• 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

/end thread
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Is my point. Both gamed the system.

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

I think the issue is bigger than Obama, but I will not discuss such further as that's not the topic.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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).

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Have Obama or any of his staff weighed in on this yet?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

See post #79.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

See post #79.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

Correct, no clarification needed recess appointments are consitutional, its just that Congress and Congress alone is the sole entity that can declare itself in "recess".
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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?

Pay attention to the facts. Pres. Bush didn't decide that the Senate was in recess, the Senate did. What Pres. Obama did was to decide that the Senate was in recess, something that he is not allowed to do.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

The problem obviously is the reason for the recess appointments is the GOP was blocking a vote that would clearly result in those folks being confirmed. Their job, as you describe, is to advise and consent, which requires a vote, and a minority of the Senate was effectively neutering an entire agency by preventing it from having the quorum necessary to conduct any official business. It was an abuse of power. The safety valve of this kind of Senate obstructionism was the recess appointment, but the GOP took that away by preventing any recess.

Something will have to give, because we can't run a country when 41 Senators can unilaterally prevent votes on ANY nominee, forever, so long as they can round up 41 votes, and therefore bring business in the affected agency to a halt. Maybe the idea is to force the next Senate into the nuclear option, and doing away with filibusters of all nominees. I think that's a shame, actually, because when used in a responsible manner it serves as a useful check on the opposing party. But when it's used for anyone the POTUS submits for approval, the system just has to change. The advise and consent function wasn't intended to give 41 Senators the right to overrule the judgment of the 59, which is why those votes only require a majority.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Have Obama or any of his staff weighed in on this yet?

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?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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 solution is to FIX THE PROBLEM, not create another problem. If the President felt that this situation needed to be addressed, then he should have stepped up to the plate and pushed the issue in a LEGAL manner. That's what leaders do, they solve problems instead of just creating another problem and expecting someone else to step in and fix the situation. Had he gone to the SCOTUS and asked them to address the legality of the "gavel" sessions, you'd have a valid argument, but he didn't. All he did was to create another problem and then pass the buck.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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?

I haven't had a chance to watch any of the propoganda sessions today but I will. Thanks for letting me know!
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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".

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. The black robes said that's not allowed, which is fine.

So now the ability of Senators to block appointments will have to go away unless they can muster 51 votes. Ultimately it should have the effect of reducing the power of the minority to provide the checks that filibusters of nominees used to serve.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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?

Interesting question, pero. There probably isn't anything that can be done at this point, is there?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

Think this SCOTUS decision will affect Bush or Obama? :lamo
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

There is a difference. under bush the senate and the house were official out of session. when obama appointed the members to his labor board the senate was not out of session they were in fact in session.

the president still has the ability to address recessed appointment but only if the congress is truely out of session and recessed.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063453514 said:
Think this SCOTUS decision will affect Bush or Obama? :lamo

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.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

The Senate will never be out of session and recessed again, unless we have one-party rule.
This is another gift from filibuster McConnell .
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

Which is definitely a tactic that is reasonable for someone to criticize. But it doesn't excuse acting unconstitutionally.

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.

Which he could not constitutionally do...as was claimed at the time, and has now been backed up by the SCOTUS. Obama getting pissy about the Republicans doing something jerky, BUT CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL, does not entitle him to be able to just declare it a "Sham" and decree the congress not in session.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

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.

I see history repeating itself.
Clinton's judicials were filibustered in his 2nd term.
Then McConnell cried for a "straight-up-or-down" vote or I'll nuke the Senate, so Bush got his judicials voted on.

Now Obama was getting filibustered by Sen. give-em-a-straight-up-or-down vote McConnell at record rates.
Obama simply couldn't wait to get the Nation's business done, in his opinion, for the NLRB.
Too bad he didn't wait until Sen. Reid's nuclear option, rendering this court opinion mute .
 
Back
Top Bottom