• 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

And what percent is re elected every two years? Let me guess....the other 92%?


Napoleon said:
If the GOP was doing what they were sent there to do then Congress would have an approval rating higher than 8%
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Sababa said:
the founders didn't want to have the Senate avoid voting and pretend to be in session........
Advise and consent does not mean they can put off Presidential appointments they know will pass. That is silly.
Click to expand...

Yes, the founders certainly did mean the Senate to have those powers whether you like it or not. And yes, the requirement for cloture and super majorities means that a minority in the Senate has the Constitutional power to block votes. It's part and parcel of what having a Senate is all about. And yes, it can be damned inconvenient at times, but that's the lay of the green.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Napoleon said:
If the GOP was doing what they were sent there to do then Congress would have an approval rating higher than 8%
Click to expand...

Sorry, but every one of those representatives and senators was voted in by a majority of their districts. That's the only poll that counts.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

1800 decisions now have to be reviewed. Thanks, Obama.
 
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...

Is the filibuster legal? It's not in the Constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

US Conservative said:
Time of year is immaterial-if congress is in session or not is what matters. Our Chump in Chief-the imperial president DOES NOT get to TELL Congress when it is in session.

Thank your lucky stars for checks and balances, if we left it up to you lefties the nation would be North Korea in about 6 months.
Click to expand...

What is so hard for the left to understand about this? Even Obama lackey Kagan had no choice but to vote against the idiot. The President gets to nominate these people, and Congress can confirm them, vote them down, or do nothing. Those on the left with little understanding of the Constitution seem to think that Congress is some how subordinate to the executive on this and must do as he says.

As for recess appointments, it's pretty clear when Congress is in recess. It's when they're gone and the session is over. They can stay in session with a skeleton crew to prevent recess appointments if they want, no question about that. I believe that the Constitution also says that the opening must happen when Congress is in recess also, the President just can't nominate someone and wait for a recess to appoint them.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

LowDown said:
Yes, the founders certainly did mean the Senate to have those powers whether you like it or not. And yes, the requirement for cloture and super majorities means that a minority in the Senate has the Constitutional power to block votes. It's part and parcel of what having a Senate is all about. And yes, it can be damned inconvenient at times, but that's the lay of the green.
Click to expand...

The founders meant the Senate to approve nominations, which requires a vote. To protect the interests of the minority, Senate rules allow for filibusters but the filibuster comes with it a responsibility for the minority to respect the process and use it only in extraordinary cases. Unfortunately, the GOP decided that every bill and nearly every nominee now needs 60 votes to pass, and they deny the 60 in nearly every case. So, thanks to the GOP behaving like spoiled children, it seems inevitable that no matter who controls the Senate in 2015, they'll quickly vote to change the rules, strip out filibusters, at least for nominees, and the minority will be left powerless to check the majority.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Anthony60 said:
What is so hard for the left to understand about this? Even Obama lackey Kagan had no choice but to vote against the idiot. The President gets to nominate these people, and Congress can confirm them, vote them down, or do nothing. Those on the left with little understanding of the Constitution seem to think that Congress is some how subordinate to the executive on this and must do as he says.

As for recess appointments, it's pretty clear when Congress is in recess. It's when they're gone and the session is over. They can stay in session with a skeleton crew to prevent recess appointments if they want, no question about that. I believe that the Constitution also says that the opening must happen when Congress is in recess also, the President just can't nominate someone and wait for a recess to appoint them.
Click to expand...

All that's true, but the purpose of the recess appointment in the Constitution is to allow the POTUS to fill vacancies that must be staffed to run the Executive branch, even during the lengthy delays brought about by recesses. The GOP decided on a deliberate strategy to prevent just what recess appointments were supposed to accomplish, which is allow the Executive branch to fill critical positions and do the business of the country.

Point is the GOP strategy to neuter the NLRB by filibustering every nominee to prevent a quorum was legal and within a strict reading of the rules, but it's clear this isn't what the Founders intended. They intended on the Senate holding up or down votes, with only a majority necessary to approve any nominee. There is no possible way to argue they intended to give 41 Senators the ability to shut down government by refusing to hold votes on key nominees. If they wanted to give that power to the minority, they'd have set the bar at a super majority, instead of a simple majority.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
The founders meant the Senate to approve nominations, which requires a vote. To protect the interests of the minority, Senate rules allow for filibusters but the filibuster comes with it a responsibility for the minority to respect the process and use it only in extraordinary cases. Unfortunately, the GOP decided that every bill and nearly every nominee now needs 60 votes to pass, and they deny the 60 in nearly every case. So, thanks to the GOP behaving like spoiled children, it seems inevitable that no matter who controls the Senate in 2015, they'll quickly vote to change the rules, strip out filibusters, at least for nominees, and the minority will be left powerless to check the majority.
Click to expand...

One man's spoiled children are another man's courageous patriots. The President and the Senate have been about as far left as any in memory, and they offer the Republicans no compromise in most cases. The result is pretty much to be exptected, obstruction all the way. And the frustration your side feels over it is no reason to break the law or trash the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has voted against the President's interpretations of the Constitution and his authority 13 times since 2012. They voted unanmously in every case, including the President's two own appointees. This tells us who in government it is who is making radical, unlawful decisions. More than that, it makes one wonder who is giving the President such sorry legal advice, or maybe he is taking his own council.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
All that's true, but the purpose of the recess appointment in the Constitution is to allow the POTUS to fill vacancies that must be staffed to run the Executive branch, even during the lengthy delays brought about by recesses. The GOP decided on a deliberate strategy to prevent just what recess appointments were supposed to accomplish, which is allow the Executive branch to fill critical positions and do the business of the country.

Point is the GOP strategy to neuter the NLRB by filibustering every nominee to prevent a quorum was legal and within a strict reading of the rules, but it's clear this isn't what the Founders intended. They intended on the Senate holding up or down votes, with only a majority necessary to approve any nominee. There is no possible way to argue they intended to give 41 Senators the ability to shut down government by refusing to hold votes on key nominees. If they wanted to give that power to the minority, they'd have set the bar at a super majority, instead of a simple majority.
Click to expand...

Everything you wrote is wrong. The Democrats control the Senate. It is they who deliberately kept the Senate in session. The Democrats don't want to do away with the filibuster because the shoe is likely to be on the other foot pretty soon. Keeping a nominee from being appointed isn't shutting down the government, it's keeping sorry nominees from getting jobs and thereby improving the government. The Senate decided that they want the minority to have the power to stop votes, and so they have it until the Senate decides otherwise. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to change. The filibuster may not be in the Constitution but is sure as heck is in the Constitution that the Senate has authority over how it does things, and it chooses to keep the filibuster.

A neutered NLRB is a good thing. Better would be an abolished NLRB.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

LowDown said:
One man's spoiled children are another man's courageous patriots. The President and the Senate have been about as far left as any in memory, and they offer the Republicans no compromise in most cases. The result is pretty much to be exptected, obstruction all the way. And the frustration your side feels over it is no reason to break the law or trash the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That's true enough, but when an appointee or a judge that has been filibustered for months and is finally brought up for a vote gets 80 or 90 votes FOR, they're abusing the process. Call them childish, or just deliberately obstructionist, whatever.

The important point is whether we approve of the GOP tactics. What should concern us all is their actions almost guarantee the filibuster goes away for nominees and leaves the minority party with no recourse. I don't see that as a good thing, because there ARE times when it's good for the minority to be able to obstruct the majority. What isn't possible long term is to allow the minority to dictate to the majority, or to do like they did with NLRB and repeal an agency through the use of the filibuster. At some point the POTUS just has to get up or down votes or the government and the courts grind to a halt, and if a minority party decides to abuse the rules to deny that opportunity, the Senate majority WILL change the rules. There is no filibuster right in the Constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

LowDown said:
Everything you wrote is wrong. The Democrats control the Senate. It is they who deliberately kept the Senate in session.
Click to expand...

You're wrong - that's laughable. You need to read up on Senate rules, and how they operate, and then read about recent history.


The Democrats don't want to do away with the filibuster because the shoe is likely to be on the other foot pretty soon. Keeping a nominee from being appointed isn't shutting down the government, it's keeping sorry nominees from getting jobs and thereby improving the government. The Senate decided that they want the minority to have the power to stop votes, and so they have it until the Senate decides otherwise. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to change. The filibuster may not be in the Constitution but is sure as heck is in the Constitution that the Senate has authority over how it does things, and it chooses to keep the filibuster.
Click to expand...

First of all, the recess appointment was intended to allow POTUS to fill nominees. You can't recognize that the Founders offered a safety valve to fill positions, then claim that filling them isn't necessary. If filling them or not, whenever, is OK, why does the Constitution provide an outlet to prevent undue delay?

Second, we'll see whether the rules change in early 2015, but I think you're wrong. For two reasons. Reid and some of the old guard Senators have been unwilling to upset decades long rules in the Senate for the reasons you outline, but there is growing opposition to keeping the rules on filibusters, and sustaining rules that are so openly abused by the GOP just can't last forever. When Obama made the decision to declare the recesses, there were according to NYT, 74 nominees waiting on votes filibustered by the GOP. Another 100 were stuck in committee. That's NOT how the 'advise and consent' function is intended to operate.

Second, the minute it helps the GOP to torpedo filibusters, they will (IMO, without a second's hesitation) do so and ram through nominees and judges as fast as they can hold votes. They've been openly abusing the rules for the entire Obama term. Why would they respect the process when they gain Senate control?

A neutered NLRB is a good thing. Better would be an abolished NLRB.
Click to expand...

OK, that's your opinion and there is a process for abolishing it. Hold votes in the House and Senate, then get a POTUS to sign a bill, or override his or her veto. The Constitutional option isn't to refuse to approve ANY nominee necessary for it to function.

I just think people are being shortsighted in this. The GOP is forcing a set of rules that undermines the rights of the minority, in my opinion. Well see I guess.
 
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...
Like clockwork. Point out a Obama failure, and some lib has to bring up something Bush did. When are people going to allow Obama to stand or fall on his own merits?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

CRUE CAB said:
Like clockwork. Point out a Obama failure, and some lib has to bring up something Bush did. When are people going to allow Obama to stand or fall on his own merits?
Click to expand...

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

CRUE CAB said:
Like clockwork. Point out a Obama failure, and some lib has to bring up something Bush did. When are people going to allow Obama to stand or fall on his own merits?
Click to expand...

I sometimes agree, but there is nothing illegitimate about pointing out hypocrisy. When Reagan and W. Bush wanted to nominate candidates that couldn't get through the Senate, they did it by recess appointment. And the democrats allowed that for the eight years of Reagan, and six years for W. (they last two they didn't). So it's a bit hard to take when the GOP turns around and removes that ability from Obama without at least mentioning the hypocrisy involved.

Ronald Reagan used recess appointments 232 times. W. Bush 171 times. Clinton 139 times. Obama 32.

Supreme Court Narrows President's Recess-Appointment Powers - WSJ

Gosh, what changed there? GOP decided to act like children and deny Obama the right exercised routinely while their guy was in charge. Sure, the GOP CAN do it, but clearly they've abused the process. That's the point.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
I sometimes agree, but there is nothing illegitimate about pointing out hypocrisy. When Reagan and W. Bush wanted to nominate candidates that couldn't get through the Senate, they did it by recess appointment. And the democrats allowed that for the eight years of Reagan, and six years for W. (they last two they didn't). So it's a bit hard to take when the GOP turns around and removes that ability from Obama without at least mentioning the hypocrisy involved.

Ronald Reagan used recess appointments 232 times. W. Bush 171 times. Clinton 139 times. Obama 32.

Supreme Court Narrows President's Recess-Appointment Powers - WSJ

Gosh, what changed there? GOP decided to act like children and deny Obama the right exercised routinely while their guy was in charge. Sure, the GOP CAN do it, but clearly they've abused the process. That's the point.
Click to expand...
I think the point is they were not really in recess.
From what I hear is if someone goes to chambers and announces they are in session. Its session. Even if no one is there.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
All that's true, but the purpose of the recess appointment in the Constitution is to allow the POTUS to fill vacancies that must be staffed to run the Executive branch, even during the lengthy delays brought about by recesses. The GOP decided on a deliberate strategy to prevent just what recess appointments were supposed to accomplish, which is allow the Executive branch to fill critical positions and do the business of the country.
Click to expand...

You do realize that this is intended to be a check & balance situation, the Senate is there to say yes, no, or nothing? You leave out that the president deliberately nominated people he knew would not meet with approval, and then ignored the Constitution in the manner of his actions.

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

It's pretty clear that the recess appointments are to be used when a position opens, and Congress is not in session, and that position needs to be filled before they come back.

Point is the GOP strategy to neuter the NLRB by filibustering every nominee to prevent a quorum was legal and within a strict reading of the rules, but it's clear this isn't what the Founders intended. They intended on the Senate holding up or down votes, with only a majority necessary to approve any nominee. There is no possible way to argue they intended to give 41 Senators the ability to shut down government by refusing to hold votes on key nominees. If they wanted to give that power to the minority, they'd have set the bar at a super majority, instead of a simple majority.
Click to expand...

It's not a "strict reading of the rules", it's just plain clear. Not only did they did not intend up and down votes be mandatory for Congress, they intended that Congress make their own rules and judgement of appointees. It doesn't have to be argued, thay made it quite clear. They did not want the executive to have that much power, and made rules to limit it's power.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
Ronald Reagan used recess appointments 232 times. W. Bush 171 times. Clinton 139 times. Obama 32.

Gosh, what changed there? GOP decided to act like children and deny Obama the right exercised routinely while their guy was in charge. Sure, the GOP CAN do it, but clearly they've abused the process. That's the point.
Click to expand...

You know this has nothing to do with the number of times it was used, right?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Anthony60 said:
You do realize that this is intended to be a check & balance situation, the Senate is there to say yes, no, or nothing? You leave out that the president deliberately nominated people he knew would not meet with approval, and then ignored the Constitution in the manner of his actions.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't say, vote or do nothing. The RULES allow that, but the standard is a majority VOTE. If the Founders intended to give 41 Senators the right to veto any nominee, they'd have provided for a super majority, not a simple majority.

And on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP said there was no possible nominee who would EVER get a vote until the Senate majority conceded to the demands of the minority to change the law.

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

It's pretty clear that the recess appointments are to be used when a position opens, and Congress is not in session, and that position needs to be filled before they come back.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point, which is the recess appointment was intended as a safety valve to allow the POTUS to fill positions. And then the GOP said, NO! to hundreds of judicial appointments and nominees, then removed the safety valve of recess appointments used 230 times by Reagan. It's my view that is unsustainable as it places the power in the hands of a minority who can dictate whether a governmental entity can function by withholding votes on key nominees. If you think we'll do business like that for the next 100 years, I just think you're wrong, and the Senate will change the rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to object EVER when it comes to nominees.

It's not a "strict reading of the rules", it's just plain clear. Not only did they did not intend up and down votes be mandatory for Congress, they intended that Congress make their own rules and judgement of appointees. It doesn't have to be argued, thay made it quite clear. They did not want the executive to have that much power, and made rules to limit it's power.
Click to expand...

What abuse of the filibuster does it does is change a majority vote to a super majority vote. It won't last, IMO, so say goodbye to the power of the minority in the Senate.

And the rules the Founders set up was to give the POTUS an up or down majority vote. Again, if they'd wanted a minority to be able to freely obstruct the majority, there's a way to do that - super majority votes. The Founders did not do that.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Anthony60 said:
You know this has nothing to do with the number of times it was used, right?
Click to expand...

The point was hypocrisy, and the Senate denying Obama the opportunity to make recess appointments used over 400 times by Reagan and W. and that DOES have to do with the number of times used.

Yes, the Supreme Court decided the minority can shut down agencies by withholding votes, and under current rules means 41 Senators have veto power over all nominees for any position. It's what I've been discussing, and my guess is this will ultimately neuter the Senate minority, for good or bad, and IMO it's a bad thing.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
The Constitution doesn't say, vote or do nothing. The RULES allow that, but the standard is a majority VOTE. If the Founders intended to give 41 Senators the right to veto any nominee, they'd have provided for a super majority, not a simple majority.

And on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP said there was no possible nominee who would EVER get a vote until the Senate majority conceded to the demands of the minority to change the law.
Click to expand...

Alright, one more time. It does not have to say vote or do nothing. That is implied. There is nothing about preferring a majority vote over any other action that they may choose. Nothing. They specifically allowed the Congress to make it's own rules. 41 or 51, they left it up to Congress. On purpose. They designed it that way. This is not in dispute.

You're missing the point, which is the recess appointment was intended as a safety valve to allow the POTUS to fill positions. And then the GOP said, NO! to hundreds of judicial appointments and nominees, then removed the safety valve of recess appointments used 230 times by Reagan. It's my view that is unsustainable as it places the power in the hands of a minority who can dictate whether a governmental entity can function by withholding votes on key nominees. If you think we'll do business like that for the next 100 years, I just think you're wrong, and the Senate will change the rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to object EVER when it comes to nominees.
Click to expand...

Oh, the GOP said no? This just started happening when the GOP started doing it? Yeah, Bush's nominees just breezed right through. I'd check that one if I were you.
Yes, a safety valve for vacancies that happened when Congress was in recess, to be filled by the president during that same recess. Nothing even close to that happened here. And, once again, nothing to do with how many. If it's not sustainable, the Congress can just change their rules, as provided in the Constitution.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

JasperL said:
The point was hypocrisy, and the Senate denying Obama the opportunity to make recess appointments used over 400 times by Reagan and W. and that DOES have to do with the number of times used.

Yes, the Supreme Court decided the minority can shut down agencies by withholding votes, and under current rules means 41 Senators have veto power over all nominees for any position. It's what I've been discussing, and my guess is this will ultimately neuter the Senate minority, for good or bad, and IMO it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Senate rules were changed. 41 votes no longer stops a nominee. Please keep up.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Anthony60 said:
Oh, the GOP said no? This just started happening when the GOP started doing it? Yeah, Bush's nominees just breezed right through. I'd check that one if I were you.
Yes, a safety valve for vacancies that happened when Congress was in recess, to be filled by the president during that same recess. Nothing even close to that happened here. And, once again, nothing to do with how many. If it's not sustainable, the Congress can just change their rules, as provided in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Look at the number of recess appointments. 171 Bush, 32 Obama.

And of course the problem is the Senate DID change the rules and eliminate the ability of the minority to block nominations.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Jack Hays said:
Senate rules were changed. 41 votes no longer stops a nominee. Please keep up.
Click to expand...

You're right. Forgot about that. So now the GOP by acting like children has allowed any nominee to proceed on 51 votes, and neutered the power of the minority. As I said had to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom