• 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!

President Obama to Make Recess Appointment of CMS Administrator Rationing Expert

It seems to me the language is simple and plain..... what Barry did is unconstitutional.

Would you argue that every recess appointment that has ever occurred where the vacancy didn't start during the same recess of congress where the recess appointment was made was and is unconstitutional and that every president that has done so in the past should have been impeached?
 
Where in the constitution does it say that a recess appointment is only ok if he was going through confirmation process or before his own party has vetted him? It's either unconstitutional or not but those two factors have nothing to do with it.

I showed you where in the Constitution that the President may appoint by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. I showed you where in the Constitution that the President can only appoint someone for a vacancy that came up during a recess. I proved what Barry did was unconstitutional.... you can't deny that with a straight face.

What I asked for is proof of your contention that other Presidents have done the same thing... i.e., by passed the Senate completely and appointed someone before his own party had finished vetting said person. I call BS.
 
Would you argue that every recess appointment that has ever occurred where the vacancy didn't start during the same recess of congress where the recess appointment was made was and is unconstitutional and that every president that has done so in the past should have been impeached?

Unless you can show me something in the Constitution that says they can do it, then yes.
 
I showed you where in the Constitution that the President may appoint by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. I showed you where in the Constitution that the President can only appoint someone for a vacancy that came up during a recess. I proved what Barry did was unconstitutional.... you can't deny that with a straight face.

What I asked for is proof of your contention that other Presidents have done the same thing... i.e., by passed the Senate completely and appointed someone before his own party had finished vetting said person. I call BS.
I argued that presidents have made recess appointments on spots that didn't occur during that recess, I never argued what you're asking for.
 
Do you have an actual opinion about the topic at hand or did you just enter this thread to help out your buddy with the insults? There's a name for people who do that, too....Um...I forget again....gimme time...it'll come to me.

Yes, I posted a rather lengthy opinion on Obama's reasoning for this appointment.

I must have missed your "actual opinion" on the topic... perhaps you could point it out to me. :lol:
 
EDIT: I would also be weary of calling this an impeachable offense. Following long established norms is hardly "high crimes and misdemeanors".

You have yet to show that what Barry did is "long established norms"

I've never seen this done before.
 
John Bolton

I suppose Bush should have been impeached for that move huh?
 
I argued that presidents have made recess appointments on spots that didn't occur during that recess, I never argued what you're asking for.

Really?

Originally Posted by roughdraft274
This phrase has been controversial, I'll certainly admit to that, but the supreme court has never decided on it's meaning and the general consensus among politicians is that what he did is fine. It's been done hundreds of times before.

My contention is that no President has ever completely by passed the Senate confirmation process and appointed someone that his own party hadn't finished vetting....... like Barry did.

So please back up your statement that it’s been done hundreds of times, or admit that what Barry did is unprecedented in the history of this country.
 
Yes, I find it very insulting when boors call innocent children "retarded".

If you weren't complaining, why did you bring it up??? :roll:

Not for nothing...but why? Why do you personally find it insulting?

Before the days of the politically correct dictionary mental retardation was not considered an insult but rather a descriptor amongst the medical community. And while Down is a chromosomal disorder there is no denying that many suffer from some level of mental retardation. Thems the facts. And if it is just that it bothers you because ugly people use it as an insult, well...you might want to consider how much control and responsibility for your own happiness you put in someone elses hands. It certainly says far more about the individual than the child...

And for the record, my oldest sister in law had Down...and she was a wonderful person...a true blessing in my life...
 
You have yet to show that what Barry did is "long established norms"

I've never seen this done before.

Are you arguing that it's not common place for presidents to make recess appointments for spots that didn't become vacant during that recess?
 
Really?



My contention is that no President has ever completely by passed the Senate confirmation process and appointed someone that his own party hadn't finished vetting....... like Barry did.

So please back up your statement that it’s been done hundreds of times, or admit that what Barry did is unprecedented in the history of this country.

I was arguing that presidents have made hundreds of recess appointments before, not that they were all the exact same in every detail as you want them to be.

They can either do it or they can't. All these special caveats you're throwing in there don't matter in my opinion.

It's like arguing that it's unprecedented because it's never been done on a Tuesday.
 
Are you arguing that it's not common place for presidents to make recess appointments for spots that didn't become vacant during that recess?

You are being deliberately obtuse, that usually happens when you know you lost...... bye bye.
 
I was arguing that presidents have made hundreds of recess appointments before, not that they were all the exact same in every detail as you want them to be.

They can either do it or they can't. All these special caveats you're throwing in there don't matter in my opinion.

It's like arguing that it's unprecedented because it's never been done on a Tuesday.

Recess appointments have been used when the confirmation process has stalled..... whether that is legal or not, it is done.

Barry completely by passed that constitutional requirement, and that has never been done to my knowledge.

Not exactly what I would call SOP, and he needs to be called on it, and I think he will be, by both parties. If he’s not, what we have in this country is a dictatorship.
 
You are being deliberately obtuse, that usually happens when you know you lost...... bye bye.

I honestly wasn't trying to be obtuse. I was just saying that the caveats you keep pointing out, that he needed to be stalled in confirmation hearings" etc. aren't found anywhere in the constitution and are imo details that don't matter other than to change the subject of whether or not he can make recess appointments. History has shown that he can.

I agree that what he did was right. There was no need to have his appointment stalled up in hearings for a long period when we need someone of his experience in that position.
 
Recess appointments have been used when the confirmation process has stalled..... whether that is legal or not, it is done.

Barry completely by passed that constitutional requirement, and that has never been done to my knowledge.

Not exactly what I would call SOP, and he needs to be called on it, and I think he will be, by both parties. If he’s not, what we have in this country is a dictatorship.

Just to be completely honest, this sounds more or less like conservatives have found a tiny detail in this appointment that isn't common in most appointments or maybe has never happened in any other appointments (I can't think of any with the same details you keep pointing out) just to have something to complain about.
 
Not for nothing...but why? Why do you personally find it insulting?

Before the days of the politically correct dictionary mental retardation was not considered an insult but rather a descriptor amongst the medical community. And while Down is a chromosomal disorder there is no denying that many suffer from some level of mental retardation. Thems the facts. And if it is just that it bothers you because ugly people use it as an insult, well...you might want to consider how much control and responsibility for your own happiness you put in someone elses hands. It certainly says far more about the individual than the child...

And for the record, my oldest sister in law had Down...and she was a wonderful person...a true blessing in my life...

The "N" word was once perfectly acceptable. Is it now?
 
Recess appointments have been used when the confirmation process has stalled..... whether that is legal or not, it is done.

Barry completely by passed that constitutional requirement, and that has never been done to my knowledge.

Not exactly what I would call SOP, and he needs to be called on it, and I think he will be, by both parties. If he’s not, what we have in this country is a dictatorship.

Well... chalk this up to another thing that hasn't changed with the Obama Administration. The guy though is a bit creepy in his opinions though. Was there no one else available?
 
Just to be completely honest, this sounds more or less like conservatives have found a tiny detail in this appointment that isn't common in most appointments or maybe has never happened in any other appointments (I can't think of any with the same details you keep pointing out) just to have something to complain about.

You're partly right - but it doesn't matter who is in the WH - (R) or (D), the other side will always bitch about it. So partly, it's just partisanship, but this particular guy --- a further out of my comfort zone than usual. But - many said that about Bolton when Bush appointed him.
 
John Bolton

I suppose Bush should have been impeached for that move huh?

Apples and oranges.

Bolton went through the committee hearing process.
 
There's a major caveat but sure, I wouldn't mind.

If the Dems were playing games and lying about the guy and what he said, or stalling votes for no good reason, then I think it's the presidents responsibility to do this so we have people in the spots they need to be, doing their job.

If you simply look at the memo passed around by the Republicans it's easy to see they were preparing to twist his words and clip his quotes to fit their agenda and politicize this appointment.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/042010_Rationing-Eyes-Wide-Open.pdf



Full Quote

He was obviously talking in the context of how this is already happening, and not that he wants us to start rationing healthcare.

So what? No votes are being stalled, since no votes have been taken, or even scheduled. In fact, no hearings have even been scheduled. Why the rush? The Democrats haven't even completed their vetting of the guy, so why did Obama feel he had to do a recess appointment? I think the only ones playing games with this nomination are Obama and the Democrats.
 
People were asking for me to respond to questions about the "death panel" earlier, so here goes.

All health care is rationed. Whether on government-run Medicare/Medicaid/VA or in private industry. Health care resources and the money to pay for them are not in unlimited supply. Somebody, in private or public healthcare, makes a decision on the claims that come in and what sort of procedures to pay for. Whether you want to call it a "death panel" or not is up to you, but whatever you call it, it already exists.

"Obamacare" does not substantially alter Medicare or Medicaid in how they go about doing this, so there's no "new" death panel, despite what Sarah Palin will tell you. The situation is pretty much exactly what it was before. In fact, private industry is being affected more significantly than Medicare, but they're still going to be private employees of private companies making decision about private healthcare delivered by private physicians.

Relating more directly back to the subject, a good rule of thumb is that if you find yourself cutting out sentences to help prove your point about something a person says, you've already lost. The "rationing expert" was saying we already ration health care, but that we do it "blindly." Clearly he is not saying "Hey, we should start rationing health care!"

We ration health care in this country, but we don't have a good, systematic way of determining how best to spend the limited resources we have. Right now, it's left up to whichever profit-motivated insurance company employee happens to pull up your claim. The outcome of those choices is not well tracked or measured, and that should change so that we can improve the situation going forward.

This thread is yet another example of blind partisan nonsense, the infuriatingly-typical tactic of taking statements out of context to mean exactly the opposite of their intent.
 
Last edited:
People were asking for me to respond to questions about the "death panel" earlier, so here goes.

All health care is rationed. Whether on government-run Medicare/Medicaid/VA or in private industry. Health care resources and the money to pay for them are not in unlimited supply. Somebody, in private or public healthcare, makes a decision on the claims that come in and what sort of procedures to pay for. Whether you want to call it a "death panel" or not is up to you, but whatever you call it, it already exists.
So let me summarize. Death panels already exist and will continue to exist and expand under Obama Care. So "death panels" was a correct statement - though the term itself is incindiary - though I don't know why. Can't we call a spade a spade?
 
Deuce said:
More to the point, the man is right about rationing. We already ration healthcare in this country. All healthcare is rationed. Why is talking about it so upsetting?
Ockham said:
So death panels were accurate?
Nope!! Rationing is not what conservatives were referring to when they popularized the phrase 'Death Panels'.

Death panels was in reference to the end of life counseling in the health care bill, not rationing.
 
Not for nothing...but why? Why do you personally find it insulting?

Before the days of the politically correct dictionary mental retardation was not considered an insult but rather a descriptor amongst the medical community. And while Down is a chromosomal disorder there is no denying that many suffer from some level of mental retardation. Thems the facts. And if it is just that it bothers you because ugly people use it as an insult, well...you might want to consider how much control and responsibility for your own happiness you put in someone elses hands. It certainly says far more about the individual than the child...

And for the record, my oldest sister in law had Down...and she was a wonderful person...a true blessing in my life...

Vance - thanks for trying. I was posting using vernacular attributed to "Palin Hating Leftists" with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. It was obviously lost on some who instead decided to get their knickers in a knot over my word selection. These are, of course, the same people who have no problem with the use of the words "leftard" or "libtard" - gawd forbid I might actually offend the offspring of their goddess. Truth be told, I think Trig is the smart one in the family.
 
So let me summarize. Death panels already exist and will continue to exist and expand under Obama Care. So "death panels" was a correct statement - though the term itself is incindiary - though I don't know why. Can't we call a spade a spade?

Um...in a word, "no."
 
Back
Top Bottom