• 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!

Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee list

Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Obama's Solicitor General argued this? I missed that.

Below is the basis of the claim, with a link. At that link you wil also find more of the argument as to how Obama violated the Constitution.

And to top this off, Obama’s own Deputy Solicitor General argued in the Supreme Court in 2010 that Obama could not make a recess appointment unless the recess were longer than three days (via Washington Examiner):


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

Why Obama’s “recess” appointments are unconstitutional | The Right Scoop

No it's not. I could believe that Obama had the power to do this before, even if he didn't take advantage of it.

It is not an issue of what you thought then, vs. what you think now. It is about Obama and Reid. Their hypocrisy, and those who now support it. You and I vote, but we do not make the rules, much less the law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Below is the basis of the claim, with a link.

Thank you.

Glad I asked, because that falls short of saying they are unconstitutional. He is making reference to the fact that a previous administration decided 3 days was the limit. That's not the same thing as agreeing with that, just saying that's where things stood.

I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Thank you.

Glad I asked, because that falls short of saying they are unconstitutional. He is making reference to the fact that a previous administration decided 3 days was the limit. That's not the same thing as agreeing with that, just saying that's where things stood.

No, he is arguing what the current administration understands the standard to be. All in accordance with the Constitution. I do not think that you understand the law at this level. The Founders enabled the Senate to make its rules. The Solicitor General's Office is a part of the Executive. They are acknowledging that they recognize and understand the current rule. In a court of law, including SCOTUS, the judges look to prior precedent and communications in order to ascertain what the understanding was by both sides of a dispute.

There it is. And you are about to become a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

No, he is arguing what the current administration understands the standard to be.

He said what he said.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

The intent of the rule was designed to keep the government functioning in an age that pre-dated the telegraph. They realized that some appointments would have to be made without Senate oversight, likely for emergency use, and made the according provisions. The initial power grab was using it as a loophole to avoid "Advise and Consent," the three-day pro forma rule enacted to counter it. And now, apparently, it's ok to brazenly ignore checks and balances.

I'm moving to the moon as soon as there is a colony. F- this noise.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

The intent of the rule was designed to keep the government functioning in an age that pre-dated the telegraph.

So the Senate can now phone in its votes?

If Senate can be in session by letting one Senator show up every three days, it's not about that.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

So the Senate can now phone in its votes?

If Senate can be in session by letting one Senator show up every three days, it's not about that.

The pro forma session is designed to keep the Executive from circumnavigating Senate checks and balances. It's a dirty trick to counter a dirty trick.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

The pro forma session is designed to keep the Executive from circumnavigating Senate checks and balances.

After the Senate spends the entire session circumventing its job of considering nominees in the first place.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

One could argue the two way street there, when the "Advise" part is ignored. One could also argue that this specific check was designed to balance - if the executive gets too big for their britches, their power can be stopped by obstruction.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

The pro forma session is designed to keep the Executive from circumnavigating Senate checks and balances. It's a dirty trick to counter a dirty trick.

Yes and no. The pro forma session is designed to satisfy the rule that the Senate meets every 3 days, per the Constitution. Since both chambers need to consent to a "Recess", of which, by the way, wasn't declared, the Senate designed "pro forma" sessions to satisfy the 3 day requirement ( see senate.gov for their definition of pro forma sessions & see their schedule for the last 30 days, which included a pro forma session every 3 days ).
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Who needs "advise and consent" anyway. Just be the dictator, and appoint whomever you want. :roll:

Read the constitution and stop watching fox news.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Read the constitution and stop watching fox news.

Stop reading comic books and jerking off.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Stop reading comic books and jerking off.

This says alot...about you.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

This says alot...about you.

It says that I do not suffer fools well at all. Do you embrace fools ?
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

It says that I do not suffer fools well at all. Do you embrace fools ?

let me make a fact here to prove my point. we have NEVER embraced
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

let me make a fact here to prove my point. we have NEVER embraced

And with posts like that, you embrace the ad-hominem nonsense that goes on here. Same boat.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Read the constitution and stop watching fox news.

Case in point:

Which was a reply to the above quote, illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

What is with libs here ? Does everyone have to resort to the ad-hom , and then claim to be offended when someone points and says "why the stupidity' ? as you have done ?

As they say, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". ;)

My advice to the libs is to cut the crap.
 
Last edited:
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Which was a reply to the above quote, illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

Telling you to read the constitution and stop watching Fox News is hardly an ad homenim. They were just comments on the state of knowledge behind your opinion, not insults.

What is with libs here ?

I don't know, I'm not a "lib." I do know that lots of people on BOTH sides of the political aisle engage in all sorts of underhanded behavior here.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Telling you to read the constitution and stop watching Fox News is hardly an ad homenim. They were just comments on the state of knowledge behind your opinion, not insults.

I don't know, I'm not a "lib." I do know that lots of people on BOTH sides of the political aisle engage in all sorts of underhanded behavior here.

Then maybe if you also read less comic books and stopped spending so much time examining yourself when no one is watching, you might be more knowledgable too !

That should not offend you then. See how that works. ;)
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Then maybe if you also read less comic books and stopped spending so much time examining yourself when no one is watching, you might be more knowledgable too !

That should not offend you then. See how that works. ;)

You're doing it wrong.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

You're doing it wrong.

That is not very definitive as to what you mean.

However, back to the point. A poster who was apparently unable to debate posted so as to insult my intelligence. That is what forum imbeciles do.

So I took the exact same absurdity, and substituted other demeaning assumptions, and played it back.

And look at how you reacted !! I would characterize it as typical liberal hypocrisy, with a side order of "heat in the kitchen", as I noted.

If liberals want to stop being treated as punks, maybe they should stop acting like such, as that original poster did. Try going toe to toe on debating the topic, and stop the stupid crap ? If you can.
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

However, back to the point. A poster who was apparently unable to debate posted so as to insult my intelligence. That is what forum imbeciles do.

Speaking of imbeciles... Remember this guy??

mn_bolton.jpg


Recess appointment.

Were you outraged back then??
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

Speaking of imbeciles... Remember this guy??

Recess appointment.

Were you outraged back then??

It might help you to get caught up on the thread, and the specific topic.

The issue of this thread is that the two Democrats who were "Recess" Appointments to the NLRB were never even submitted to a Congress in normal session, which bypasses completely the Constitutionally mandated "advise and consent" role of the Senate.

The larger issue of these recent actions by Obama, including the topic of another thread, the appointment of Cordray, is that the Senate was not in Recess, and therefore Recess Appointments were not valid on that date.

Nowhere is the debate whether or not Recess Appointments are authorized by the Constitution, and current Senate rules. It is conceded that they are authorized, although the Executive may have bastardized the process.

You were saying something about "imbecile" ? :roll:
 
Re: Democrat NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee l

The issue of this thread is that the two Democrats who were "Recess" Appointments to the NLRB were never even submitted to a Congress in normal session, which bypasses completely the Constitutionally mandated "advise and consent" role of the Senate.

Seriously. Read the constitution and stop watching Fox news.
 
Back
Top Bottom