• 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

Personally I do not think there is anything to study. It is quite clear their appointments were illegal or unconstitutional. But what about all the rulings since their appointments, especially the ones in where they were the deciding votes?

You know, Pero, I am beginning to think that there must be a small group of people in DC whose only job is to look at the laws we currently live under, and then decide to challenge those - one at a time - that restrict what they want to do! It makes me wonder how we ever managed to become the world leader we are - with all those "outdated" laws in effect. It makes me think it's a damn miracle we survived at all as a country for hundreds of years! I'm aware that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a thorn in the side of those who want to do what they feel like doing, but that's the way it is. I wonder how many illegal aliens are crossing the border eager to get into Zimbabwe or North Korea! :rantoff:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Which is definitely a tactic that is reasonable for someone to criticize. But it doesn't excuse acting unconstitutionally.
Then you are defending stalemate in DC as we know it; defending the games that are being played by obstructionists.
That with only two NLRB members, they could not have ruled, yet they did.

Setting precedence for further polarization in our politics; that the Senate will never be in recess due to these phony sessions.
And preventing the President from faithfully executing his powers to appoint according to the Constitution.

I hope to see you again some day when the situation is reversed, as it was last decade .
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The Senate was acting as intended by the Founders. Checks against use of power like this are built into our system of government.

You'll appreciate this more when in a couple of years a Republican is elected President.

the founders didn't want to have the Senate avoid voting and pretend to be in session........
Advise and consent does not mean they can put off Presidential appointments they know will pass. That is silly.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

the founders didn't want to have the Senate avoid voting and pretend to be in session........
Advise and consent does not mean they can put off Presidential appointments they know will pass. That is silly.

Sababa, the point is that appointments made by Pres Obama during the so called "recess" he claimed the senate was in would NOT have passed.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Sababa, the point is that appointments made by Pres Obama during the so called "recess" he claimed the senate was in would NOT have passed.

I am not sure that is true. But even if it was, the Senate has held up tons of the President's appointments. That is not the intent of Advise and Consent.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Then you are defending stalemate in DC as we know it;

If defending the constitution means it leads to stalemate in DC...so be it.

If you don't like the stalemate then motivate people to vote out those who are causing it (however you view the "cause" to be happening) or work to amend the constitution.

But no, complaining and whining about "stalemates" isn't magically going to get me to support unconstitutional action, nor is strawmanning me by proclaiming that my stance that the President CAN'T VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION equates to "defending" the action on the part of Congress.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

I am not sure that is true. But even if it was, the Senate has held up tons of the President's appointments. That is not the intent of Advise and Consent.

The intent of Advise and Consent was to allow the legislature OVERSIGHT over the Executive branch to prevent presidents from turning a whole branch of government into an entirely partisan wing. And I believe you are misconstruing the intent of "Recess Appointments".
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

You know, Pero, I am beginning to think that there must be a small group of people in DC whose only job is to look at the laws we currently live under, and then decide to challenge those - one at a time - that restrict what they want to do! It makes me wonder how we ever managed to become the world leader we are - with all those "outdated" laws in effect. It makes me think it's a damn miracle we survived at all as a country for hundreds of years! I'm aware that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a thorn in the side of those who want to do what they feel like doing, but that's the way it is. I wonder how many illegal aliens are crossing the border eager to get into Zimbabwe or North Korea! :rantoff:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Can I issue you an "Atta Girl" for that post?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Can I issue you an "Atta Girl" for that post?

:mrgreen: .. . :kissy: :duel:

Greetings, Beaudreaux. :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Interesting question, pero. There probably isn't anything that can be done at this point, is there?

I spent the last half hour searching, from what I have been able to find is that any ruling while these appointed members were part of the board would have to be re-litigated.. On one site it stated the NLRB had made over a thousand rulings since the presidents unconstitutional appointments. Now no one is sure if all their decisions could be overturned in one lawsuit or if it would take a thousand different lawsuits, one for each ruling. Now I am assuming the court would find since the members were appointed unconstitutionally, they would null and void the ruling. But that may not be the case, a judge may decide that the ruling stands, in which case I am sure it will be appealed and eventually end up in the SCOTUS. But now with Reids nuclear option, the president can now just appoint the same people to the NLRB and Reid will get them confirmed.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The replacement for jay carney said they are studying it. What I want to know is what this ruling does to all the FLRB made while these illegal members were apart of it. You hear anything?

Those 3 members of the NLRB are invalid. I think what the Senate will do is use the nuclear option to confirm them.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Why do you compare anyone's recess appointment with ofailures non recess appointments? Apples and oranges, and way off topic, but anything for your messiah right!


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?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

You know, Pero, I am beginning to think that there must be a small group of people in DC whose only job is to look at the laws we currently live under, and then decide to challenge those - one at a time - that restrict what they want to do! It makes me wonder how we ever managed to become the world leader we are - with all those "outdated" laws in effect. It makes me think it's a damn miracle we survived at all as a country for hundreds of years! I'm aware that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a thorn in the side of those who want to do what they feel like doing, but that's the way it is. I wonder how many illegal aliens are crossing the border eager to get into Zimbabwe or North Korea! :rantoff:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Howdy Pol, I think you know the answer to NK and Zimbabwe, none. But you hit on something, to most people in Washington and with both parties, that is what the constitution has become, just a thorn in the side. The idea behind the constitution was limited government with checks and balances. It specifically spelled out what the powers were to the federal government, spelled out what powers the states couldn't have and left everything not mentioned in the constitution to the states and or the people.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Those 3 members of the NLRB are invalid. I think what the Senate will do is use the nuclear option to confirm them.

Sure they will, all it requires is a simple majority now for any presidential appointment. But when the Senate does this, it still leaves the time frame when the president first appointed them to the time the Senate reappoints them as being null and void. So I am not so sure what good it would do to sue over all their previous rulings when all the same members of the NLRB, all they need to do is make the same rulings once re-appointed.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Howdy Pol, I think you know the answer to NK and Zimbabwe, none. But you hit on something, to most people in Washington and with both parties, that is what the constitution has become, just a thorn in the side. The idea behind the constitution was limited government with checks and balances. It specifically spelled out what the powers were to the federal government, spelled out what powers the states couldn't have and left everything not mentioned in the constitution to the states and or the people.

Well, for those that would like to have unfettered power with no constraints, it's got to be a constant source of irritation causing major headaches, and probably digestive problems and the heartbreak of psoriasis, too, when they're stymied. :mrgreen: Not that it stops them from trying again, mind you. Oh no. They just buy more antidepressants, and carry on - it's what their lives revolve around, I guess! So the lawsuits continue...:rock:
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Well, for those that would like to have unfettered power with no constraints, it's got to be a constant source of irritation causing major headaches, and probably digestive problems and the heartbreak of psoriasis, too, when they're stymied. :mrgreen: Not that it stops them from trying again, mind you. Oh no. They just buy more antidepressants, and carry on - it's what their lives revolve around, I guess! So the lawsuits continue...:rock:

Well heck Pol, lawyers have to eat too.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

High Court Rebukes President Obama on Recess Appointments

"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama lacked constitutional authority to make high-level government appointments at a time he declared the Senate in recess and unable to act on the nominations.

Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.
“When the Senate declares that it is in session and possesses the capacity, under its own rules, to conduct business,” that is sufficient to keep the president from making recess appointments, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court. . . . "


 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Why do you compare anyone's recess appointment with ofailures non recess appointments?
Apples and oranges, and way off topic, but anything for your messiah right!
The appointment by ofailure as you say were done during the same time-frames of the year as with past Presidents.
And as we've seen with our messiah--another of your words calgun--what has happened in the past no longer applies to Mr. Obama.

The Senate/House are now forever open as will be true with this August recess,
costing the taxpayer dearly as with other GOP wastes such as dozens of faux committees.

Time for BHO to sue right back at ya, since he's receiving zero from the Greedy Obstructionist Party
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The appeals rulings from cases such as Wal-Mart will be filed toot-sweet.
Do you agree with the strategy of leaving less than a quorum in the NLRB cuz you don't like the agency.
Obama has now been forced to go to court and the GOP continues to turn this Nation into a joke.
Those 3 members of the NLRB are invalid. I think what the Senate will do is use the nuclear option to confirm them.
When the politics are reversed in our future, what do you propose for a solution?
Or are you okay with blowing up DC figuratively as with other sects of conservatives?
Will McConnell cry for the GOP President to get his own people in 2017?
All due to the GOP denying Obama, where all this started ?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The appointment by ofailure as you say were done during the same time-frames of the year as with past Presidents.
And as we've seen with our messiah--another of your words calgun--what has happened in the past no longer applies to Mr. Obama.

The Senate/House are now forever open as will be true with this August recess,
costing the taxpayer dearly as with other GOP wastes such as dozens of faux committees.

Time for BHO to sue right back at ya, since he's receiving zero from the Greedy Obstructionist Party

Time of year is immaterial-if congress is in session or not is what matters. Our Chump in Chief-the imperial president DOES NOT get to TELL Congress when it is in session.

Thank your lucky stars for checks and balances, if we left it up to you lefties the nation would be North Korea in about 6 months.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Time of the year is not relevant, nice try, but like your messiah a failure.

Give the Republicans credit. You call them obstructionist and fail to realize the electorate you hate so much chose them
to obstruct. They improvised, stayed in town, kept the hall open, and did not recess so the dictator could not dictate
and got b.slapped by the supremes for trying to ignore the law - just like dictators and fascist do. WELL DONE
Senate Republicans - they don't get much right but they NAILED this one.


The appointment by ofailure as you say were done during the same time-frames of the year as with past Presidents.
And as we've seen with our messiah--another of your words calgun--what has happened in the past no longer applies to Mr. Obama.

The Senate/House are now forever open as will be true with this August recess,
costing the taxpayer dearly as with other GOP wastes such as dozens of faux committees.

Time for BHO to sue right back at ya, since he's receiving zero from the Greedy Obstructionist Party
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The appointment by ofailure as you say were done during the same time-frames of the year as with past Presidents.

Sorry to disappoint you but there's no constitutional basis for "Seasonal" or "Time-frame" appointments. There's a constitutional basis for RECESS appointments.

There was no recess.

The executive does not have the power to declare "recess"

I know you BADLY want to excuse CLEAR AND UNQUESTIONED unconstitutional action on the part of the politician you support and advocate for but your attempts are failing to do so badly. Do you know why? Because there's no excusing unconstitutional action such as this.

Whine, bitch, complain, and distort all you want....none of it changes that Obama did something wholly and completely unconstitutional. REGARDLESS of what the Republicans did it was ENTIRELY Barack Obama's decision to do the act that violated the constitution. The Republicans forced him to do nothing. It was his CHOICE to do the violating action.

No matter how many excuses you want to make, the fact is he acted unconstitutionally and there is not justification for that unconstitutional action.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Time of the year is not relevant, nice try, but like your messiah a failure.

Give the Republicans credit. You call them obstructionist and fail to realize the electorate you hate so much chose them
to obstruct. They improvised, stayed in town, kept the hall open, and did not recess so the dictator could not dictate
and got b.slapped by the supremes for trying to ignore the law - just like dictators and fascist do. WELL DONE
Senate Republicans - they don't get much right but they NAILED this one.

Isn't it interesting that statists never seem to know they are?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Give the Republicans credit. You call them obstructionist and fail to realize the electorate you hate so much chose them
to obstruct.

If the GOP was doing what they were sent there to do then Congress would have an approval rating higher than 8%
 
Back
Top Bottom