• 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

Maenad said:
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.
Click to expand...
He set Presidential precedence.
That is absolutely relevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

CRUE CAB said:
I think the point is they were not really in recess.
From what I hear is if someone goes to chambers and announces they are in session. Its session. Even if no one is there.
Click to expand...
So it is a FAKE session.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
So it is a FAKE session.
Click to expand...

nope it is a real session according to the rules of the senate. it doesn't matter if they do nothing or not. they are still considered in session.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Maenad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its all they got. They cant win on merit. So they go after prior administrations to try to look better. Its the faux moral high ground.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The big controversy is the National labor relations board.
Since the rules have been changed and appointments are much harder to block the board is now occupied by approved members and they are likely to uphold any decisions made by the recess appointment board.
Obama did what he had to do at the time to make the government functional
The ruling had to be made the way it was but at this point ... it is moot.
Nothing the President accomplished will be reversed.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
Look at the number of recess appointments. 171 Bush, 32 Obama.

And of course the problem is the Senate DID change the rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to block nominations.
Click to expand...

What is the point??? Who cares about the numbers? Yes, they changed the rules, now Obama can pack the courts with left wing idealogs that don't give a hoot about the Constitution, like him.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

ludin said:
nope it is a real session according to the rules of the senate. it doesn't matter if they do nothing or not. they are still considered in session.
Click to expand...

No, see, it is a fake session when the Republicans do it. Perfectly fine when the Statist do it.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
The big controversy is the National labor relations board.
Since the rules have been changed and appointments are much harder to block the board is now occupied by approved members and they are likely to uphold any decisions made by the recess appointment board.
Obama did what he had to do at the time to make the government functional
The ruling had to be made the way it was but at this point ... it is moot.
Nothing the President accomplished will be reversed.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unlikely any damage will be undone.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
You're right. Forgot about that. So now the GOP by acting like children has allowed any nominee to proceed on 51 votes, and neutered the power of the minority. As I said had to happen.
Click to expand...

Dems did the neutering.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Anthony60 said:
Yes, it is unlikely any damage will be undone.
Click to expand...
The OP and many of the posters here seem to under the mistaken impression that this decision has, or will hurt, the President's efforts to regain functionality to our government.
Again the immediate result of this ruling is entirely moot and of no consequence to his presidency.
It has changed what had become a bending of the framers intent and "business as usual" from the precedence laid down mostly by republicon presidents in the past.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
The OP and many of the posters here seem to under the mistaken impression that this decision has, or will hurt, the President's efforts to regain functionality to our government.
Again the immediate result of this ruling is entirely moot and of no consequence to his presidency.
It has changed what had become a bending of the framers intent and "business as usual" from the precedence laid down mostly by republicon presidents in the past.
Click to expand...

The ruling curbs the lawlessness of the BHO administration.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Jack Hays said:
The ruling curbs the lawlessness of the BHO administration.:peace
Click to expand...
... and the lawlessness of any future administration, be they Democratic or republicon.:lamo:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
... and the lawlessness of any future administration, be they Democratic or republicon.:lamo:peace
Click to expand...

Dems did the same thing to GWB. He respected the Senate's rules; BHO didn't.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Jack Hays said:
Dems did the same thing to GWB. He respected the Senate's rules; BHO didn't.
Click to expand...
But the Democratic senate didn't pretend to be in session when everyone knew that they weren't.:lamo:peace
There is no respect to be had for rule bending obstructionists.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
But the Democratic senate didn't pretend to be in session when everyone knew that they weren't.:lamo:peace
There is no respect to be had for rule bending obstructionists.
Click to expand...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., perfected the pro forma session device in 2007-2008 to block President George W. Bush from making a recess appointment to the federal bench. Traditionally, presidents did not make recess appointments during recesses of fewer than 10 days. Under the Constitution neither house can adjourn for more than three days without consent of the other. While Reid granted the House longer recesses, he convened his chamber every fourth day during the last 14 months of the Bush administration. The result: 60 pro forma days spanning 11 recesses.

Congress Takes Recess From Pro Formas | Wilson Center

what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
But the Democratic senate didn't pretend to be in session when everyone knew that they weren't.:lamo:peace
There is no respect to be had for rule bending obstructionists.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. Dems did exactly the same thing.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Jack Hays said:
Au contraire. Dems did exactly the same thing.:peace
Click to expand...
But Obama was smart enough to beat them at their own obstructionist game.
He got his appointments and got the government working again.
... Bush just wasn't that smart... il était stupide :lamo:peace
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
But Obama was smart enough to beat them at their own obstructionist game.
He got his appointments and got the government working again.
Bush just wasn't that smart.:lamo:peace
Click to expand...

GWB chose to respect the Constitution and the Senate's rules. BHO chose to ignore both, and was slapped down by the SCOTUS.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Jack Hays said:
Au contraire. Dems did exactly the same thing.:peace
Click to expand...
But not until 2007-2008, as shown by Perotista and his main man Sen. Reid, after President Bush made 171 recess appointments--since you righties brought up Mr. Bush and again mis-rewrote history . :peace
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
The OP and many of the posters here seem to under the mistaken impression that this decision has, or will hurt, the President's efforts to regain functionality to our government.
Again the immediate result of this ruling is entirely moot and of no consequence to his presidency.
It has changed what had become a bending of the framers intent and "business as usual" from the precedence laid down mostly by republicon presidents in the past.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any other incident of a President making a (non)recess appointment like this. So I don't know what precedent you are speaking of. There was no doubt about Congress being in session or not, it was Obama that decided to declare that they were not, in a "don't believe your lyin' eyes" fashion.

It is possible that he just does not know the Constitution well enough to know any better. Save that, he blatantly violated the Constitution. That is the most troubling fact about this. This just further tarnishes his already heavily soiled tenure.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

NIMBY said:
But not until 2007-2008, as shown by Perotista and his main man Sen. Reid, after President Bush made 171 recess appointments--since you righties brought up Mr. Bush and again mis-rewrote history . :peace
Click to expand...

You have no argument to make. GWB made recess appointments. He did not try to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. That's what BHO did. The facts are not in dispute.:peace
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Jack Hays said:
You have no argument to make. GWB made recess appointments. He did not try to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. That's what BHO did. The facts are not in dispute.:peace
Click to expand...

I stomped all over your comment that DEMs did it first, in reference to what sen. Mcturtle is now doing. And gave you a history lesson to boot. Now get back to filibustering the nation . :lamo
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

NIMBY said:
I stomped all over your comment that DEMs did it first, in reference to what sen. Mcturtle is doing. And gave you a history lesson to boot. Now get back to filibustering the nation .
Click to expand...


I don't see how you can make that claim since Dems did do it first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom