• 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!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

We asked the same of the last absurd rant, but how about a link ?

A link showing what? That the Republicans are trying to block everything? Obviously you're aware of that, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.
 
Trouble is, his "balls" are between his ears. In many parts, we just call that being stupid. Or arrogant. They are close cousins.
The facts are that Obama has used recess appointments fewer that recent presidents.

recess-graph.png
 
The facts are that Obama has used recess appointments fewer that recent presidents.

recess-graph.png

Which is fine, but it is not about "Recess Appointments". It is about violating the Recess Rule of the Senate, a rule Obama not only supported, but which his own DoJ argued before the SCOTUS.

Now, I will enlighten you Grasshopper. Obama is the only President on the chart that had a super-majority in the Senate for any time at all. And he had it for two years.

Do you understand how that matters with appointments ?

No charge. You owe me when I show some ignorance, and you are in a position to help me, is all.
 
Which is fine, but it is not about "Recess Appointments". It is about violating the Recess Rule of the Senate, a rule Obama not only supported, but which his own DoJ argued before the SCOTUS.

Now, I will enlighten you Grasshopper. Obama is the only President on the chart that had a super-majority in the Senate for any time at all. And he had it for two years.

Do you understand how that matters with appointments ?

No charge. You owe me when I show some ignorance, and you are in a position to help me, is all.

You are trying to split hairs because Obama is doing basically the exact same thing you had no problem with when conservative presidents did it. You don't want recess appointments, then stop playing politics with the process. If you play politics with the process, I don't want to hear crying about things like this.
 
You are trying to split hairs because Obama is doing basically the exact same thing you had no problem with when conservative presidents did it. You don't want recess appointments, then stop playing politics with the process. If you play politics with the process, I don't want to hear crying about things like this.

Bullchit. Show me where Conservatives pulled this stunt with ignoring the 3-day gavel rule ?

If you don't want to hear it, then put your hands over your ears for chrissakes. Otherwise, I cannot help it that you can't handle the truth.
 
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

US Constitution, Article 2, section 2, clause 3.

Period.
 
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

US Constitution, Article 2, section 2, clause 3.

Period.

Yet, by Obama's own argument, the Senate was not in Recess. ;) And by his own DoJ argument. And by Harry Reid four years ago.

Need I go on ?

"Comma" :)
 
You are trying to split hairs because Obama is doing basically the exact same thing you had no problem with when conservative presidents did it. You don't want recess appointments, then stop playing politics with the process. If you play politics with the process, I don't want to hear crying about things like this.

Dang, Redress, you go! I've plopped a fat "like" next to nearly every one of your posts in this thread, and still want to give you another "attaboy". These partisian whinefests are absolutely nauseating. I've read this same thread at least ten times in the past ten years on political forums, and the only thing that changes is the party of the whiners. When it's a GOP prez, the whiners are all Democrats and the Repubs are chortling, "It's all good!" Now a Democrat prez is doing it, the whiners are all republicans, and the Democrats are chortling, "It's all good!"

If this country doesn't use the toilet paper necessary to wipe up the partisian **** stain that is our "government", we're going to implode completely into a partisian civil war... with real damned guns. Nobody in government cares about this country or its people. They only care about and answer to their holy grail, "The Party." Now what country does THAT remind us of, hmmm?
 
Yet, by Obama's own argument, the Senate was not in Recess. ;) And by his own DoJ argument. And by Harry Reid four years ago.

Need I go on ?

"Comma" :)

You're confusing two different things. The DOJ said that the recess has to be longer than three days- meaning no three day weekend recess appointments. What the senate is trying to do is not take a recess at all to prevent Obama from ever using the power granted to him by the constitution. That's a whole different ball of wax, and the constitution clearly sides with Obama on that. Procedural rules and tricks of the senate do not overrule the US constitution, and courts do not interpret the constitution as a mere technicality to be circumvented with clever wording.
 
Yes, as have many Presidents. There is a time when Recess appointments are valid, and fullly in compliance with both the law, and intent, of the Founders.

The point is, the Senate is not now in "Recess". Obama made a deliberate choice ot not work with teh Senate when he could. So the Senate chose to not be in Recess. And the specific law that created this job said that the Director must be approved by the Senate.

In order to not be in recess, pro-forma sessions must be held each and every day, while Congress is on vacation. Was one held the day Obama made his recess appointment? If not, then the Senate was in recess.
 
Recess appointments are overused by just about every administration. Bush sure overdid it. They should only be used when there is a clear and present need and the senate cannot be convened for over a week in the future. Additionally, they should only last 3 months from the next time senate gavels IN session. There is a reason seats require a confirmation process.

I'm not happy with this use of it, but that is largely because I'm not a fan of it in general.
 
The Senate has followed the proper protocols. Protocols that Obama's own Justice Department argued for. These protocols compel a President to act with the advice and consent of Congress. Such advice and consent Obama has shunned. Now Obama has taken a further unprecedented step to take power from the Legislative. The community organizer needs to be shown the door.
As usual, Obama has no respect for the separation of powers. Why aren’t the democrats going ballistic over this? What was it the democrats hated about Bush again?
 
Recess appointments are overused by just about every administration.

I disagree. Those positions are meant to be filled. If the senate refuses to allow them to be filled, regardless of who is in the white house, the senate failed. Often times they won't even hold a hearing on a nominee at all. They'll let the entire session timeout leaving the position vacant without even having considered one nominee for it. That should never happen. They should be scheduling hearings within, at the very most, 2 weeks of the time the president nominates someone. If they reject a nominee- which should be a very rare occurrence- they should give very clear guidance on exactly why they did and what sort of nominee they would accept. What is happening currently is that they are just rejecting virtually every nominee, or refusing to hold hearings at all. IMO recess appointments are working as intended as a check against that.

And, honestly, I think that's more or less how the senate likes it. Approving a nominee is a tricky thing politically. They never can really gain from it. The only thing that can happen to them is that they lose points if they approve somebody and then it turns out later that they have some skeleton in their closet or something. So, IMO they'd rather just ignore the process and let them all timeout so the president alone has political accountability for the appointees. Which seems to be pretty much what they're doing.
 
As usual, Obama has no respect for the separation of powers

What the heck... The separation of powers!? The constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments explicitly. That is an executive power. It is the senate trying to take over that power with this "never officially declare recess" scheme...
 
Recess appointments are overused by just about every administration. Bush sure overdid it. They should only be used when there is a clear and present need and the senate cannot be convened for over a week in the future. Additionally, they should only last 3 months from the next time senate gavels IN session. There is a reason seats require a confirmation process.

I'm not happy with this use of it, but that is largely because I'm not a fan of it in general.

I disagree. If the president has the power to nominate, then congress better have a ****ing good reason to not pass it. This is true for a democratic president and republican congress, or for a republican president and democratic congress. We, the people of this country, deserve to have the positions that work for us filled.
 
I disagree. Those positions are meant to be filled. If the senate refuses to allow them to be filled, regardless of who is in the white house, the senate failed. Often times they won't even hold a hearing on a nominee at all. They'll let the entire session timeout leaving the position vacant without even having considered one nominee for it. That should never happen. They should be scheduling hearings within, at the very most, 2 weeks of the time the president nominates someone. If they reject a nominee- which should be a very rare occurrence- they should give very clear guidance on exactly why they did and what sort of nominee they would accept. What is happening currently is that they are just rejecting virtually every nominee, or refusing to hold hearings at all. IMO recess appointments are working as intended as a check against that.

And, honestly, I think that's more or less how the senate likes it. Approving a nominee is a tricky thing politically. They never can really gain from it. The only thing that can happen to them is that they lose points if they approve somebody and then it turns out later that they have some skeleton in their closet or something. So, IMO they'd rather just ignore the process and let them all timeout so the president alone has political accountability for the appointees. Which seems to be pretty much what they're doing.

I would argue that it's then time to introduce a bill to force them to hold hearings. Heck, the senate is ignoring a ton of bills right now because it doesn't politically suit them to put them up to vote or even admit they exist. Maybe it's time that actions such as confirmations, bill debate/voting, etc get a deadline. It doesn't mean that it is okay for every president to just start waiting for the gavel so they can shove through their picks. The original intention of recess appointments was to cover positions when long holidays were in or an outgoing senate was out of session.
 
I disagree. If the president has the power to nominate, then congress better have a ****ing good reason to not pass it. This is true for a democratic president and republican congress, or for a republican president and democratic congress. We, the people of this country, deserve to have the positions that work for us filled.

I don't think the seats should sit empty (see previous post). I just think this is the wrong way to fix it. And that goes for any party, as well. Senate/House should not be able to ignore things that need doing.
 
I would argue that it's then time to introduce a bill to force them to hold hearings. Heck, the senate is ignoring a ton of bills right now because it doesn't politically suit them to put them up to vote or even admit they exist. Maybe it's time that actions such as confirmations, bill debate/voting, etc get a deadline.

Yeah I'd be on board with that.

The original intention of recess appointments was to cover positions when long holidays were in or an outgoing senate was out of session.

That's true. That was what the founders envisioned to be the problem- openings coming up during holidays. They figured it would be too big of a disaster to allow an entire agency of the executive branch, for example, to go without having a head even for a month or two, so they needed to allow the executive to fill those positions to get us through the interim. What we have happening now is a radically bigger version of the same problem. We have key positions in some cases that have been vacant now for multiple sessions of Congress because the senate refuses to allow them to be filed. There are federal judges who have been waiting for more than 2 years just to get a hearing, and the federal court system is basically in crisis because of how short handed they are as a result. Lots of cases now take 6+ months just to get a ruling on a simple motion. It's breaking the ability of government to function. So, long story short, I think this isn't how the founders envisioned the problem arising- I think they assumed no Senate would do something so foolish frankly- but it is the problem that they aimed to solve with the recession appointments clause- the problem of government agencies lacking people in key positions.
 
I disagree. If the president has the power to nominate, then congress better have a ****ing good reason to not pass it. This is true for a democratic president and republican congress, or for a republican president and democratic congress. We, the people of this country, deserve to have the positions that work for us filled.

They did. The GOP made it abundantly clear as to what the issues were. Do you even know ?

But Obama wanted to play politics, using one political maneuver to bypass the system of advise and consent. So the Senate GOP used another maneuver, which even Obama himself had earlier supported. A maneuver that says "No, this is too important. No gimmicks. We have to negotiate this". And what does Obama do ? He ignores the process. Violates what he had already said needed to be honored.

The country is worse for this. What a jackass you folks voted into office.
 
Yeah I'd be on board with that.



That's true. That was what the founders envisioned to be the problem- openings coming up during holidays. They figured it would be too big of a disaster to allow an entire agency of the executive branch, for example, to go without having a head even for a month or two, so they needed to allow the executive to fill those positions to get us through the interim. What we have happening now is a radically bigger version of the same problem. We have key positions in some cases that have been vacant now for multiple sessions of Congress because the senate refuses to allow them to be filed. There are federal judges who have been waiting for more than 2 years just to get a hearing, and the federal court system is basically in crisis because of how short handed they are as a result. Lots of cases now take 6+ months just to get a ruling on a simple motion. It's breaking the ability of government to function. So, long story short, I think this isn't how the founders envisioned the problem arising- I think they assumed no Senate would do something so foolish frankly- but it is the problem that they aimed to solve with the recession appointments clause- the problem of government agencies lacking people in key positions.

I agree with almost all of this. I still hold that recess appointments are a poor fix (at the very least because it's inadequate). Hell, I'd even be fine with the President making a ton of them for every empty seat ... as long as it's followed within 30-60 days by a bill trying to address the root cause.
 
are you ****ing kidding me????

the GOP in Congress has admitted to filibustering every God-damned bill proposed or supported by Obama, for the simple purpose of winning the 2012 election and you are complaining about Obama choosing politics????
give me a break!!

Wow, if this were the case then how is it that Obama was able to sign ALL of these bills?

Signed Legislation

That's 19 bills signed just in December 2011.
 
They did. The GOP made it abundantly clear as to what the issues were. Do you even know ?

But Obama wanted to play politics, using one political maneuver to bypass the system of advise and consent. So the Senate GOP used another maneuver, which even Obama himself had earlier supported. A maneuver that says "No, this is too important. No gimmicks. We have to negotiate this". And what does Obama do ? He ignores the process. Violates what he had already said needed to be honored.

The country is worse for this. What a jackass you folks voted into office.

Yes, they did not like his politics. Which is irelevant. There is a certain amount of power that comes from being president. Deal with it.
 
I agree with almost all of this. I still hold that recess appointments are a poor fix (at the very least because it's inadequate). Hell, I'd even be fine with the President making a ton of them for every empty seat ... as long as it's followed within 30-60 days by a bill trying to address the root cause.

I think what I would go for was a rule that the senate has 30 days to reject a nominee, and if they do nothing, that is implied consent.
 
I think what I would go for was a rule that the senate has 30 days to reject a nominee, and if they do nothing, that is implied consent.

Heck, I'd even take it a step further in that the president gets to appoint freely and they have 30-60 days (depending on timing) to veto it by vote. At least both have the power there.
 
I think what I would go for was a rule that the senate has 30 days to reject a nominee, and if they do nothing, that is implied consent.

Heck, I'd even take it a step further in that the president gets to appoint freely and they have 30-60 days (depending on timing) to veto it by vote. At least both have the power there.

And in both cases all that it takes for the peoples voice to not be heard is a filibuster.

How about we instead find a way to force these people to actually work together that will give neither side an advantage?
 
Back
Top Bottom