• 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.

and the Republicans are abusing their power & playing games with the Senate.


how are they "abusing" their power any differently than harry reid did when he first contrived this practice during the dicknbush regime?
 
From senate.gov

pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.


Which, based on their own definition, is required since they aren't on formal recess.

Hell, its a published schedule for every three days.( again, senate.gov ).

FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012

The Senate will convene at 11:00 AM and will conduct a Pro Forma Session.

The Senate will then conduct Pro Forma Sessions on the following dates:
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM.
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM.
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 2:00 PM.

The Senate will next convene for business on Monday, January 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM. There will be in a period of Morning Business for two hours. At 4:00 PM, the Senate will proceed to an Executive Session to consider the nomination of Cal. #438 (John Gerrard to United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska). There will 90 minutes of debate on the nomination followed by a vote on confirmation at 5:30 PM. On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM, the Senate will have a cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed to S. 968 ( Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011).


Looks like his only window to try this would have been Jan. 17 from 12:01 am to 10:15 am. So why now? Is he intentionally picking a fight to use politically?

j-mac
 
Well, I am absolutely shocked that the Washington Post Editorial Board is defending Obama, and pushing his agenda openly...:shock::doh

Or that they use Republican progressives from the Bush administration to in a weak assed attempt to justify their UNConstitutional move.

Bradbury and Elwood can, and did that during Bush, but Bush decided to uphold his oath and preserve the Constitution and NOT do it.

This really shows what libs think of our Constitution.


j-mac

Agreed. We saw it with OWS. We see it now. The "Law be Damned" if it stands between a lib and getting something at the expense of others.
 
The Dems blocked Bush in the same way. In fact, they used the 3-day gavel process on occasion. Look it up.

Try some links next time as well.

You're correct in that the Democrats used the 3 day gavel process on one occassion. That being the nomination of John Bolton to be UN ambassador. Bush gave Bolton a recess appointment and Bolton proceeded to live right down to everyone's worst expectations.

I won't argue that Obama is constitutionally correct on this. I suspect he knows as much about that as any of his advisors and critics. But he'll win the optics. Because the GOP will be forced to go to court to block a nominee and stymie the operation of an agency the public overwhelmingly supports.
 
Looks like his only window to try this would have been Jan. 17 from 12:01 am to 10:15 am. So why now? Is he intentionally picking a fight to use politically?

j-mac

he has 220 other openings to be filled. that window of opportunity might be prime time to do it
 
Recess Appointments, when done to deny the ability of the Senate to Advise and Consent, are gimmicks already for chrissakes. :roll:

It is Obama who avoided negotiating with the Senate.

No, it's Obama going around the GOP's attempt to hold his nominee hostage in order to re fight a battle they lost in the Senate already.

The Senate passed the bill that created the Consumer Protection Agency. Obama didn't have to go around it at all.

The GOP is holding the nominee hostage in order to try and renegotiate the deal. And Obama's just snared them in their own trap (again).
 
You're correct in that the Democrats used the 3 day gavel process on one occassion. That being the nomination of John Bolton to be UN ambassador. Bush gave Bolton a recess appointment and Bolton proceeded to live right down to everyone's worst expectations.

I won't argue that Obama is constitutionally correct on this. I suspect he knows as much about that as any of his advisors and critics. But he'll win the optics. Because the GOP will be forced to go to court to block a nominee and stymie the operation of an agency the public overwhelmingly supports.

pro forma sessions have been held as far back as Thomas.gov supports searches( 1989 ). They are a normal occurrence to satisfy the three-day Constitutional rule.
 
No, it's Obama going around the GOP's attempt to hold his nominee hostage in order to re fight a battle they lost in the Senate already.

The Senate passed the bill that created the Consumer Protection Agency. Obama didn't have to go around it at all.

The GOP is holding the nominee hostage in order to try and renegotiate the deal. And Obama's just snared them in their own trap (again).

No, they aren't holding the nominee hostage. They don't want ANY director for this new agency, whatsoever. They have no intention of approving anyone, even if its Jesus Christ in the flesh.
 
you appear to believe that the GOP bears no responsibility for this mess.

but what about the responsibility of the democrats when they came together with demo senate majority leader harry reid as he concocted this same practice to thwart dubya's ability to make recess appointments which could not get thru the congress
 
You're correct in that the Democrats used the 3 day gavel process on one occassion. That being the nomination of John Bolton to be UN ambassador. Bush gave Bolton a recess appointment and Bolton proceeded to live right down to everyone's worst expectations.

I won't argue that Obama is constitutionally correct on this. I suspect he knows as much about that as any of his advisors and critics. But he'll win the optics. Because the GOP will be forced to go to court to block a nominee and stymie the operation of an agency the public overwhelmingly supports.

Bolton was not appointed during a 3-day gavel session. Further, reviews on Bolton's term were good.

Whether the GOP pursues this in Court remains to be seen. They will not make it a primary election issue though, as it will not resonate with most voters. Obama, on the other hand, did this solely to try to blame Congress for his failures. He's an inept clown, "but its someone else's fault". He is pure scumbag.
 
he has 220 other openings to be filled. that window of opportunity might be prime time to do it

Indeed, if Obama really wanted to blow this thing up he could have recess appointed all of them, as Teddy Roosevelt did many years ago. But instead he just made the four appointments that he judged absolutely necessary to the proper administration of government.
 
he has 220 other openings to be filled. that window of opportunity might be prime time to do it


So, then Obama sees himself as a King or something eh, forget the Constitution right bubba? As long as it is Obama eh?

Good thing this isn't a repub....I suspect that the sentiments would be far different...Hell, Conyers may clean out that broom closet in the basement to hold more faux hearings....heh, heh....


j-mac
 
Bolton was not appointed during a 3-day gavel session. Further, reviews on Bolton's term were good.

Democrats opposed Bolton because of Bolton -- not because they objected to the UN. His service was an embarrassment to the United States.
 
No, it's Obama going around the GOP's attempt to hold his nominee hostage in order to re fight a battle they lost in the Senate already.

The Senate passed the bill that created the Consumer Protection Agency. Obama didn't have to go around it at all.

The GOP is holding the nominee hostage in order to try and renegotiate the deal. And Obama's just snared them in their own trap (again).

Obama did it because he is a massive fail. He has the lowest approvals of any President at this point in their first term. His hallmark legislation, Obamacare, is going down in flames. Debt out the whazoo. So its "Blame the rich. Blame Congress. It wasn't me who farted."

Massive fail.
 
So, then Obama sees himself as a King or something eh, forget the Constitution right bubba? As long as it is Obama eh?

Good thing this isn't a repub....I suspect that the sentiments would be far different...Hell, Conyers may clean out that broom closet in the basement to hold more faux hearings....heh, heh....


j-mac

Again, show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress has the right to filibuster a nominee. Then show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress can filibuster a nominee when they aren't even in session.
 
Indeed, if Obama really wanted to blow this thing up he could have recess appointed all of them, as Teddy Roosevelt did many years ago. But instead he just made the four appointments that he judged absolutely necessary to the proper administration of government.

Roosevelt did not violate a pro-forma session.
 
Obama did it because he is a massive fail. He has the lowest approvals of any President at this point in their first term. His hallmark legislation, Obamacare, is going down in flames.....


wait....the Supreme Court has already ruled on the Constitutionality of the mandate?

what are you talking about?
 
Again, show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress has the right to filibuster a nominee. Then show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress can filibuster a nominee when they aren't even in session.

Look yourself, or be a lazy lib. The Constitution empowers Congress to make its own rules by which it conducts business.
 
Bolton was not appointed during a 3-day gavel session. Further, reviews on Bolton's term were good.

Whether the GOP pursues this in Court remains to be seen. They will not make it a primary election issue though, as it will not resonate with most voters. Obama, on the other hand, did this solely to try to blame Congress for his failures. He's an inept clown, "but its someone else's fault". He is pure scumbag.

that is beyond laughable
if you want to know why, start a thread on it and i will join you there
 
Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Nope. The issue with the czars was that they were not confirmed by the Senate. This is simply the GOP not liking a Consumer Protection board and trying to do an end run to gut it.

Kind of a weasly thing.

Politely disagree...


With which part, C?
 
Obama did it because he is a massive fail. He has the lowest approvals of any President at this point in their first term. His hallmark legislation, Obamacare, is going down in flames. Debt out the whazoo. So its "Blame the rich. Blame Congress. It wasn't me who farted."

Massive fail.

Take off the wingnut goggles. Truman's approval rating was lower at the same point in his first term. Obamacare is not going to be repealed. He is dealing with the historic clusterfeck that the Republicans oozed on his doorstep as well as anyone could.
 
Look yourself, or be a lazy lib. The Constitution empowers Congress to make its own rules by which it conducts business.

It does not empower Congress to alter reality. If all but one of your members are out of town and you cannot conduct business, you are in recess.
 
If Boehner or somebody wants to take it to court they're free to, but I can tell you right now, the court will say it's ok. The clear purpose of the recess appointments clause it to enable the president to ensure that vacancies in key positions get filled promptly to avoid disrupting the government's ability to function. That is exactly what it is being used for and the courts won't let some technicality the legislature cooked up trump the clear intention of the constitution. The advice and consent requirement is there to make sure that the legislature gets input into the process, not as a level they can use to try to disable the federal government.


Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Except I'm not certain how the courts would rule. I think you've got it right, and Bush's former lawyers issued an opinion in 2010 saying the same, but .... who knows! That is what is fascinating to me. Will the gimmick win out, or the substance win out?
 
A few questions for all of you whining about the Republicans gaming the rules...why didnt Harry Reid bang the gavel and present the topic of the appointee for debate? You dont need cloture to debate a topic, only to close it. If this guy wasnt going to pass Senate approval, why didnt Obama present someone else? Yes the I agree the President can nominate anyone he wants, but if he knows the person in question isnt going pass, hes wasting his time and the Senate's.

So...why not?


Something else I dont understand, for some 18months, treasury had tons of openings, but no takers. How is this appointment suddenly so important that Obama couldnt at least TRY the nomination process before going all out?

Re-election...thats why.


Because the GOP has stated that they will not allow a vote for ANYONE to the post. They're trying to kill via filibuster an agency that that was lawfully created.
 
Back
Top Bottom