View Poll Results: With regards to not in recess "recess" appointments...

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ignorant of Con Law and thus assumed it was constitutional?

    0 0%
  • Arrogant and Fringe on Con Law and thus firmly believed it constitutional

    2 13.33%
  • Oblivious to the constitutional implications and acted without thinking of it

    1 6.67%
  • Naively felt it had a reasonable chance of being constitutional, so gave it a shot

    1 6.67%
  • Realized likely unconstitutional, but gamble due to little fear of reprucussions

    8 53.33%
  • Realized almost certaintly unconstitutional, but did it anyways

    0 0%
  • Other

    3 20.00%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

  1. #11
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,964

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Sadly, yes. I'd say it's how our country has operated for some time. Sadly, the past six years hasn't been much of a Change from politics as usual as it relates to this.
    I honestly believe Obama thought he could change the system. I honestly believe that most Presidents enter the White House thinking they can change the system for the better. But there is far too much money involved for things to change the way they need to and I think all Presidents get fed up with it. And it's only going to get worse.

    At the end of the day, I truly believe most people who enter the White House as President do so for the right reasons. I don't think any of them are bad or evil people, just people who honestly think they can better the country they love. But when you are, time and again, made out to be evil, the anti-christ, a king, or whatever other labels are heaped upon the President by the opposing party, you tend to get tired of trying to do it the way it should be done, and instead do it how you think it can get done.

    There's only so much BS a person can be reasonably expected to put up with.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Sababa View Post
    lots of words saying very little.
    He was challenging the trick the Senate was using to say they were in session. He lost. But the challenge was a needed thing and while partly functional and mostly political it was a move that truly was something that was not intentionally unconstitutional.
    I think you're right that it was not intentionally unconstitutional and a ruling from the SCOTUS was probably needed. But I think as a Constitutional Lawyer he should have realized how the ruling would come down based only on who says the senate is in session, the senate or the President. Reid's nuclear option made it all moot anyway. I have a whole lot more problem with Reid and his nuclear option than with the president recess appointments as there was a very slim chance he just might prevail. With Reid's nuclear option the advise and consent of presidential appointments as required by the senate in the constitution has just become a paperwork drill if the senate is controlled by the same party as the president.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  3. #13
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    01-15-15 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,578

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So your answer was he truly thought his action was, or likely was, constitutional?
    I think he was challenging the Constitutionality of the Senate saying they were in session using a trick. For many lawyers that is a question mark. What defines being in session was what was adjudicated. So yeah, he probably wasn't sure so he did what he was suppose to do. Ask the Supreme Court by acting.

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I honestly believe Obama thought he could change the system.
    He might have. I don't really think he was quite that naive, as I rate his intelligence far more than it seems many of my fellow conservatives do. I think he figured he could change policy...but I don't think he honestly thought he was going to transform the way politicals in washington worked. I think much of the "change" message was just that, message. This view was cemented for me when he immedietely used loopholes to justify bringing in lobbyists to his administration within the first weeks....both going back on his campaign messages about using loopholes to justify action AND regarding lobbyists within his administration. That's when it became crystal clear to me that the majority of the "change from politics as usual" campaign rhetoric was rhetoric.

    That's not necessarily "good" or "bad". I think that's common with MOST presidential candidates. They message out and proclaim far more than they ever expect to actually uphold; it just bothers me more with Obama because, in part, that was a foundational part of his message which is a bit unlike most recent campaigns. That said, I do agree that most go in thinking that they're going to be able to try to follow through, to some degree, on their rhetoric even if they fully know they're not going to go to the full extent.

    At the end of the day, I truly believe most people who enter the White House as President do so for the right reasons. I don't think any of them are bad or evil people, just people who honestly think they can better the country they love.
    Agree completely here. I still don't think Obama is "evil" or some kind of "enemy". I laugh at the ridiculous "Stealth jihad" or "intentionally trying to cripple the country" non-sense. I don't think he, nor Bush, are evil or do what they do because they want the United States to be worse. I think they do what they honestly feel is right; I just think at times it's arguably as to what they think is "right" or "good" for the country actually IS or actually IS constitutional (as both sides have questioned both Presidents actions on those matters).

    But when you are, time and again, made out to be evil, the anti-christ, a king, or whatever other labels are heaped upon the President by the opposing party, you tend to get tired of trying to do it the way it should be done, and instead do it how you think it can get done.
    Yep, I agree. Doens't make it any less troubling in my mind when it happens.

    Was talking to someone over PM and it ticked why this bothers me such...

    In 2008 part of the counter argument for Obama's lack of experience was his credential as a Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. It was supposed to help buoy his dearth of experience and provide a response to his critics that he'd be out of his depth on matters of the executive. Coming off the Bush years, when liberals (and many libertarians) continually complained of Bush's actions as unconstitutional, someone with a firm understanding of the Constitution was pushed as a bonus for Barack Obama's appeal.

    So where with a normal politician, be it Bush or Clinton or Hillary if she won or whoever else, I expect them to have a passing knowledge of Constitutional law and to mildly have it in mind...with Obama I expected him to have a sound knowledge and something that was readily in mind with his actions. While I didn't expect to agree with him always on his interpritation, I at least expected it to be realitvely understandable.

    I can buy someone like a Bush or Hillary just not thinking about the constitutionality of this type of action, or simply having a wrong opinion on what its constitutionality is. I just can't square that in my head with a guy whose credentials, in part, was built on his time as a Constitutional Law Professor. It's kind of like how liberals always enjoy to toss out "hypocrite" when a Republican who campaigns on "family values" does something immoral or unethical. Well, when a guy who runs on "changing politics as usual" and on his experienc as a "constitutional law professor" it becomes a bigger issue when he does politics as usual and acts in a way that flies in the face of the constitution even when veiwed from a judicially liberal position.

    Which keeps me coming back to just willfully going "Meh" to the likely constitutional issue because he was frustrated, angry, impatient, whatever. And for some reason that doesn't sit well with me. I'm not one on the "impeach obama bandwagon" and unlikely to be (in large part because I just don't think it's politically viable) so I'm not suggesting that happen...but it doesn't sit well with me none the less. Hell, the FACT that I don't think action will or should really be taken against him is probalby part of WHY it doesn't sit well with me.

    I agere with you in that there's only so much BS a person can reasonably be expected to put up with...but I think that threshold is pretty high when it comes to the President and constitutional issues. And while I understand using the powers inherent within the constitutions checks and balances in a very obnoxious, but constitutional way, can be frustrating...it doesn't justify responding in a clearly unconstitutional fashion. Using loopholes within a system is frustrating....blowing your own hole through a system and going through it is inexecusable.

    Sorry, now I'm just kind of musing on the issue.

  5. #15
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    01-15-15 @ 03:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,578

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I think you're right that it was not intentionally unconstitutional and a ruling from the SCOTUS was probably needed. But I think as a Constitutional Lawyer he should have realized how the ruling would come down based only on who says the senate is in session, the senate or the President. Reid's nuclear option made it all moot anyway. I have a whole lot more problem with Reid and his nuclear option than with the president recess appointments as there was a very slim chance he just might prevail. With Reid's nuclear option the advise and consent of presidential appointments as required by the senate in the constitution has just become a paperwork drill if the senate is controlled by the same party as the president.
    Reid Nuclear option is narrow and set for judicial appointments, this case was NLRB. Apples and oranges. IN session means something, in law it was not clear if not working but opening and closing truly meant in session according to the Constitution that as you know means different things at different times despite what some people say.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,964

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    He might have. I don't really think he was quite that naive, as I rate his intelligence far more than it seems many of my fellow conservatives do. I think he figured he could change policy...but I don't think he honestly thought he was going to transform the way politicals in washington worked. I think much of the "change" message was just that, message.
    I agree the message was trumped up a bit, but I really do think he felt he could change how politics worked. I have seen him talk on more than one occasion where I get the genuine impression he's incredibly frustrated by politics, to the point where he legitimately laments the fact things are the way they are. I suspect he truly is disappointed he couldn't change the beast.

    Agree completely here. I still don't think Obama is "evil" or some kind of "enemy". I laugh at the ridiculous "Stealth jihad" or "intentionally trying to cripple the country" non-sense. I don't think he, nor Bush, are evil or do what they do because they want the United States to be worse. I think they do what they honestly feel is right; I just think at times it's arguably as to what they think is "right" or "good" for the country actually IS or actually IS constitutional (as both sides have questioned both Presidents actions on those matters).
    The fact is "what's constitutional" is not set in stone. I don't need to remind you of the many times "what's constitutional" has changed in our country's history. Furthermore, unlike others, I think it's quite obvious it's arguable as to what the best path forward is...if we KNEW the correct path, it would always be taken. But there really is no "correct" path, because our country is always changing.

    Yep, I agree. Doens't make it any less troubling in my mind when it happens.
    I think what troubles me more than anything is how power is being abused in Congress. Yes, Obama's actions were unanimously declared unconstitutional, but he only took those actions because Congress has essentially abused the trust placed in them. We HAVE to have Presidential appointments to executive positions. This is indisputable, at least it is to anyone who is realistic about the times we live in. But when one party controls enough of Congress to prohibit a substantial number of presidential appointments, for no better reason because they are the opposition party, then what they are saying is they place themselves over the good of the country.

    At the end of the day, the President can only do what's allowed within the law...but Congress basically IS the law. Congress has the power to make things happen, the President simply has to wait for them to happen. And when Congress refuses to do their job (and strangely enough, be proud of it), then that is far more troubling in my mind than when a President is trying to get done what needs to get done.

    I understand why it's worrisome for one man to try and skirt the very authority which is supposed to keep him in check. But, at the end of the day, Obama only did what he did because Congress wouldn't do what they should.

    I can buy someone like a Bush or Hillary just not thinking about the constitutionality of this type of action, or simply having a wrong opinion on what its constitutionality is. I just can't square that in my head with a guy whose credentials, in part, was built on his time as a Constitutional Law Professor.
    But I don't see this as "Obama unilaterally deciding to violate the Constitution". I see this as a situation where he is in constant contact with various lawyers to figure out how what he wants done can legally be done. It's akin to the old phrase "A man who has himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client". I'd be very surprised if any President simply decided to take action, without first consulting advisers.

    I agere with you in that there's only so much BS a person can reasonably be expected to put up with...but I think that threshold is pretty high when it comes to the President and constitutional issues.
    And I think every President puts up with more BS than they should. I think George W. Bush got off a little light in his first term because of 9/11 and how politically popular he was, but otherwise, I think Presidents are always having to put up with a ridiculous amount of nonsense.

    And that's why I defend Obama so much. A lot of people want to believe it's because I'm a Democrat/liberal, but it's not. It's because I have seen firsthand how much crap the person at the top has to deal with. I know decisions are made by the top executive with information the regular public doesn't have. And that's only based on knowing a school superintendent...I can't even begin to imagine how much crap and how much private information a President has to deal with.

    And while I understand using the powers inherent within the constitutions checks and balances in a very obnoxious, but constitutional way, can be frustrating...it doesn't justify responding in a clearly unconstitutional fashion. Using loopholes within a system is frustrating....blowing your own hole through a system and going through it is inexecusable.
    Is it though? Refer back to the age old question...is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family inexcusable?

    Obviously, appointing people is not the same as a life threatening situation, but the point is similar...at what point is blowing your own hole through the system which prohibits you from advancing necessary?

    Sorry, now I'm just kind of musing on the issue.
    Nothing wrong with that. I appreciate high quality discussion and wish it happened more often.

  7. #17
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Where is the option for no one being able to consistently pick how SCOTUS will rule? If doing something that is overturned by the courts is somehow ignorant and uncaring of the constitution, then every president fits that.

    This thread, outside of word count, is really beneath you. You are better than this kind of ****.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Sababa View Post
    Reid Nuclear option is narrow and set for judicial appointments, this case was NLRB. Apples and oranges. IN session means something, in law it was not clear if not working but opening and closing truly meant in session according to the Constitution that as you know means different things at different times despite what some people say.
    What you do not realize is once a precedent has been set it will be used again and again. On the pro forma session it was Reid who devised it and used it first to prevent Bush from making recess appointments,

    Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush | TheHill

    But regardless, I view things like this as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is good enough for the democrats to use, it is good enough for the republicans and vice versa.

    On Reid's Nuclear Option it applied to all presidential appointees excluding the SCOTUS and legislation. But Reid opened left the door wide open to include SCOTUS and legislation by invoking it. Precedence has been set and Reid did it. I have no doubt if the Republicans gain the presidency and the senate at sometime in the future, they won't hesitate to following the precedence set by senator Reid and you can thank Senator Reid for anything that follows.

    U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules

    using the nuclear option the 3 member of the NLRB has already been reappointed along with Susan Rice as NSC advisor.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  9. #19
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,125

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Which doesn't answer the question as to whether or not he thought his action was or wasn't likely constitutional, which is largely the basis of this question.

    If he, given his credentials, reasonably suspected it was likely unconstitutional but was upset that "congress wasn't actually doing any business" and wanted to get around it then fine...that would be the final option.

    If he, given his credentials, somehow DIDN'T suspect it was likely unconstitutional and was upset that "congress wasn't actually doing any business" and wanted to get around it then fine...that would be one of the first options.

    I don't deny at all that he was upset with what congress was doing and thus was attempting to get around that fact in some fashion. The question is more whether or not he had a good idea that his means of getting around it was constitutional or not.
    The Constitution allows for the President to make appointments when Congress is not in session. It all comes down to a legitimate question of what constitutes "in session." He lost, but the question needed to be answered. That's what he was doing. State his case and let the Supreme Court decide what a recess was.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  10. #20
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,125

    Re: Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    What you do not realize is once a precedent has been set it will be used again and again. On the pro forma session it was Reid who devised it and used it first to prevent Bush from making recess appointments,

    Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush | TheHill

    But regardless, I view things like this as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is good enough for the democrats to use, it is good enough for the republicans and vice versa.

    On Reid's Nuclear Option it applied to all presidential appointees excluding the SCOTUS and legislation. But Reid opened left the door wide open to include SCOTUS and legislation by invoking it. Precedence has been set and Reid did it. I have no doubt if the Republicans gain the presidency and the senate at sometime in the future, they won't hesitate to following the precedence set by senator Reid and you can thank Senator Reid for anything that follows.

    U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules

    using the nuclear option the 3 member of the NLRB has already been reappointed along with Susan Rice as NSC advisor.
    They will keep the nuclear option in place. Now that the "suing the President" has been unsheathed, bet on the Democrats using that sometime as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •