Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 232

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

  1. #31
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    That this is a trend in the office of the presidency that must be stopped, not just a democratic leadership problem. Good on the SCOTUS they're on a roll.
    And Monte, you of all people should know that I didn't give Bush a break on this either, and that I in no way above said that Obama was the first or only President to pee on the Constitution. However, Obama has taken it to true art where most of the others were minor league in comparison.

  2. #32
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Did I say otherwise?
    In the OP, you clearly painted this as an Obama problem.

  3. #33
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    SCOTUS are busy little beavers before they head off on their summer vacations, ain't they?

    I got that on my breaking news notification this morning. I think what amazes me most isn't HOW they ruled, it's that it is one of the few times in recent memory that a "controversial" ruling was completely unanimous.
    9-0 shouts loudly.

  4. #34
    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 tres borrachos View Post
    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.
    It is like there is some mass delusion that if Bush had never held office this would be a zippety do dah world right now. There were wars and terrorism long before Bush was ever on this earth. And the Obama llamas simply ignore the fact that Obama came in like gangbusters telling the country that he had all the answers. So, why hasn't he fixed everything? Could his islamic connections, his upbringing in a socialist environment, or his education in a communist school have anything to do with it? Nah, couldn't be any of that. It's all Bush's fault.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  5. #35
    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 MasterLiberty View Post
    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.

    And given the long and bloody history of despots he held absolute power over their subjects, it should be! We didn't come here to escape feudalism only to allow a feudal king to take over.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  6. #36
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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 ecofarm View Post
    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?
    The crucial difference is that when Bush made those appointments the Senate had actually declared itself in recess, unlike the appointments Obama made. Obama said that the Senate was in recess in order to make those appointments even though the Senate declared itself to be in session. SCOTUS said that the President doesn't get to tell the Senate when they are in recess. The Senate has absolute authority over Senate business, according to separation of powers, and the President may not abridge that authority.

    The argument against Bush's appointments back then was that recess appointments are an obsolete feature of the constitution that shouldn't be used (if it's inconvenient to liberals). In modern times recesses are much shorter because of modern travel so any delay in confirmation is inconsequential unlike the long delays that used to take place. But the constitution itself makes no distinction concerning the length of a recess in deciding whether recess appointments can be used.

    The issue was so crystal clear that even Obama's own appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, voted with the majority. I don't know why left wingers are having such a hard time understanding it.

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

  7. #37
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    In the OP, you clearly painted this as an Obama problem.
    Obama is President and he's the one that did what was challenged in the case, not Bush, or Reagan, or Hoover, or even Ulysses S. Grant. I know that may upset some, but it's a fact.

    Also, my reference was to more than just Recess Appointments when the Senate was not really in recess, but was regarding ALL the "sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda." Which if you sincerely read my OP, you'll read exactly that, and not what you interpreted that I meant. Clearly painted??? I said exactly what I meant to say, and didn't paint, shade, infer, imply, hint, entail, connote, presuppose or anything of the like.

  8. #38
    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 LowDown View Post
    The crucial difference is that when Bush made those appointments the Senate had actually declared itself in recess, unlike the appointments Obama made. Obama said that the Senate was in recess in order to make those appointments even though the Senate declared itself to be in session. SCOTUS said that the President doesn't get to tell the Senate when they are in recess. The Senate has absolute authority over Senate business, according to separation of powers, and the President may not abridge that authority.

    The argument against Bush's appointments back then was that recess appointments are an obsolete feature of the constitution that shouldn't be used (if it's inconvenient to liberals). In modern times recesses are much shorter because of modern travel so any delay in confirmation is inconsequential unlike the long delays that used to take place. But the constitution itself makes no distinction concerning the length of a recess in deciding whether recess appointments can be used.

    The issue was so crystal clear that even Obama's own appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, voted with the majority. I don't know why left wingers are having such a hard time understanding it.
    If the only argument someone has is 'bu....bu......bu.....Bush' he/she has no argument.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  9. #39
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Yeah, bet you can't wait until King Barack, Queen Michelle and little Princesses Malia and Sasha are ensconced on the American throne.
    again the facts make the right wing go crazy.

  10. #40
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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 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.
    You don't get it. Obstructing this President is a GOOD thing. Having his appointees in charge is NOT a good thing for the American people. The Constitution never presumes that the President should always get what he wants. It's a system of checks and balances, and so sometimes he's obstructed. It's a feature, not a bug. In fact, most of the time during the normal course of things principle actors in Washington find themselves idle and unable to follow their policy because of this or that check in the system. It's when everyone in government is moving in the same direction that our freedoms are most in peril.

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

Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •