• 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

Deuce said:
Yes, and the president picked this fight because their being "in session" was a sham, and everybody knows it. I expected this outcome, but it was an issue that needed to be settled. Now we know: congress gets to pretend to be in session expressly to block a specific presidential power outlined in the constitution. The technicality matters more than the intention.
Click to expand...

So when these recess appointments were made by Obama, which party was in the majority in the Senate? Whom exactly controls the determination of when the Senate is in session and when it is in recess? I thought that would be Dingly Harry's call, wouldn't it?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Great stuff - especially that the court ruled unanimously.

I am neither rep nor dem, but Obama has been supremely arrogant (and dangerous, imo) in his apparent disregard for the Constitution/Congress whenever it suits him.

Good for the Supreme Court for clipping his wings - for now anyway.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

LowDown said:
The Senate has absolute authority over its own business. If they choose to remain in session to block the President then that is their prerogative. Advise and consent means that the Senate can obstruct appointments. The President does not have the authority to rule parts of the Constitution "technicalities" and unilaterally dispense with them. That would be highly illegal, a matter for impeachment in fact. But that's what he did in this case.
Click to expand...

And when the same trick is used on YOUR guy?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Sababa said:
it is funny SCOTUS ruled correctly but the Senate was acting in bad faith. The do nothing Congress is just something you can get until we change the Constitution or the way we elect them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, bet you can't wait until King Barack, Queen Michelle and little Princesses Malia and Sasha are ensconced on the American throne.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Montecresto said:
That this is a trend in the office of the presidency that must be stopped, not just a democratic leadership problem. Good on the SCOTUS they're on a roll.
Click to expand...

And Monte, you of all people should know that I didn't give Bush a break on this either, and that I in no way above said that Obama was the first or only President to pee on the Constitution. However, Obama has taken it to true art where most of the others were minor league in comparison.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Beaudreaux said:
Did I say otherwise?
Click to expand...

In the OP, you clearly painted this as an Obama problem.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

tres borrachos said:
SCOTUS are busy little beavers before they head off on their summer vacations, ain't they?

I got that on my breaking news notification this morning. I think what amazes me most isn't HOW they ruled, it's that it is one of the few times in recent memory that a "controversial" ruling was completely unanimous.
Click to expand...

9-0 shouts loudly.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

tres borrachos said:
Apparently not. I've seen Bush mentioned more times on this board this morning than he was probably mentioned on June 26, 2006. Hell, they are all even yakking about Reagan all over this board.

It's the weakest argument that anyone can make, and the fact that some are repeatedly and for no reason mentioning Bush seems to indicate they also know that Obama is a failure, but they just can't bring themselves to say it.
Click to expand...

It is like there is some mass delusion that if Bush had never held office this would be a zippety do dah world right now. There were wars and terrorism long before Bush was ever on this earth. And the Obama llamas simply ignore the fact that Obama came in like gangbusters telling the country that he had all the answers. So, why hasn't he fixed everything? Could his islamic connections, his upbringing in a socialist environment, or his education in a communist school have anything to do with it? Nah, couldn't be any of that. It's all Bush's fault. :roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

MasterLiberty said:
Presidential Authority is limited MORE than any other Authority in the constitution, and rightfully so because the President is One man and could make decisions that have a huge impact on the country if given TOO MUCH power, which is why a MAJORITY of constitutional power rests with the legislature (as it is made up of a multitude of people and is split against itself given the bicameral legislative system we have.

The effect of congress blocking an appointment via a "sham" session is far less than that of a president make a "snap recess appointment" with what you are suggesting the president could appoint people while members of congress are "sleeping for a night" etc etc... the point is that the potential for ABUSE which effects america negatively rests with the Executive, not with the Legislature.

Also I already pointed out that presidents were given the power to make "recess appointments" because there were times in the 1800s where congress would be out of session for MONTHS or even a YEAR at a time (Senators and Reps would have to travel slowly by Horse or Train which would take WEEKS or MONTHS to reach DC depending on where they are coming from.) The point is that these "recess appointments" violate the spirit of the law in regards to WHY the president was given the power in the first place.
Click to expand...


And given the long and bloody history of despots he held absolute power over their subjects, it should be! We didn't come here to escape feudalism only to allow a feudal king to take over.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

ecofarm said:
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?
Click to expand...

The crucial difference is that when Bush made those appointments the Senate had actually declared itself in recess, unlike the appointments Obama made. Obama said that the Senate was in recess in order to make those appointments even though the Senate declared itself to be in session. SCOTUS said that the President doesn't get to tell the Senate when they are in recess. The Senate has absolute authority over Senate business, according to separation of powers, and the President may not abridge that authority.

The argument against Bush's appointments back then was that recess appointments are an obsolete feature of the constitution that shouldn't be used (if it's inconvenient to liberals). In modern times recesses are much shorter because of modern travel so any delay in confirmation is inconsequential unlike the long delays that used to take place. But the constitution itself makes no distinction concerning the length of a recess in deciding whether recess appointments can be used.

The issue was so crystal clear that even Obama's own appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, voted with the majority. I don't know why left wingers are having such a hard time understanding it.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

ecofarm said:
In the OP, you clearly painted this as an Obama problem.
Click to expand...

Obama is President and he's the one that did what was challenged in the case, not Bush, or Reagan, or Hoover, or even Ulysses S. Grant. I know that may upset some, but it's a fact.

Also, my reference was to more than just Recess Appointments when the Senate was not really in recess, but was regarding ALL the "sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda." Which if you sincerely read my OP, you'll read exactly that, and not what you interpreted that I meant. Clearly painted??? I said exactly what I meant to say, and didn't paint, shade, infer, imply, hint, entail, connote, presuppose or anything of the like.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

LowDown said:
The crucial difference is that when Bush made those appointments the Senate had actually declared itself in recess, unlike the appointments Obama made. Obama said that the Senate was in recess in order to make those appointments even though the Senate declared itself to be in session. SCOTUS said that the President doesn't get to tell the Senate when they are in recess. The Senate has absolute authority over Senate business, according to separation of powers, and the President may not abridge that authority.

The argument against Bush's appointments back then was that recess appointments are an obsolete feature of the constitution that shouldn't be used (if it's inconvenient to liberals). In modern times recesses are much shorter because of modern travel so any delay in confirmation is inconsequential unlike the long delays that used to take place. But the constitution itself makes no distinction concerning the length of a recess in deciding whether recess appointments can be used.

The issue was so crystal clear that even Obama's own appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, voted with the majority. I don't know why left wingers are having such a hard time understanding it.
Click to expand...

If the only argument someone has is 'bu....bu......bu.....Bush' he/she has no argument.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

CanadaJohn said:
Yeah, bet you can't wait until King Barack, Queen Michelle and little Princesses Malia and Sasha are ensconced on the American throne.
Click to expand...

again the facts make the right wing go crazy.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Deuce said:
Yes, and the way congress did that was having a guy gavel in and then gavel out to pretend they were still in session when they aren't actually doing anything legislative.

I get that hey were technically still in session. My objection is that they were exploiting a technicality with the sole purpose of blocking an otherwise-lawful use of presidential authority.

The purpose of recess appointments is to ensure that key government positions don't sit empty at the expense of the American people, whether through logistical difficulties or congress being deliberately obstructionist.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Obstructing this President is a GOOD thing. Having his appointees in charge is NOT a good thing for the American people. The Constitution never presumes that the President should always get what he wants. It's a system of checks and balances, and so sometimes he's obstructed. It's a feature, not a bug. In fact, most of the time during the normal course of things principle actors in Washington find themselves idle and unable to follow their policy because of this or that check in the system. It's when everyone in government is moving in the same direction that our freedoms are most in peril.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Beaudreaux said:
Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power



In my opinion, this is just the beginning of Obama being taken to task for sidestepping Congress and stepping over and/or on the Constitution by redefining the power of the Executive Branch to meet his political agenda.

The Constitution matters. And, to put it bluntly, if it ain't in there it ain't legal.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but as I type this, he's trying to legalize 50,000+ illegal immigrants.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

ecofarm said:
If this is true of Obama:

Then the same is true of Bush. Had had just as many or more recess appointments to the NLRB.
Click to expand...

Did you actually research this case at all?

This wasn't about "recess appointments" themselves being legal or not. It was whether or not the President could simply declare that the Congress was in recess when the Congress itself declared that it was not.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Deuce said:
I get that hey were technically still in session.
Click to expand...

And thus it was unconstitutional. Everything else is just quibbling. You can complain about the method congress technically stayed in session; that's legitimate. But Obama disliking that they were using a "loophole" as you describe it doesn't give him the ability to violate the constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Sababa said:
it is funny SCOTUS ruled correctly but the Senate was acting in bad faith. The do nothing Congress is just something you can get until we change the Constitution or the way we elect them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Deuce said:
Yes, and the president picked this fight because their being "in session" was a sham, and everybody knows it.
Click to expand...

Apparently "everybody" isn't the SCOTUS. Because per their decision them being "in session" wasn't a sham, it was fact.

It may've been in name only, it may've been on a technically, but it was GENUINELY "in session" as it relates to the relevance of recess apppointments.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Zyphlin said:
Did you actually research this case at all?

This wasn't about "recess appointments" themselves being legal or not. It was whether or not the President could simply declare that the Congress was in recess when the Congress itself declared that it was not.
Click to expand...

Clearly that was too much, but let's not pretend that previous presidents (including republicans) have not made extensive use of recess appointments to the NLRB (circumventing procedure), even after congress stopped using the horse and carriage.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Sababa said:
again the facts make the right wing go crazy.
Click to expand...

The only complaining I'm reading in this thread is coming from the left wing, so what facts would that be? That Obama broke the law? That Obama acted in contradiction to the Constitution? Because that's what ALL NINE Justices concluded. Even the two appointed by Obama.

He isn't the first President to do so (although he is the first to declare the Senate in recess). But, in regard to "Recess Appointments" he will be the last.

This case is just the beginning of the multiple cases demanding that the Executive Branch, regardless of which party holds it, comply with and stay within the restrictive powers of the Constitution. And that, I am glad to finally see coming to pass.

The US House of Representatives is where the power of the people the power of the purse and legislative power resides. The Senate has restrictive powers over the Executive through "Advise and Consent" as well as legislative power as well.

The Executive Branch has been grabbing more and more power over the last 100 years; however, Obama has taken it to an all new extreme with legislating by royal fiat (executive orders that legislate new law or nullify existing law). I'm not talking about his other EO's, just the ones I referred to in the previous sentence.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

KevinKohler said:
And when the same trick is used on YOUR guy?
Click to expand...

No President has ever declared the Senate to be in recess against the Senate's wishes to appoint someone before, and if a Republican does it then it will be just as wrong or worse.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Sababa said:
again the facts make the right wing go crazy.
Click to expand...

In this case, the facts make the right wing applaud. The left being crazy is a given.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

US Conservative said:
Agreed, but as I type this, he's trying to legalize 50,000+ illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

And, the lawsuit by the US House should take care of that. He doesn't have that Constitutional power either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom