• 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

Jack Hays said:
I don't see how you can make that claim since Dems did do it first.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can make that comment when Bush forced the issue first on recess appointments. Now would you like to revisit Senate GOP obstruction of Clinton's appointments during his 2nd term . :2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Anthony60 said:
I don't know of any other incident of a President making a (non)recess appointment like this. So I don't know what precedent you are speaking of. There was no doubt about Congress being in session or not, it was Obama that decided to declare that they were not, in a "don't believe your lyin' eyes" fashion.

It is possible that he just does not know the Constitution well enough to know any better. Save that, he blatantly violated the Constitution. That is the most troubling fact about this. This just further tarnishes his already heavily soiled tenure.
Click to expand...
When the senate was not doing any business and only barely met the technical threshold of being in session for the expressed reason of obstructing the function of government...they really were not in session.
When the spirit of the law is broken and only the letter of the law is observed ... someone is being played for a fool.
Most Americans would agree ... I'm reasonably sure that the framers of the constitution would not like being played for fools and they would agree as well...
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

NIMBY said:
I don't see how you can make that comment when Bush forced the issue first on recess appointments. Now would you like to revisit Senate GOP obstruction of Clinton's appointments during his 2nd term . :2wave:
Click to expand...

GWB forced no issue. He made recess appointments when the Senate was in recess, and did not make recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. Dems invented the tactic of pro forma sessions to avoid recess, and GWB respected that too. It was BHO, and BHO alone, who chose the lawless path.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

NIMBY said:
Wrong. :peace
Click to expand...

Now you're just being stubborn. GWB acted within the Constitution, precedent and the rules of the Senate. BHO did not.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Bush is long gone, as of January 20th, 2009 he handed the reins of government over to President Obama. Bush has no control over anything in government that happened after President Obama was sworn in on that date. So here is an interesting article, I was wondering what will happen to all the ruling the illegal, I suppose I should say unconstitutional NLRB made:


What does the Supreme Court’s NLRB ruling mean for hundreds of labor cases?

What does the Supreme Court

So I came to the conclusion that this SCOTUS ruling is a feel good ruling for the Republicans. The senate has already re-confirmed the 3 new member under Senator Reid's nuclear option. So if any of the rulings they made are challenged while the NLRB was in an unconstitutional status can just be re-ruled with no problem.

Yes, Senator Reid perfected the Pro Forma session and used it against Bush and the Republicans used Senator Reid precedence of utilizing pro forma sessions to stop President Obama for making appointments. But all of this became moot once Senator Reid invoked the nuclear option.

Now the article I posted awhile back state Reid perfected the Pro Forma session, there was another article I found yesterday that said he invented it. Regardless of which one, Reid and the Democrats were the first to use it. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I also feel the same way about the nuclear option. If one party uses it, Senator Reid has also set the precedence for its use it too will be what is good for the goose is good for the gander if the Republicans take back the senate. Although I would much prefer the Republicans to restore the two century senate tradition than invoke the nuclear option. If they do use the nuclear option, there is no Democrat that has two legs to stand on to complain about it, ala the pro forma session. But of course they will.

If I had my way I would bring back Bob Dole and George Mitchel and install them in their old jobs of senate minority and majority leaders, the worked for good of the country not the good of their party like Reid and McConnell. I would also bring back Speaker Sam Rayburn, he was Speaker of the whole house, he let his majority leader handle the partisan issues.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

ecofarm said:
This shows many recent republican recess appointments.

Members of the NLRB since 1935 | NLRB
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is, Obama made recess appointments when the Senate wasn't actually in recess. Doesn't the Senate have to be in full recess for at least ten days before Obama can make a recess appointment ?

And this it the 12th time that the SCOTUS has unanimously ruled against Obama.

When Obama has lost extremist liberals who legislate from the bench like Ginsburg and Sotomayor, it's time for Obama to resign from the office of POTUS.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

APACHERAT said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is, Obama made recess appointments when the Senate wasn't actually in recess. Doesn't the Senate have to be in full recess for at least ten days before Obama can make a recess appointment ?

And this it the 12th time that the SCOTUS has unanimously ruled against Obama.

When Obama has lost extremist liberals who legislate from the bench like Ginsburg and Sotomayor, it's time for Obama to resign from the office of POTUS.
Click to expand...

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

APACHERAT said:
How in hell can I see post #79 if I'm looking at post #183 ?
Click to expand...

So not surprised.

It's just a click away.


 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

APACHERAT said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue is, Obama made recess appointments when the Senate wasn't actually in recess.
.
Click to expand...
Technically they were not in recess ...
...actually? ...They were ...
When one senator gavels in and declares a session of the senate has been called and no business is conducted and no other senator is there, and they are all slacking off in their home states ...that is not ACTUALLY an interruption in a recess.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

ecofarm said:
So not surprised.

It's just a click away.


Click to expand...


The floods is threat'ning my very life today
Gimme, gimme shelter, or I'm gonna fade away!:2wave:
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
Technically they were not in recess ...
...actually? ...They were ...
When one senator gavels in and declares a session of the senate has been called and no business is conducted and no other senator is there, and they are all slacking off in their home states ...that is not ACTUALLY an interruption in a recess.
Click to expand...
A long weekend is not a recess. The law must follow the technically right option.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
Technically they were not in recess ...
...actually? ...They were ...
When one senator gavels in and declares a session of the senate has been called and no business is conducted and no other senator is there, and they are all slacking off in their home states ...that is not ACTUALLY an interruption in a recess.
Click to expand...

Understand you disagree with the SC, but the SC is supreme in it's rulings, your views are really irrelevant. The ruling, as you may disagree is good for America, it limits power and these powers are limited by the constitution and upheld by the SC. Maybe you would love to be controlled by a dictator, but the rest of us love living under our constitution. Thank you.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
The floods is threat'ning my very life today
Gimme, gimme shelter, or I'm gonna fade away!:2wave:
Click to expand...

The floods of dictators would be threatening your life. Fortunately we have a constitution that has checks and balances saving your ass from fading away.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Grant said:
A long weekend is not a recess. The law must follow the technically right option.
Click to expand...
A long weekend is not a recess ...but several weeks of an empty chamber, with a gavel knock with only one senator in attendance every three days, actually is.
I'm sure that you defended Harry when he invented the ploy to block Bush from making recess appointments ... right?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
Technically they were not in recess ...
...actually? ...They were ...
When one senator gavels in and declares a session of the senate has been called and no business is conducted and no other senator is there, and they are all slacking off in their home states ...that is not ACTUALLY an interruption in a recess.
Click to expand...

Technically? The SCOTUS seems to differ with the "gavel argument."

In this case the Senate committees and sub committees were still conducting business.

Didn't you use to watch C-SPAN at night during the 1980's when every night Rep. (B-1 Bob) Dornan would stand in front of a empty chamber of the House of Representatives enlightening/educating Americans on American history ?

What would have C-SPAN done back during their early years late at night without Bob Dornan ?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
When the senate was not doing any business and only barely met the technical threshold of being in session ...they really were not in session.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just plain wrong. You even seem to realize yourself that they are not in recess, and Obama knew this also, and went right ahead and did something even he had to know was unconstitutional. There is no "barely", they are either in session or not. So yes, they really are in session. You see, if the Constitution said that being in a very small session didn't count, which it does not, they could just have a big enough session to qualify. So that is a moot point.

...for the expressed reason of obstructing the function of government... When the spirit of the law is broken and only the letter of the law is observed ... someone is being played for a fool. Most Americans would agree ... I'm reasonably sure that the framers of the constitution would not like being played for fools and they would agree as well...
Click to expand...


Another thing you got wrong. The Framers would absolutely disagree with you. No one is obstructing the function of government. It's called checks and balances. That is part of the fabric of how our government works. You are describing a dictatorship.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
A long weekend is not a recess ...but several weeks of an empty chamber, with a gavel knock with only one senator in attendance every three days, actually is.
I'm sure that you defended Harry when he invented the ploy to block Bush from making recess appointments ... right?
Click to expand...
Focus.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Born Free said:
Understand you disagree with the SC, but the SC is supreme in it's rulings, your views are really irrelevant. The ruling, as you may disagree is good for America, it limits power and these powers are limited by the constitution and upheld by the SC. Maybe you would love to be controlled by a dictator, but the rest of us love living under our constitution. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I actually do not disagree with the SCOTUS in this ruling. It's obvious to me that it had to be made that way.
The senate rule change to allow confirmation of nominees with a simple majority needed to be made as well.
The two measures cancel each other out in relation to Obama's effectiveness .
Nothing in the Obama administration accomplishments will be reversed as a result of this ruling.
No one I know "loves to be controlled by a dictator".
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Anthony60 said:
Well, that's just plain wrong. You even seem to realize yourself that they are not in recess, and Obama knew this also, and went right ahead and did something even he had to know was unconstitutional. There is no "barely", they are either in session or not. So yes, they really are in session. You see, if the Constitution said that being in a very small session didn't count, which it does not, they could just have a big enough session to qualify. So that is a moot point.




Another thing you got wrong. The Framers would absolutely disagree with you. No one is obstructing the function of government. It's called checks and balances. That is part of the fabric of how our government works. You are describing a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Sorry no...
Senate approval of nominations is part of checks and balances. Keeping government offices from functioning by blocking an up or down vote is obstructionism.
Neither unilateral appointments, nor the practice of minority parties blocking nomination votes were in the intentions of the framers.
Now they are both gone.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Buck Ewer said:
I actually do not disagree with the SCOTUS in this ruling. It's obvious to me that it had to be made that way.
The senate rule change to allow confirmation of nominees with a simple majority needed to be made as well.
The two measures cancel each other out in relation to Obama's effectiveness .
Nothing in the Obama administration accomplishments will be reversed as a result of this ruling.
No one I know "loves to be controlled by a dictator".
Click to expand...
It seems odd that you knew of the unconstitutionality of these appointments but President Obama didn't, though he taught Constitutional Law at one time. Having lost twelve 9-0 decisions in succession it suggests his students might have rocky careers.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules against Obama over appointment power

Actually mrobama it isn't a recess because of one senator. Those are the rules, and your dictator got b slapped for violating them. God Bless those senators who chose to enter the hall and grab the gavel once each three days and deny the king his court.


Buck Ewer said:
A long weekend is not a recess ...but several weeks of an empty chamber, with a gavel knock with only one senator in attendance every three days, actually is.
I'm sure that you defended Harry when he invented the ploy to block Bush from making recess appointments ... right?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom