Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 232

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

  1. #141
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    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?
    I sometimes agree, but there is nothing illegitimate about pointing out hypocrisy. When Reagan and W. Bush wanted to nominate candidates that couldn't get through the Senate, they did it by recess appointment. And the democrats allowed that for the eight years of Reagan, and six years for W. (they last two they didn't). So it's a bit hard to take when the GOP turns around and removes that ability from Obama without at least mentioning the hypocrisy involved.

    Ronald Reagan used recess appointments 232 times. W. Bush 171 times. Clinton 139 times. Obama 32.

    Supreme Court Narrows President's Recess-Appointment Powers - WSJ

    Gosh, what changed there? GOP decided to act like children and deny Obama the right exercised routinely while their guy was in charge. Sure, the GOP CAN do it, but clearly they've abused the process. That's the point.

  2. #142
    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 JasperL View Post
    I sometimes agree, but there is nothing illegitimate about pointing out hypocrisy. When Reagan and W. Bush wanted to nominate candidates that couldn't get through the Senate, they did it by recess appointment. And the democrats allowed that for the eight years of Reagan, and six years for W. (they last two they didn't). So it's a bit hard to take when the GOP turns around and removes that ability from Obama without at least mentioning the hypocrisy involved.

    Ronald Reagan used recess appointments 232 times. W. Bush 171 times. Clinton 139 times. Obama 32.

    Supreme Court Narrows President's Recess-Appointment Powers - WSJ

    Gosh, what changed there? GOP decided to act like children and deny Obama the right exercised routinely while their guy was in charge. Sure, the GOP CAN do it, but clearly they've abused the process. That's the point.
    I think the point is they were not really in recess.
    From what I hear is if someone goes to chambers and announces they are in session. Its session. Even if no one is there.

  3. #143
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,521

    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.
    You do realize that this is intended to be a check & balance situation, the Senate is there to say yes, no, or nothing? You leave out that the president deliberately nominated people he knew would not meet with approval, and then ignored the Constitution in the manner of his actions.

    The President shall have 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

    It's pretty clear that the recess appointments are to be used when a position opens, and Congress is not in session, and that position needs to be filled before they come back.

    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.
    It's not a "strict reading of the rules", it's just plain clear. Not only did they did not intend up and down votes be mandatory for Congress, they intended that Congress make their own rules and judgement of appointees. It doesn't have to be argued, thay made it quite clear. They did not want the executive to have that much power, and made rules to limit it's power.
    "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

  4. #144
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,521

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Ronald Reagan used recess appointments 232 times. W. Bush 171 times. Clinton 139 times. Obama 32.

    Gosh, what changed there? GOP decided to act like children and deny Obama the right exercised routinely while their guy was in charge. Sure, the GOP CAN do it, but clearly they've abused the process. That's the point.
    You know this has nothing to do with the number of times it was used, right?
    "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

  5. #145
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You do realize that this is intended to be a check & balance situation, the Senate is there to say yes, no, or nothing? You leave out that the president deliberately nominated people he knew would not meet with approval, and then ignored the Constitution in the manner of his actions.
    The Constitution doesn't say, vote or do nothing. The RULES allow that, but the standard is a majority VOTE. If the Founders intended to give 41 Senators the right to veto any nominee, they'd have provided for a super majority, not a simple majority.

    And on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP said there was no possible nominee who would EVER get a vote until the Senate majority conceded to the demands of the minority to change the law.

    The President shall have 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

    It's pretty clear that the recess appointments are to be used when a position opens, and Congress is not in session, and that position needs to be filled before they come back.
    You're missing the point, which is the recess appointment was intended as a safety valve to allow the POTUS to fill positions. And then the GOP said, NO! to hundreds of judicial appointments and nominees, then removed the safety valve of recess appointments used 230 times by Reagan. It's my view that is unsustainable as it places the power in the hands of a minority who can dictate whether a governmental entity can function by withholding votes on key nominees. If you think we'll do business like that for the next 100 years, I just think you're wrong, and the Senate will change the rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to object EVER when it comes to nominees.

    It's not a "strict reading of the rules", it's just plain clear. Not only did they did not intend up and down votes be mandatory for Congress, they intended that Congress make their own rules and judgement of appointees. It doesn't have to be argued, thay made it quite clear. They did not want the executive to have that much power, and made rules to limit it's power.
    What abuse of the filibuster does it does is change a majority vote to a super majority vote. It won't last, IMO, so say goodbye to the power of the minority in the Senate.

    And the rules the Founders set up was to give the POTUS an up or down majority vote. Again, if they'd wanted a minority to be able to freely obstruct the majority, there's a way to do that - super majority votes. The Founders did not do that.

  6. #146
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You know this has nothing to do with the number of times it was used, right?
    The point was hypocrisy, and the Senate denying Obama the opportunity to make recess appointments used over 400 times by Reagan and W. and that DOES have to do with the number of times used.

    Yes, the Supreme Court decided the minority can shut down agencies by withholding votes, and under current rules means 41 Senators have veto power over all nominees for any position. It's what I've been discussing, and my guess is this will ultimately neuter the Senate minority, for good or bad, and IMO it's a bad thing.

  7. #147
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,521

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The Constitution doesn't say, vote or do nothing. The RULES allow that, but the standard is a majority VOTE. If the Founders intended to give 41 Senators the right to veto any nominee, they'd have provided for a super majority, not a simple majority.

    And on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP said there was no possible nominee who would EVER get a vote until the Senate majority conceded to the demands of the minority to change the law.
    Alright, one more time. It does not have to say vote or do nothing. That is implied. There is nothing about preferring a majority vote over any other action that they may choose. Nothing. They specifically allowed the Congress to make it's own rules. 41 or 51, they left it up to Congress. On purpose. They designed it that way. This is not in dispute.

    You're missing the point, which is the recess appointment was intended as a safety valve to allow the POTUS to fill positions. And then the GOP said, NO! to hundreds of judicial appointments and nominees, then removed the safety valve of recess appointments used 230 times by Reagan. It's my view that is unsustainable as it places the power in the hands of a minority who can dictate whether a governmental entity can function by withholding votes on key nominees. If you think we'll do business like that for the next 100 years, I just think you're wrong, and the Senate will change the rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to object EVER when it comes to nominees.
    Oh, the GOP said no? This just started happening when the GOP started doing it? Yeah, Bush's nominees just breezed right through. I'd check that one if I were you.
    Yes, a safety valve for vacancies that happened when Congress was in recess, to be filled by the president during that same recess. Nothing even close to that happened here. And, once again, nothing to do with how many. If it's not sustainable, the Congress can just change their rules, as provided in the Constitution.
    "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

  8. #148
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,725
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The point was hypocrisy, and the Senate denying Obama the opportunity to make recess appointments used over 400 times by Reagan and W. and that DOES have to do with the number of times used.

    Yes, the Supreme Court decided the minority can shut down agencies by withholding votes, and under current rules means 41 Senators have veto power over all nominees for any position. It's what I've been discussing, and my guess is this will ultimately neuter the Senate minority, for good or bad, and IMO it's a bad thing.
    Senate rules were changed. 41 votes no longer stops a nominee. Please keep up.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  9. #149
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Oh, the GOP said no? This just started happening when the GOP started doing it? Yeah, Bush's nominees just breezed right through. I'd check that one if I were you.
    Yes, a safety valve for vacancies that happened when Congress was in recess, to be filled by the president during that same recess. Nothing even close to that happened here. And, once again, nothing to do with how many. If it's not sustainable, the Congress can just change their rules, as provided in the Constitution.
    Look at the number of recess appointments. 171 Bush, 32 Obama.

    And of course the problem is the Senate DID change the rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to block nominations.

  10. #150
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Senate rules were changed. 41 votes no longer stops a nominee. Please keep up.
    You're right. Forgot about that. So now the GOP by acting like children has allowed any nominee to proceed on 51 votes, and neutered the power of the minority. As I said had to happen.

Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •