Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 232

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

  1. #11
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Chicago, Suburbs
    Last Seen
    06-27-14 @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    307

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    On the other hand, is the intention to allow congress to create fake sessions with the sole purpose of blocking an express presidial power?
    The power to declare session or recess is one that is EXCLUSIVE to congress as are the rules for Quorum which dictates when congress is in SESSION and WHEN IT IS OUT OF SESSION. Congress may at any time with any number of members qualify for QUORUM if they intend to have a quorum. The problem with these "recess" appointments made by Obama is that HE declared congress to be in RECESS without congress declaring recess, that is the problem with the appointments. No other president perhaps since Lincoln has declared congress in "recess" without it having actually been declared. The Problem really isn't with "recess appointments" but that Obama declared the senate in "recess" without the senate declaring itself in RECESS which is its EXCLUSIVE power.

  2. #12
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterLiberty View Post
    The power to declare session or recess is one that is EXCLUSIVE to congress as are the rules for Quorum which dictates when congress is in SESSION and WHEN IT IS OUT OF SESSION. Congress may at any time with any number of members qualify for QUORUM if they intend to have a quorum. The problem with these "recess" appointments made by Obama is that HE declared congress to be in RECESS without congress declaring recess, that is the problem with the appointments. No other president perhaps since Lincoln has declared congress in "recess" without it having actually been declared. The Problem really isn't with "recess appointments" but that Obama declared the senate in "recess" without the senate declaring itself in RECESS which is its EXCLUSIVE power.
    Yes, and the way congress did that was having a guy gavel in and then gavel out to pretend they were still in session when they aren't actually doing anything legislative.

    I get that hey were technically still in session. My objection is that they were exploiting a technicality with the sole purpose of blocking an otherwise-lawful use of presidential authority.

    The purpose of recess appointments is to ensure that key government positions don't sit empty at the expense of the American people, whether through logistical difficulties or congress being deliberately obstructionist.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #13
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,551
    Blog Entries
    11

    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.
    It's not recess appointments per se that the Court objects to but the recess appointments made when the Senate wasn't in recess. In short, the Senate decides when they are in recess, not the President.

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

  4. #14
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    01-15-15 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,578

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    it is funny SCOTUS ruled correctly but the Senate was acting in bad faith. The do nothing Congress is just something you can get until we change the Constitution or the way we elect them.

  5. #15
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,357

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    What is the relevance? There was no recess for ofailure. That is the point. Stay on topic instead of just constantly defending the loser in charge.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It's not recess appointments per se that the Court objects to but the recess appointments made when the Senate wasn't in recess. In short, the Senate decides when they are in recess, not the President.


    President George W. Bush, who recess appointed seven of his nine NLRB nominees.

    Some of Bush's NLRB nominees were Senate confirmed, including Peter Hurtgen and Peter Schaumber who each served multiple terms, including one under a recess appointment. But the vast majority were able to circumvent the standard process.
    FLASHBACK: Bush Recess Appointed 7 of 9 NLRB Members

    Source is probably crap, but it documents whom Bush appointed and how the standard procedure was circumvented in most of his 7/9 recess appointments.



    During Bush's appointees, did congress use a horse and carriage or a train?

  6. #16
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It's not recess appointments per se that the Court objects to but the recess appointments made when the Senate wasn't in recess. In short, the Senate decides when they are in recess, not the President.
    Yes, and the president picked this fight because their being "in session" was a sham, and everybody knows it. I expected this outcome, but it was an issue that needed to be settled. Now we know: congress gets to pretend to be in session expressly to block a specific presidential power outlined in the constitution. The technicality matters more than the intention.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #17
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power



    In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

    The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.
    Perhaps some pressure from the American people is brought to bear on this administration. Even though SCOTUS justices are people and have their own set of personal prejudices, they do come through on the side of the Constitution most of the time. I have felt a letter to my congressman coming on for a while now. But it isn't really Congress who limits presidential power, it is the SCOTUS in its interpretation of the US Constitution. Bravo!
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  8. #18
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    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.
    Is it even possible for there to be a discussion on this forum without throwing Bush into the mix? Bush is NOT president. Hasn't been for 6 long years.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  9. #19
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,095

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    Is it even possible for there to be a discussion on this forum without throwing Bush into the mix? Bush is NOT president. Hasn't been for 6 long years.
    Apparently not. I've seen Bush mentioned more times on this board this morning than he was probably mentioned on June 26, 2006. Hell, they are all even yakking about Reagan all over this board.

    It's the weakest argument that anyone can make, and the fact that some are repeatedly and for no reason mentioning Bush seems to indicate they also know that Obama is a failure, but they just can't bring themselves to say it.

  10. #20
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,551
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Yes, and the way congress did that was having a guy gavel in and then gavel out to pretend they were still in session when they aren't actually doing anything legislative.

    I get that hey were technically still in session. My objection is that they were exploiting a technicality with the sole purpose of blocking an otherwise-lawful use of presidential authority.

    The purpose of recess appointments is to ensure that key government positions don't sit empty at the expense of the American people, whether through logistical difficulties or congress being deliberately obstructionist.
    Wrong. There is nothing constitutionally wrong with the congress being obstructionist. It's part of their function to do that if they decide to do it. The President does not have the authority to decide when the Senate is in recess. Only the Senate can do that.

    As was the case with those appointments to the NLRB, an appointment by this President does not serve the people well. The people are better served by continued obstructionism. Obama would rather die than make a sensible, moderate appointment, so let those slots go unfilled.

    Pres. Obama was slapped down good and hard by the whole court, his appointees included. What he did was blatantly illegal, and everyone knew it at the time. I predict this will not be the last time the court draws him up short.

    The Wagner Act should be abolished. It's an obsolete law that now only serves to keep socialist labor ideologies living on in a kind of zombie existence behind which corrupt union fat cats reside.

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

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •