• 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!

Reid To Recommend Obama Recess Appoint All Stalled Executive Nominees

Donc

Donc

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,796
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is bull****, the obstructionist party doesn't give a reason anymore, they just obstruct. :(


TPMLivewire

03:50 PM EST

Reid To Recommend Obama Recess Appoint All Stalled Executive Nominees

<To illustrate his frustration at the GOP's pattern of obstructing President Obama's executive branch nominees, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor Friday that he'll ask President Obama to provide all of the nearly 100 stalled bureaucrats-in-waiting with recess appointments.>

Reid To Recommend Obama Recess Appoint All Stalled Executive Nominees | TPM Livewire
 
 
You're all pissy about nominees, but what about a budget? Does that cross your mind as something... oh important?
 
MrVicchio said:
You're all pissy about nominees, but what about a budget? Does that cross your mind as something... oh important?
Click to expand...

But what about red herrings? They seem to cross your mind a lot.
 
treedancer said:
This is bull****, the obstructionist party doesn't give a reason anymore, they just obstruct. :(
Click to expand...

Wait, which obstructionist party are we talking about. I can think of two of them that are pretty powerful.
 
Hatuey said:
But what about red herrings? They seem to cross your mind a lot.
Click to expand...

I find the outrage amusing at "obstruction" (cause we could go into a tit for tat between Bush and Obama years on that) or we could look at the fact that one party has refuse to pass a budget for 3 years in a row...

Pointless posts seem to flow from you.. constantly.
 
MrVicchio said:
I find the outrage amusing at "obstruction"
Click to expand...

Good for you. Now do you have anything to say on the obstructionist tactics of the GOP that don't allow the president to do his job and appoint people to his cabinet?

(cause we could go into a tit for tat between Bush and Obama years on that) or we could look at the fact that one party has refuse to pass a budget for 3 years in a row...
Click to expand...

Ah I get it so passing a budget means agreeing to what the GOP says and the demands of radicals like you.

Pointless posts seem to flow from you.. constantly.
Click to expand...

This from the king of red herrings? Lawl.
 
Recess appointments need to be written out of the Constitution. With modern transportation, it is an antiquated policy.
 
Hatuey said:
Good for you. Now do you have anything to say on the obstructionist tactics of the GOP that don't allow the president to do his job and appoint people to his cabinet?
Click to expand...
Can you cite one "obstruction" of a Nominee, the GOP's stated reason, and your objection to that reason?


Just one. I'm betting you don't even know why, you jut assume, that it's wrong, and blather on about it.
 
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, addressed the complaints in a prepared floor statement on October 11, 2011. Senator Grassley refuted the prevailing liberal spin with the facts:
We have taken positive action on 84 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees. . . President Obama’s circuit court nominees are waiting, on average, only 66 days to receive a hearing. Compare that to the 247 days President Bush’s circuit nominees were forced to wait. The same can be said for district court nominees, who have only waited 79 days under President Obama. Nominees of President Bush waited, on average, 120 days for a hearing.
Moreover, a stark contrast exists between the number of cloture votes cast in the last Congress opposing Bush judicial nominees compared to those opposing Obama’s choices:
During our consideration of the 98 judicial nominations submitted during this Congress there have been two cloture motions . . . In the last Congress, there were four cloture motions made in relation to the 105 judicial nominations submitted. I would remind my colleagues that at least 18 of President Bush’s judicial nominees were subjected to cloture motions – many of them had multiple cloture votes. According to my count, there were approximately 30 cloture votes on Bush judicial nominees.
Senator Patrick Leahy recently complained about the raw numbers of judicial nominees confirmed at this stage of the Bush and Obama presidencies. But Mr. Leahy fails to account for the much smaller number of judges President Obama has nominated, thus distorting the totals. As the RNLA blog has reported before, even those on the political left have complained about President Obama’s lackluster pace in nominating judges. Finally, the President insists on pushing through nominations to seats where the workload has actually decreased, for instance Caitlin Halligan to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, instead of concentrating on judicial “emergencies” where the Senate’s attention is needed most.
Click to expand...
More Judicial Obstruction for Bush than Obama - The Republican Lawyer Blog

Funny, the GOP is setting a record pace considering the previous... administrations inability to get anywhere, and yet all you people do is cry obstructionism. But then, that's what the DNC flyer you got said to do...

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/judi...l-Nominations-Setting-the-Record-Straight.pdf
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Can you cite one "obstruction" of a Nominee, the GOP's stated reason, and your objection to that reason?
.
Click to expand...

Many times a reason is not stated. A Senator has the power to put a hold on a nomination, no questions asked. I think that's a problem, and that a nominee at least should be given a hearing before being tossed aside.

To be fair, Democrats were just as guilty of this during the Bush administration. It's funny how all the Republicans who talked about the Constitution requiring a vote back then are silent now. I wonder why...
 
rocket88 said:
Many times a reason is not stated. A Senator has the power to put a hold on a nomination, no questions asked. I think that's a problem, and that a nominee at least should be given a hearing before being tossed aside.

To be fair, Democrats were just as guilty of this during the Bush administration. It's funny how all the Republicans who talked about the Constitution requiring a vote back then are silent now. I wonder why...
Click to expand...
I believe in an up or down vote, but the silly hysteria about "historic obstruction" doesn't match reality. The GOP has stood firm against some nominees for IMHO legit reasons, some for political score which I don't like... it's politics. The well is poisoned, and that is gonna take serious effort to fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom