Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 232

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

  1. #21
    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
    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.
    Presidential Authority is limited MORE than any other Authority in the constitution, and rightfully so because the President is One man and could make decisions that have a huge impact on the country if given TOO MUCH power, which is why a MAJORITY of constitutional power rests with the legislature (as it is made up of a multitude of people and is split against itself given the bicameral legislative system we have.

    The effect of congress blocking an appointment via a "sham" session is far less than that of a president make a "snap recess appointment" with what you are suggesting the president could appoint people while members of congress are "sleeping for a night" etc etc... the point is that the potential for ABUSE which effects america negatively rests with the Executive, not with the Legislature.

    Also I already pointed out that presidents were given the power to make "recess appointments" because there were times in the 1800s where congress would be out of session for MONTHS or even a YEAR at a time (Senators and Reps would have to travel slowly by Horse or Train which would take WEEKS or MONTHS to reach DC depending on where they are coming from.) The point is that these "recess appointments" violate the spirit of the law in regards to WHY the president was given the power in the first place.

  2. #22
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,981
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Eco's point is, which I'm sure you're all well aware of and obstinately feigning ignorance of in a sad and desperate attempt to NOT appear like desperate, hypocritical partisan hacks....

    Is that you can't condone it when YOURE guy does it, because it opens the door for future people to do it as well. Our court system operates on precedent.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  3. #23
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    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.
    Yeah, technicalities are a bitch, aren't they? I bet you were equally pissed at the Supreme Court a couple of years ago when Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA was a tax, even though Obama swore up and down that it was just a penalty, allowing Roberts to weasel into ruling the ACA constitutional.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #24
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,217

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    Eco's point is, which I'm sure you're all well aware of and obstinately feigning ignorance of in a sad and desperate attempt to NOT appear like desperate, hypocritical partisan hacks....

    Is that you can't condone it when YOURE guy does it, because it opens the door for future people to do it as well. Our court system operates on precedent.
    And this thread isn't about partisanship, and it isn't about Bush. It's about the SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS operates on an interpretation of the Constitution. They didn't rule as they did because of Bush.

    That's the topic.

  5. #25
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,560
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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.
    The Senate has absolute authority over its own business. If they choose to remain in session to block the President then that is their prerogative. Advise and consent means that the Senate can obstruct appointments. The President does not have the authority to rule parts of the Constitution "technicalities" and unilaterally dispense with them. That would be highly illegal, a matter for impeachment in fact. But that's what he did in this case.

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

  6. #26
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,895
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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.
    So when these recess appointments were made by Obama, which party was in the majority in the Senate? Whom exactly controls the determination of when the Senate is in session and when it is in recess? I thought that would be Dingly Harry's call, wouldn't it?
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Great stuff - especially that the court ruled unanimously.

    I am neither rep nor dem, but Obama has been supremely arrogant (and dangerous, imo) in his apparent disregard for the Constitution/Congress whenever it suits him.

    Good for the Supreme Court for clipping his wings - for now anyway.

  8. #28
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    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.
    Did I say otherwise?

  9. #29
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,981
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The Senate has absolute authority over its own business. If they choose to remain in session to block the President then that is their prerogative. Advise and consent means that the Senate can obstruct appointments. The President does not have the authority to rule parts of the Constitution "technicalities" and unilaterally dispense with them. That would be highly illegal, a matter for impeachment in fact. But that's what he did in this case.
    And when the same trick is used on YOUR guy?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  10. #30
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Sababa View Post
    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.
    Yeah, bet you can't wait until King Barack, Queen Michelle and little Princesses Malia and Sasha are ensconced on the American throne.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •