• 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

When it comes to the nominees of both parties, it is as you state. More and more it is a choice of two evils. I know you are talking about the choice between McConnell and Bevins in the Republican Primary. But for quite a lot of independents come general election time, it does boil down to holding one's nose and voting for what they consider the least worst candidate.

When I worked at LBAD, I lived in Winchester.


I would love to see McConnell gone, but bottom line, we have more power with him that without him. Grimes brings nothing to the table but ideas that are already failing with this administration
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Could grimes be one of these demo sponsored "republicans"?

nope, mentioning her name around here will get you wet with cold water or hot coffee
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

I would love to see McConnell gone, but bottom line, we have more power with him that without him. Grimes brings nothing to the table but ideas that are already failing with this administration

I really know nothing of Grimes. My interest is predicting who will win in Kentucky. prognostication of elections has been an hobby of mine for a very long time.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

I really know nothing of Grimes. My interest is predicting who will win in Kentucky. prognostication of elections has been an hobby of mine for a very long time.

You should get paid for it in Vegas
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Talk to your friend Perotisa. He introduced Clinton into the topic, and has been arguing it ever since.

However. on topic. The SCOTUS has at least enough of a problem with the recess appointments Obama made to review the case. At a bare minimum that should tell you, and the other Obama supporters that he crossed the line.

See, this was just a symptom of a larger problem, which is, Conservatives believe that given enough pressure from the right, Obama is brazen enough to just go around the Constitution all together. That has never been done before in such an outright, and dishonest manner by an administration. So, the question is, if he will break the law when it is inconvenient, and use the law when it suits his argument, that makes him a dangerous President.

True, and there are very good reasons for conservatives to believe Obama wont think twice to cross the line.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

True, and there are very good reasons for conservatives to believe Obama wont think twice to cross the line.

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?
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

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.

From the oral arguments:

Scalia -- "If there is indeed this, you know, this terrible emergency you're talking about, the President has the power to call them back."

Roberts -- "Well, they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the President submits."

Breyer -- "I can't find anything that says the purpose of this clause has anything at all to do with political fights between Congress and the President."

Ginsburg -- " One reason they could have put the language in is because they were afraid otherwise the president would have the power, simply, when somebody died two or three years before and they've had a big fight in Congress to save up all the controversial nominations and then put them through as recess appointments. That could be one thing they didn't want to happen."
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

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?

Where were you during the Bork hearings?
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Yet another pointless non-sequitur from Scatt.

I couldn't help but notice you chose to ignore the more substantive response. Obama didn't invent the recess appointment, true. What he invented was using the recess appointment process when Congress wasn't in recess.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

I couldn't help but notice you chose to ignore the more substantive response. Obama didn't invent the recess appointment, true. What he invented was using the recess appointment process when Congress wasn't in recess.

Are you also arguing that the GOP can prevent Congress from ever going into recess?
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Recess Appointment ?
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Are you also arguing that the GOP can prevent Congress from ever going into recess?

The senate decides when they go to recess.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Are you also arguing that the GOP can prevent Congress from ever going into recess?

:shrug: If they have the majority they can - just as Democrats used their majority to stay in session in order to keep Bush from making recess appointments.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Dog and pony show over politics.

More than that - the beginning of the acerbic politicization of the nomination process.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Dog and pony show over politics.

I believe I remember Ted Kennedy claiming something to the effect of the America of Robert Bork woulf be one of "back alley abortions" and crazy talk like that. He would have been a justice that followed the Constitution, thus, very dangerous to the left.
So, the left is okay with blocking SC nominees based on the fact that they don't like what they would do as a judge, not based at all in their qualifications.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

I believe I remember Ted Kennedy claiming something to the effect of the America of Robert Bork woulf be one of "back alley abortions" and crazy talk like that. He would have been a justice that followed the Constitution, thus, very dangerous to the left.
So, the left is okay with blocking SC nominees based on the fact that they don't like what they would do as a judge, not based at all in their qualifications.

And the right is very clearly ok with blocking every nominee based on the fact that they don't like the president, rather than any specific objection to the nominee.
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Dog and pony show over politics.

What is the definition of being in recess, since the children in DC can't figure it out, the SCOTUS will .
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

:shrug: If they have the majority they can - just as Democrats used their majority to stay in session in order to keep Bush from making recess appointments.

Let's just rewrite history at every junction, and play "they did it first" until we get back to the Articles .
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

What is the definition of being in recess, since the children in DC can't figure it out, the SCOTUS will .

Did you read the oral arguments?
 
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

And now for the real reason the GOP is outraged at these recess appointments. The National Labor Relations Board had been gutted by term limits and therefore could not form a quorum to replace themselves due to the GOP blocking appointments. Basically it was the GOP defanging a regulatory firm so that it could not do it's job. Now that Obama did recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board... look what they found:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) illegally retaliated against protesting U.S. workers, the National Labor Relations Board said in a complaint stemming from job actions timed to the busy shopping day after the Thanksgiving holiday.

linkypoo...

The GOP is using their appointment filibusters to protect their corporate masters. But lets not look at reality when we can simply post faux outrage about a topic we don't even know anything about.
 
Last edited:
Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

And now for the real reason the GOP is outraged at these recess appointments. The National Labor Relations Board had been gutted by term limits and therefore could not form a quorum to replace themselves due to the GOP blocking appointments.

Scalia -- "If there is indeed this, you know, this terrible emergency you're talking about, the President has the power to call them back."
 
Back
Top Bottom