- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,411
- Reaction score
- 2,228
- Location
- In a Blue State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power
/end thread
/end thread
Is my point. Both gamed the system.
The issue is that the Congress determines when it is in recess. With the Obama appointments he decided to declare Congress in recess when they weren't and then make appointments.
Agreed, the court showed true political neutrality in the dolling out of this decision. They understand that "recess appointments" were allowed earlier in the constitution due to the EXTENDED and LONG periods of time that congress could be out of session (Sometimes MONTHS or a Year at a time) since back then senators didn't have private jets etc.... they had a horse and carraige and for some of the far western reps the trip was quite long indeed. (Imagine trying to get from California to DC in just a horse and carraige, or even a train back then).
No, it isn't a matter of "gaming the system". Obama declared that Congress was in recess even though it wasn't. That is violating the system, not gaming it.
I think the issue is bigger than Obama, but I will not discuss such further as that's not the topic.
You seem to have a problem with what is on topic. This topic is about the actions of Obama, and the SCOTUS determination that it was unconstitutional.
You have tried to shoehorn in a bogus comparison so that you don't have to discuss the actual topic and refuse to discuss the actual topic if you aren't allowed to make bogus comparisons.
Just to be clear the court did not make recess appointments today unconstitutional, the court said that the Congress was not in recess when Obama made the appointments.
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?
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.
Moderator's Warning: |
In case the rest of you missed it...that warning in Post# 74 includes everyone else also. All warnings, even directed ones such as what happened in post# 74 applies to everyone else also. So keep this in mind. This is the last warning I will give on this before starting to boot people for violating it. |
Have Obama or any of his staff weighed in on this yet?
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.
The replacement for jay carney said they are studying it. What I want to know is what this ruling does to all the FLRB made while these illegal members were apart of it. You hear anything?
But did not circumvent RECESS APPOINTMENT PROCESSES...he circumvented the normal appointment process BY recess appointing people during times when the congress was in recess. Something that has been done for decades.
That is ENTIRELY UNLIKE Obama who circumvented not only the normal appointment process, but the recess appointment process as well, by declaring congress in recess when it was not in recess.
No, they are not alike. One was a long standing constitutional action that has been perpetrated by multiple presidents (including Obama) and is routinely not challenged any longer in court.
One was an unprecedented instance circumventing all previous standing by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH declaring that Congress was in recess and taking action based on that declaration, despite congresses assertion of ITS OWN STATUS as being "in session".
I haven't had a chance to watch any of the propoganda sessions today but I will. Thanks for letting me know!
Personally I do not think there is anything to study. It is quite clear their appointments were illegal or unconstitutional. But what about all the rulings since their appointments, especially the ones in where they were the deciding votes?
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.
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.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063453514 said:Think this SCOTUS decision will affect Bush or Obama? :lamo
There were two changes under Obama. The first was the Senate refused to ever go in recess, and appointed someone to show up each day for a couple of minutes to keep it in recess so that Obama could NOT do what Presidents had done forever, which was make recess appointments.
When that happened, and the GOP essentially promised to not approve anyone for the NLRB, Obama took another step to treat the 'sessions' as a sham.
It affects Obama. What would be justice is to see the Democrats hold onto the Senate, blow up the filibuster of nominees with a simple rule change, and then watch Obama jam through a few hundred judicial and executive branch nominees with GOPers sitting around powerless to do anything about it because they decided to abuse the process.