did you accomplish outside of perhaps embarrassing Clinton a little. When it comes to a president and overturning a legal election, one better have their ducks in order. Yes, Clinton committed a crime with perjury. So then the question becomes was that crime serious enough to warrant impeachment and throwing a sitting president out of office. To you apparently it was yes and to quite a lot of other Republicans. To most Americans it wasn't.

An attempt to over turn an election and throw a sitting president is very serious stuff. Not only do you have to have a legal, constitutional reason for doing it, the American people must understand the basis for it. In the end, it was decided Clinton's crime of perjury was not enough to over turn an election. It didn't meet the constitutional requirements of high crimes. It is that simple.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
You're right. But what exactly did you accomplish outside of perhaps embarrassing Clinton a little. When it comes to a president and overturning a legal election, one better have their ducks in order. Yes, Clinton committed a crime with perjury. So then the question becomes was that crime serious enough to warrant impeachment and throwing a sitting president out of office. To you apparently it was yes and to quite a lot of other Republicans. To most Americans it wasn't.

An attempt to over turn an election and throw a sitting president is very serious stuff. Not only do you have to have a legal, constitutional reason for doing it, the American people must understand the basis for it. In the end, it was decided Clinton's crime of perjury was not enough to over turn an election. It didn't meet the constitutional requirements of high crimes. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, Senator Byrd [RIP] felt much the same way. He basically stated that while he felt the charges were very serious, he didn't want to be on record as voting to impeach a President. Would he have felt the same way if it were a Republican President? Who knows? I would like to think so.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
No, not a spokesman for the American people. Just passing on what I read, heard and experienced at the time. For me, I view the impeachment of Bill Clinton sort of as a power play for the Republicans. A big over reach on their part. But apparently you do not, but that is politics. It just seems back then there were far more people who viewed the process in my terms than yours. Does that make it right or make either own of us wrong. Not in our minds it does not. You thought it was the right thing to do, I thought of it as a vast over reach. In the end it seems most Americans thought as I. But that doesn't make that thought right or wrong, just the prevailing thought of the time.
Click to expand...

I think it was a great civics lesson for the entire country that there are checks and balances and that behavior matters in public office. I would have been disappointed had the House not impeached Clinton and I would have also been disappointed had Clinton been removed from office. Some things should just be beyond politics
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

j-mac said:
You think that bolded part is true just because you say it? :lamo
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at Clintons approval number during that time, yes I do. If you followed the newspaper reporting, the news on TV, yes I do. If you look at the history of it, yes I do. Clinton went into the Impeachment proceedings with a 56% approval rating. One would think this impeachment proceedings going on, every piece of evidence and all the negatives associated with an impeachment trial, his approval ratings would drop. They didn't, when it was over Clinton had a 63% approval rating.

I also think the public showed it disapproval with the impeachment back in November of 1998, the House proceedings began in December of 1998. In the sixth year of any presidents term, the party out of power usually picks up 20 or more seats in the house during that midterm election. The Republicans lost 6 seats that year another item that show how Americans felt about the impeachment process. There are probably more indications, but here are a couple of articles for that time which showed the publics support for Clinton and the decline of support for the Republicans

IMPEACHMENT - THE POLLS - Public Support for the President, and for Closure, Emerges Unshaken - NYTimes.com

This one shows the publics support for Clinton and the rise in the unfavorable rating of the Republican Party because of the impeachment process from 52% to 58%. Here is another article concerning polling at that time:

Poll: Americans remain opposed to Clinton impeachment - October 13, 1998

55% of Americans says they are opposed to impeachment.

Here are excerpts.

Your U.S. Representative Should Vote...

For impeachment All voters 34% Likely voters 41%
Against impeachment All voters 62% Likely voters 55%


Question: If the House does vote to impeach Clinton and send the case to the Senate for trial, what would you want your Senators to do: vote in favor of convicting Clinton and removing him from office, or vote against convicting Clinton so he will remain in office?

Your U.S. Senators Should Vote...

For removing Clinton from office all voters 31% likely voters 35%
Against removing Clinton from office all voter 63% likely voters 58%
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

polgara said:
If I recall correctly, Senator Byrd [RIP] felt much the same way. He basically stated that while he felt the charges were very serious, he didn't want to be on record as voting to impeach a President. Would he have felt the same way if it were a Republican President? Who knows? I would like to think so.
Click to expand...

It is almost time to go get the grand daughter. I don't know about a Republican president. I think a Republican president's morals would have been higher.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

AliHajiSheik said:
I think it was a great civics lesson for the entire country that there are checks and balances and that behavior matters in public office. I would have been disappointed had the House not impeached Clinton and I would have also been disappointed had Clinton been removed from office. Some things should just be beyond politics
Click to expand...

On that I agree, something's do indeed need to be beyond politics.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Born Free said:
The problem is in this case congress was not in recess.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be better stated as McConnell's GOPs changed the rules so the Senate is "technically" never in recess?This GOP changing of the Senate rules came before the "recess appt." problem and should be addressed first, correct ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom