Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 232

Thread: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power[W:74:88]

  1. #131
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,595

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power[W:74:88]

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    Is the filibuster legal? It's not in the Constitution.
    Yes, Congress is allowed to make it's own operational rules.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  2. #132
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,595

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Time of year is immaterial-if congress is in session or not is what matters. Our Chump in Chief-the imperial president DOES NOT get to TELL Congress when it is in session.

    Thank your lucky stars for checks and balances, if we left it up to you lefties the nation would be North Korea in about 6 months.
    What is so hard for the left to understand about this? Even Obama lackey Kagan had no choice but to vote against the idiot. The President gets to nominate these people, and Congress can confirm them, vote them down, or do nothing. Those on the left with little understanding of the Constitution seem to think that Congress is some how subordinate to the executive on this and must do as he says.

    As for recess appointments, it's pretty clear when Congress is in recess. It's when they're gone and the session is over. They can stay in session with a skeleton crew to prevent recess appointments if they want, no question about that. I believe that the Constitution also says that the opening must happen when Congress is in recess also, the President just can't nominate someone and wait for a recess to appoint them.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Yes, the founders certainly did mean the Senate to have those powers whether you like it or not. And yes, the requirement for cloture and super majorities means that a minority in the Senate has the Constitutional power to block votes. It's part and parcel of what having a Senate is all about. And yes, it can be damned inconvenient at times, but that's the lay of the green.
    The founders meant the Senate to approve nominations, which requires a vote. To protect the interests of the minority, Senate rules allow for filibusters but the filibuster comes with it a responsibility for the minority to respect the process and use it only in extraordinary cases. Unfortunately, the GOP decided that every bill and nearly every nominee now needs 60 votes to pass, and they deny the 60 in nearly every case. So, thanks to the GOP behaving like spoiled children, it seems inevitable that no matter who controls the Senate in 2015, they'll quickly vote to change the rules, strip out filibusters, at least for nominees, and the minority will be left powerless to check the majority.

  4. #134
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    What is so hard for the left to understand about this? Even Obama lackey Kagan had no choice but to vote against the idiot. The President gets to nominate these people, and Congress can confirm them, vote them down, or do nothing. Those on the left with little understanding of the Constitution seem to think that Congress is some how subordinate to the executive on this and must do as he says.

    As for recess appointments, it's pretty clear when Congress is in recess. It's when they're gone and the session is over. They can stay in session with a skeleton crew to prevent recess appointments if they want, no question about that. I believe that the Constitution also says that the opening must happen when Congress is in recess also, the President just can't nominate someone and wait for a recess to appoint them.
    All that's true, but the purpose of the recess appointment in the Constitution is to allow the POTUS to fill vacancies that must be staffed to run the Executive branch, even during the lengthy delays brought about by recesses. The GOP decided on a deliberate strategy to prevent just what recess appointments were supposed to accomplish, which is allow the Executive branch to fill critical positions and do the business of the country.

    Point is the GOP strategy to neuter the NLRB by filibustering every nominee to prevent a quorum was legal and within a strict reading of the rules, but it's clear this isn't what the Founders intended. They intended on the Senate holding up or down votes, with only a majority necessary to approve any nominee. There is no possible way to argue they intended to give 41 Senators the ability to shut down government by refusing to hold votes on key nominees. If they wanted to give that power to the minority, they'd have set the bar at a super majority, instead of a simple majority.

  5. #135
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,574
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The founders meant the Senate to approve nominations, which requires a vote. To protect the interests of the minority, Senate rules allow for filibusters but the filibuster comes with it a responsibility for the minority to respect the process and use it only in extraordinary cases. Unfortunately, the GOP decided that every bill and nearly every nominee now needs 60 votes to pass, and they deny the 60 in nearly every case. So, thanks to the GOP behaving like spoiled children, it seems inevitable that no matter who controls the Senate in 2015, they'll quickly vote to change the rules, strip out filibusters, at least for nominees, and the minority will be left powerless to check the majority.
    One man's spoiled children are another man's courageous patriots. The President and the Senate have been about as far left as any in memory, and they offer the Republicans no compromise in most cases. The result is pretty much to be exptected, obstruction all the way. And the frustration your side feels over it is no reason to break the law or trash the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court has voted against the President's interpretations of the Constitution and his authority 13 times since 2012. They voted unanmously in every case, including the President's two own appointees. This tells us who in government it is who is making radical, unlawful decisions. More than that, it makes one wonder who is giving the President such sorry legal advice, or maybe he is taking his own council.
    Last edited by LowDown; 06-27-14 at 03:20 PM.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  6. #136
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,574
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    All that's true, but the purpose of the recess appointment in the Constitution is to allow the POTUS to fill vacancies that must be staffed to run the Executive branch, even during the lengthy delays brought about by recesses. The GOP decided on a deliberate strategy to prevent just what recess appointments were supposed to accomplish, which is allow the Executive branch to fill critical positions and do the business of the country.

    Point is the GOP strategy to neuter the NLRB by filibustering every nominee to prevent a quorum was legal and within a strict reading of the rules, but it's clear this isn't what the Founders intended. They intended on the Senate holding up or down votes, with only a majority necessary to approve any nominee. There is no possible way to argue they intended to give 41 Senators the ability to shut down government by refusing to hold votes on key nominees. If they wanted to give that power to the minority, they'd have set the bar at a super majority, instead of a simple majority.
    Everything you wrote is wrong. The Democrats control the Senate. It is they who deliberately kept the Senate in session. The Democrats don't want to do away with the filibuster because the shoe is likely to be on the other foot pretty soon. Keeping a nominee from being appointed isn't shutting down the government, it's keeping sorry nominees from getting jobs and thereby improving the government. The Senate decided that they want the minority to have the power to stop votes, and so they have it until the Senate decides otherwise. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to change. The filibuster may not be in the Constitution but is sure as heck is in the Constitution that the Senate has authority over how it does things, and it chooses to keep the filibuster.

    A neutered NLRB is a good thing. Better would be an abolished NLRB.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  7. #137
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    One man's spoiled children are another man's courageous patriots. The President and the Senate have been about as far left as any in memory, and they offer the Republicans no compromise in most cases. The result is pretty much to be exptected, obstruction all the way. And the frustration your side feels over it is no reason to break the law or trash the Constitution.
    That's true enough, but when an appointee or a judge that has been filibustered for months and is finally brought up for a vote gets 80 or 90 votes FOR, they're abusing the process. Call them childish, or just deliberately obstructionist, whatever.

    The important point is whether we approve of the GOP tactics. What should concern us all is their actions almost guarantee the filibuster goes away for nominees and leaves the minority party with no recourse. I don't see that as a good thing, because there ARE times when it's good for the minority to be able to obstruct the majority. What isn't possible long term is to allow the minority to dictate to the majority, or to do like they did with NLRB and repeal an agency through the use of the filibuster. At some point the POTUS just has to get up or down votes or the government and the courts grind to a halt, and if a minority party decides to abuse the rules to deny that opportunity, the Senate majority WILL change the rules. There is no filibuster right in the Constitution.

  8. #138
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,869

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Everything you wrote is wrong. The Democrats control the Senate. It is they who deliberately kept the Senate in session.
    You're wrong - that's laughable. You need to read up on Senate rules, and how they operate, and then read about recent history.


    The Democrats don't want to do away with the filibuster because the shoe is likely to be on the other foot pretty soon. Keeping a nominee from being appointed isn't shutting down the government, it's keeping sorry nominees from getting jobs and thereby improving the government. The Senate decided that they want the minority to have the power to stop votes, and so they have it until the Senate decides otherwise. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to change. The filibuster may not be in the Constitution but is sure as heck is in the Constitution that the Senate has authority over how it does things, and it chooses to keep the filibuster.
    First of all, the recess appointment was intended to allow POTUS to fill nominees. You can't recognize that the Founders offered a safety valve to fill positions, then claim that filling them isn't necessary. If filling them or not, whenever, is OK, why does the Constitution provide an outlet to prevent undue delay?

    Second, we'll see whether the rules change in early 2015, but I think you're wrong. For two reasons. Reid and some of the old guard Senators have been unwilling to upset decades long rules in the Senate for the reasons you outline, but there is growing opposition to keeping the rules on filibusters, and sustaining rules that are so openly abused by the GOP just can't last forever. When Obama made the decision to declare the recesses, there were according to NYT, 74 nominees waiting on votes filibustered by the GOP. Another 100 were stuck in committee. That's NOT how the 'advise and consent' function is intended to operate.

    Second, the minute it helps the GOP to torpedo filibusters, they will (IMO, without a second's hesitation) do so and ram through nominees and judges as fast as they can hold votes. They've been openly abusing the rules for the entire Obama term. Why would they respect the process when they gain Senate control?

    A neutered NLRB is a good thing. Better would be an abolished NLRB.
    OK, that's your opinion and there is a process for abolishing it. Hold votes in the House and Senate, then get a POTUS to sign a bill, or override his or her veto. The Constitutional option isn't to refuse to approve ANY nominee necessary for it to function.

    I just think people are being shortsighted in this. The GOP is forcing a set of rules that undermines the rights of the minority, in my opinion. Well see I guess.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    If this is true of Obama:



    Then the same is true of Bush. Had had just as many or more recess appointments to the NLRB.
    Like clockwork. Point out a Obama failure, and some lib has to bring up something Bush did. When are people going to allow Obama to stand or fall on his own merits?

  10. #140
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    Like clockwork. Point out a Obama failure, and some lib has to bring up something Bush did. When are people going to allow Obama to stand or fall on his own merits?
    See post #79.

Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •