• 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!

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

Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Clearly that was too much, but let's not pretend that previous presidents (including republicans) have not made extensive use of recess appointments to the NLRB (circumventing procedure), even after congress stopped using the horse and carriage.

No one is saying otherwise, as far as I have read in this thread, although when those recess appointments were made, the Senate was actually in recess.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

Eco's point was rather simple and relevant. Had you actually read his post you might have learned something.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Eco's point was rather simple and relevant. Had you actually read his post you might have learned something.

There is NEVER a link or any data to show that what people on the right post are incorrect. Just a trolling statement that we are all nuts. If you are going to call someone ****ing crazy the least you could do is post a link to show that person is wrong. But you don't, because we are NOT wrong and the leftists on her are hostile, accusatory, and out of touch with reality. Put that in your pipe and smoke it and see if it smells as good as cannabis in the morning.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Clearly that was too much

Which is what this ruling is about, and this thread is about


but let's not pretend that previous presidents (including republicans) have not made extensive use of recess appointments to the NLRB (circumventing procedure)

I'm not pretending that. But I'm also not strawmanning the issue by interjecting it into conversations regarding THIS SPECIFIC CASE when it's an entirely different circumstance. Presidents have absolutely utilized recess appointments in extensive ways and even in questionable ways before. That's not the issue here nor relevant. No one is saying that Obama is wrong for extensively using recess appointments in the ways past presidents did. They're saying the issue was him declaring the Congress in recess as a means of making recess appointments, despit congress itself claiming it wasn't in recess. To my understand that's unique to Obama. If you have evidence of other presidents doing THAT...THEN you'd have an argument. Otherwise you're just attempting to distract and deflect from what's actually being discussed by going "HEY! Look at that funny looking guy made of straw over there. I think his name is Bush. GET'EM!"
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

There is NEVER a link or any data to show that what people on the right post are incorrect. Just a trolling statement that we are all nuts..

Calm down. Eco did not call you crazy nor did I. This is not the appropriate venue for such things. You're clearly confused about this. He simply pointed out that this is nothing new. And he is right.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

I'm not pretending that. But I'm also not strawmanning the issue by interjecting it into conversations regarding THIS SPECIFIC CASE when it's an entirely different circumstance.

I don't think its "entirely different".
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Eco's point was rather simple and relevant. Had you actually read his post you might have learned something.

Actually, Eco's point was ENTIRELY irrelevant because it pointed to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE.

Bush used recess appointments, that's true. If the problem in this case was about the use of recess appointments in general then his point would have been simple and relevant.

That's not what this case is about, or that it's arguing. This case makes no assertion that recess appointments are wrong. This case is asserting that the President declaring that the congress is in recess and using that as the basis to then put forward recess appointments, despite the congress considering itself in session, is unconstitutional. If eco was showing a situation where Bush did that then his point would be "simple and relevant". As it is, it's just distractionary.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Actually, Eco's point was ENTIRELY irrelevant because it pointed to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE.

That's not true. Bush appointing 7/9, circumventing procedure in the process, is similar.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

And he is right.

No, he's not.

You say it's nothing new. Fine. Present to me another instance where a President made recess appointments while the congress considered itself still in session.

Since it's "nothing new" as you claim then you should be able to provide examples.

The issue here is NOT about the Presidents authority to make recess appointments. This case did not challenge that authority.

It challenged the Presidents authority to make recess appointments when congress is NOT IN RECESS.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

No, he's not.

You say it's nothing new. Fine. Present to me another instance where a President made recess appointments while the congress considered itself still in session.

Since it's "nothing new" as you claim then you should be able to provide examples.

The issue here is NOT about the Presidents authority to make recess appointments. This case did not challenge that authority.

It challenged the Presidents authority to make recess appointments when congress is NOT IN RECESS.


So, Bush only made those appointments because congress couldn't be in session due to the use of the horse and buggy to get to DC?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

no, he's not.

You say it's nothing new. Fine. Present to me another instance where a president made recess appointments while the congress considered itself still in session.

Since it's "nothing new" as you claim then you should be able to provide examples.

The issue here is not about the presidents authority to make recess appointments. This case did not challenge that authority.

It challenged the presidents authority to make recess appointments when congress is not in recess.


sos dd
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

That's not true. Bush appointing 7/9, circumventing procedure in the process, is similar.

But did not circumvent RECESS APPOINTMENT PROCESSES...he circumvented the normal appointment process BY recess appointing people during times when the congress was in recess. Something that has been done for decades.

That is ENTIRELY UNLIKE Obama who circumvented not only the normal appointment process, but the recess appointment process as well, by declaring congress in recess when it was not in recess.

No, they are not alike. One was a long standing constitutional action that has been perpetrated by multiple presidents (including Obama) and is routinely not challenged any longer in court.

One was an unprecedented instance circumventing all previous standing by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH declaring that Congress was in recess and taking action based on that declaration, despite congresses assertion of ITS OWN STATUS as being "in session".
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

So, Bush only made those appointments because congress couldn't be in session due to the use of the horse and buggy to get to DC?

He made those appointments because the congress was not in session. Simple as that. Recess appointments do not require that congress CAN'T be in session...it requires that they are NOT in sessoin.

In one instance a president made recess appointments WHILE CONGRESS WAS IN RECESS...which has long been established as constitutional and has been done repeatedly by multiple presents.

In one instance a president made recess appointments WHILE CONGRESS WAS IN SESSION...which has now been found unconstitutional and has never been done before.

This is evident by the fact that this case was NOT challenging the notion of recess appointments themselves...but specifically challenging the use of recess appointments when congress claims to be in session and the executive branch claims otherwise.

Yet you and your supporters continue to attempt to deflect and point blame desperately and pathetically because you can't actually deal honestly with the actual reality of the situation now so you must attempt to divert attention and blame.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

In the OP, you clearly painted this as an Obama problem.

It is and was, that's why the decision was on Obama's actions. Not Bush's.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

That's not true. Bush appointing 7/9, circumventing procedure in the process, is similar.

Not in the least.

Did Bush declare that the House and Senate were in recess thus he could do this?

No he did not. Thus your point isn't just wrong, it's completely absurd.

I'll make it easier for you:

Bush made a right on red, Obama blew through a stop sign through cross traffic.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Not in the least.

Did Bush declare that the House and Senate were in recess thus he could do this?

No he did not. Thus your point isn't just wrong, it's completely absurd.

I'll make it easier for you:

Bush made a right on red, Obama blew through a stop sign through cross traffic.


And he just HAD to make recess appointments because those horse and buggies couldn't get to DC in time.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

He made those appointments because the congress was not in session. Simple as that. Recess appointments do not require that congress CAN'T be in session...it requires that they are NOT in sessoin.

In one instance a president made recess appointments WHILE CONGRESS WAS IN RECESS...which has long been established as constitutional and has been done repeatedly by multiple presents.

In one instance a president made recess appointments WHILE CONGRESS WAS IN SESSION...which has now been found unconstitutional and has never been done before.

This is evident by the fact that this case was NOT challenging the notion of recess appointments themselves...but specifically challenging the use of recess appointments when congress claims to be in session and the executive branch claims otherwise.

Yet you and your supporters continue to attempt to deflect and point blame desperately and pathetically because you can't actually deal honestly with the actual reality of the situation now so you must attempt to divert attention and blame.

Yes, it was a very narrow ruling. Recess appointments are still very much alive and well. What is not is recess appointment when congress says they are in session. Who decides when congress is in session, congress does. No one else.

what I am more interested in finding out, is all the decision made by the NLRB while these illegal appointed members were on it, will they become null and void or will they stand? You seen anything on this?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

And he just HAD to make recess appointments because those horse and buggies couldn't get to DC in time.

This is a deflection.

Whether or not Bush HAD to do it, he did it in a constitutional way that has been done in the past by other presidents and during a time when CONGRESS CONSIDERED ITSELF IN RECESS.

Obama did it in an unconstitutional way, that had not been done before, during a time when CONGRESS CONSIDERED ITSELF IN SESSION.

These are not the same no matter how many times you ignorantly and ridiculously stomp your feet and declare that they are.

No one in this case is arguing that recess appointments are not allowed to be done, or can't be done if "congress can make it there in horse nad buggies" or any other such non-sense and bull**** that you keep spewing. They were arguing that recess appointments can't be done while congress is in sessoin.

Either show us an example of Bush appointing people while the congress considered itself in session or stop trying to deflect with non-related bull****.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Know what, I'm going to go forward focusing on THIS ACTUAL CASE and situations related to THIS ACTUAL case. I'd hope others will join me

Perosita, I agree that it'll be interesting to see what happens with rulings during that time. I would expect thety would remain in place as the board was acting in good faith that they were appropriately placed...but I'm honestly not sure. Would be a great thing to end up finding out about.

While I think this will give some backing to the legitimacy of the notion of challenging some of the actions of this adminstration that the congress is currently talking about (this, along with a number of other 9-0 decisions against the Executive), I hope that no one on the right foolishly over plays their hand and think they can somehow use this as a means of pushing for impeachment. I would LIKE to think that congress is smarter than that, but I don't know about some of the rank and file around the country.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Whether or not Bush HAD to do it,

Is my point. Both gamed the system.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

And he just HAD to make recess appointments because those horse and buggies couldn't get to DC in time.

Has jack**** to do with anything. I know you think that you are witty. You are not.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Moderator's Warning:
Ecofarm, All of your posts in this thread have been off topic and baiting. (particularly the ones with Bush and the horse and buggy posts). This will stop NOW. This thread is not about Bush. Its about a SCOTUS ruling on Obama's actions in putting in appointees while congress was not in recess. If you can't discuss the topic of the thread I'd suggest that you just leave the thread...or be forcibly removed from the thread. Wish I had woken up earlier as I could have caught this sooner.

This shows many recent republican recess appointments.

Members of the NLRB since 1935 | NLRB
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Did not see clearing.
 
Back
Top Bottom