Which is more likely regarding recess appointments

rocket88 said:

That's what he was doing

Click to expand...

So again, back to answer 4 at best. The constitutional law professor thought that this was at least more constitutional than not, if not definitely constitutional, but come to find out every single justice on the court unquestionably rejected his legal opinion, including the four judicially liberal justices on the court. Throwing into question the worth and or extremism of his constitutional opinion to at least some degree.

Zyphlin said:

It's a possability, but it would still then leave me troubled with a President taking an unconstitutional action, and allowing said unconstitutional action to impact peoples lives for a time period (and then cause tax payer funds to rectify the issue as I am under the understanding that all those issues judged by those appointed individuals now must be relooked at), simply to set a precedence and make a point to handicapped a future president from something that they may not have even tried.

Click to expand...

What he did was ensure that future Congresses can play games with what "in session" means.

Zyphlin said:

Come on Redress. I wasn't asking a question about something that was a 5/4 ruling, or even a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling.

This was a UNANIMOUS ruling against the Presidents action. This was the likes of Alito and Ginsburg agreeing on a similar verdict. Of Thomas and Sotomayer both issuing the same vote. Of Scalia and Kagan both saying "Nope".

In most cases I agree, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest you can consistently guess how the SCOTUS would rule. But this one was blatantly obvious, and that fact became even more crystal clear when they UNANIMOUSLY....judicially liberal and conservative...both said "no go".

This is basic civics. The Senate sets the rules for how the senate acts internally and only they have the power to declare themselves on recess. Allowing the President to decide when Congress is in recess by fiat is clearly and obvious a violation of the checks and balances built into our system. This is so blatantly obvious that every single SCOTUS Justice ruled against that.

To HONESTLY believe this action was constitutional, or stood even a REASONABLE chance of being upheld, one would either need to be utterly ignorant of constitutional law, so amazingly on the lunatic fringe of constitutional law that even Kagan and Sotomayer view your opinion as too liberal, or simply in denial.

This is not simply doing something overturned by the course. This is doing something blatantly and obviously unconstitutional and having it called as such by EVERY SINGLE JUSTICE on the court. And, specifically, this is the President himself not doing this...not simply a portion of th executive branch which is often used as a means of distinction when the other 9-0 cases against this current administration (or past administrations) are pointed out.

By the way, there is an option for that. The fourth one. And if you want to quibble on the notion of naivity being involved, I would love to see you put forth a compelling argument that ANYONE...specifically a constitutional scholar...should've had ANY hope what so ever that this action would've garnered 5 votes in support of it.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you have not even read about what you are ****ing commenting on. Shame on you, you can do better than this. Here, let me help you by pointing you to where you should have started to save making this mistake: Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog. Now let me quote:

Here it is important to note that, although all nine Justices agreed that these particular recess appointments were invalid, there was not a lot of harmony on the Court in this case. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Click to expand...

So clear cut that the justices did not agree on anything beyond the outcome...

Best to educate yourself before posting...

Redress said:

Ah, so you have not even read about what you are ****ing commenting on. Shame on you, you can do better than this. Here, let me help you by pointing you to where you should have started to save making this mistake: Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog. Now let me quote:



So clear cut that the justices did not agree on anything beyond the outcome...

Best to educate yourself before posting...

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the link. I hadn't really realized what exactly the court's ruling was either.

Slyfox696 said:

Thanks for posting the link. I hadn't really realized what exactly the court's ruling was either.

Click to expand...

I strongly recommend going to SCOTUSBLOG after every big decision. Amazing resource, with good, balanced explanations and handy links to the actual rulings. The "In Plain English' column in particular is a favorite.

Redress said:

Ah, so you have not even read about what you are ****ing commenting on.

Click to expand...

Only if you contort and strawman what I've said, but then again you've got your hackles raised so I guess that's how you're going to play it.

Shame on you, you can do better than this.

Click to expand...

Ditto

So clear cut that the justices did not agree on anything beyond the outcome...

Click to expand...

Gee...if only someone made a claim that the justices agreed on the same OUTCOME as opposed to the reasoning for that outcome

"similar verdict." <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning

"issuing the same vote." <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning

"both saying 'Nope'. " <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning

Well ho-lee-****...someone DID claim they agreed on the OUTCOME. Yet you get on your goddamn high horse to say "shame on me"? Come at me with something other than this strawman **** if you think you're going to "shame" me into changing my mind. When I'm wrong about things I have no issue manning up on them, but like hell am I going to tuck tail and run because you want to get high and mighty battling a scarecrow. I don't know what toe tapping jolly ass two bit political hack who can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag you think I am but you sure as **** are confused about it Redress. You say I'm "better then this"? Then why don't you take two ****ing moments to step back, read what I'm saying, and ask yourself WHY someone like me may be bothered and asking such questions as opposed to immediately leaping forward to battle words I never wrote but you've imagined.

I know and understand full well that the Alito and Scalia types came to their conclusion for a different reason than the Ginsburg and Kagan types...that doesn't change the FACT that they all came to the same conclusion, that this action WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Which was my entire point. If my point had been about their opinions then I would've said "opinions". I didn't. I spoke about the outcome. Regardless of whether or not you come at this from a judicially conservative or a judicially liberal manner, the end result is the same.

NOT CONSTITUTIONAL

It is so glaringly not constitutional that you can reach that conclusion via the routes of both ideologies, to the tune of NINE TO ZERO.

Got any more strawmen and misrepresentations you want to throw my way in your effort to "shame" me? If not, how about you educate your own damn self before trying to lecture and "shame" me again.

Zyphlin said:

Only if you contort and strawman what I've said, but then again you've got your hackles raised so I guess that's how you're going to play it.



Ditto



Gee...if only someone made a claim that the justices agreed on the same OUTCOME as opposed to the reasoning for that outcome

"similar verdict." <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning

"issuing the same vote." <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning

"both saying "Nope". " <---- oh wait, that was talking about the outcome and not the reasoning

Well ho-lee-****...you get on your goddamn high horse to say "shame on me". Come at me with something other than this strawman **** if you think you're going to shame me into changing my mind. When I'm wrong about things I have no issue manning up on them, but like hell am I going to tuck tail and run because you want to get high and mighty battling a scarecrow. I don't know what toe tapping jolly ass two bit political hack who can't debate their way out of a wet paper bag you think I am but you sure as **** are confused about it Redress.

I know and understand full well that the Alito and Scalia types came to their conclusion for a different reason than the Ginsburg and Kagan types...that doesn't change the FACT that they all came to the same conclusion, that this action WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Which was my entire point. Regardless of whether or not you come at this from a judicially conservative or a judicially liberal manner, the end result is the same.

NOT CONSTITUTIONAL

It is so glaringly not constitutional that you can reach that conclusion via the routes of both ideologies, to the tune of NINE TO ZERO.

Got any more strawmen and misrepresentations you want to throw my way in your pathetic effort to "shame" me?

Educate your own damn self before lecturing others

Click to expand...

So even the justicves could not agree on the issues, and yet somehow it is in your mind clear cut? They even issued two different opinions. You really should have looked into this before getting on that high and mighty horse.

Redress said:

So even the justicves could not agree on the issues, and yet somehow it is in your mind clear cut?

Click to expand...

The fact that this was an unconstitutional action was clear cut, yes. Did I not make that clear the repeated times I have already stated such. The justices couldn't agree on the entire case and the nuanced reasons, but they all could agree on the very obvious basis that when the congress is actively calling itself into session that the Executive can't simply declare them NOT in session for the sake of recess appointments.

You really should have looked into this

Click to expand...

Look, when you actually show that you've bothered to read my posts, and respond to what I actually say, I'll care about what you think I need to "look into" on this manner.

From your own link:

all nine Justices agreed that these particular recess appointments were invalid

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I was suggesting. That unanimously they agreed that these appointments were not constitutional. There is no disputing that. Not by any measure.

If I was talking about their opinion I would've said "their opinion". I fully understand the issue is complicated as to WHY it's unconstitutional and about the nuances of the case. That doesn't change the fact that the primary act in question had the same verdict DESPITE it being arrived at via two different styles of judicial ideology...that the act of declaring congress was "in recess" when they were actively having sessions (even if they were "pro forma"), and thus making recess appointments, was not constitutional. Both sides concluded that was NOT constitutional, understandably and obviously so. Did they judge the entire thing based on similar opinions and reasons? No, nor did I expect them to. But it was fully expected that they'd find the action, ultimately, unconstitutional...which was my entire point AND what I have said repeatedly if you'd bother to read what I wrote rather than assuming the worse and apparently waging into a battle against strawmen you've named "Zyphlin".

Zyphlin said:

The fact that this was an unconstitutional action was clear cut, yes. Did I not make that clear the repeated times I have already stated such. The justices couldn't agree on the entire case and the nuanced reasons, but they all could agree on the very obvious basis that when the congress is actively calling itself into session that the Executive can't simply declare them NOT in session for the sake of recess appointments.

Click to expand...

No, actually it was not. Did you know that the court had to create a new standard with this ruling? One that had never been codified in law? It is true. Here, to quote from my source again since it explains it necely:

Here the Court said that any recess that is shorter than three days is not long enough to make a recess appointment necessary. And a recess that is longer than three days but shorter than ten days will, in the normal case, also be too short to necessitate a recess appointment. (The Court added that there may be “very unusual” cases – such as a “national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response” – in which recess appointments would be permitted even though the recess was still shorter than ten days.)

Click to expand...

Look, when you actually show that you've bothered to read my posts, and respond to what I actually say, I'll care about what you think I need to "look into" on this manner.

From your own link:

Click to expand...

Which is entirely and completely different from saying the case was predictable or clear cut.

Which is exactly what I was suggesting. That unanimously they agreed that these appointments were not constitutional. There is no disputing that. Not by any measure.

If I was talking about their opinion I would've said "their opinion". I fully understand the issue is complicated as to WHY it's unconstitutional and about the nuances of the case. That doesn't change the fact that the primary act in question had the same verdict DESPITE it being arrived at via two different styles of judicial ideology...that the act of declaring congress was "in recess" when they were actively having sessions (even if they were "pro forma"), and thus making recess appointments, was not constitutional. Both sides concluded that was NOT constitutional, understandably and obviously so. Did they judge the entire thing based on similar opinions and reasons? No, nor did I expect them to. But it was fully expected that they'd find the action, ultimately, unconstitutional...which was my entire point AND what I have said repeatedly if you'd bother to read what I wrote rather than assuming the worse and apparently waging into a battle against strawmen you've named "Zyphlin".

Click to expand...

Trying to suggest that because all 9 justices agreed on the outcome means that it is predictable is false. The justices themselves could not agree on the issues, and in fact, this ruling was in some ways a victory for Obama. Again from my source:

The Court began with the first question presented in the case: whether the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments during “intra-session” recesses (breaks that occur within the two one-year sessions between congressional elections) or only during “inter-session” recess (the break between the two one-year sessions). Its answer on this question is a victory for the Obama administration and future presidents who want to be able to make recess appointments...snip...

The Court’s answer on the second question posed in the case – whether the president can use his recess appointment power to fill any vacancies that happen to exist when the Senate is in recess, or whether he is limited to vacancies that are created while the Senate is in recess – also favored the Obama administration.

Click to expand...

You are trying to make something complex into something simple, which is always going to fail. You could have prevented this by a little research. I recommend you do that in the future.

Redress said:

Which is entirely and completely different from saying the case was predictable or clear cut.

Click to expand...

Alright, and here is where I'm thru with you after this post unless you actually want to discuss things I'm actually saying. I've stated that the action Obama took was clearly unconstitutional, which it was. I did not suggest every facet of this case was predictable or clear cut, or the opinions would be, or the reasonings would be. I suggested that the fact that Obama's actions were unconstitutional was clear cut...and it was. I suggested that it was so clear cut that all nine justices found that it was unconstitutional, which they did.

You want to continue to hump your strawman, be my guest. I'm not interested in a threesome. I've had a good conversation on this topic with everyone else in this thread, even amending my OP based on an individuals disagreement with part of it and opening my thought process up to another avenue that this could've been reached. You're the only person in here ignorantly and pathetically debating a strawman, shoving words in my mouth, and being more focused on your pathetic endeavor to "shame" me than actually engaging in conversation. I recommend you keep your recommendations to yourself, or give them to someone that gives a damn about your opinion on that matter because after your reactions from moment one in this thread I'm not one of them.

Other: Believed it was in question as to whether it would be considered by this SCOTUS as Constitutional, and took a chance; doing it to solve the problem of the Senate not fulfilling its duty.

I just don't see it as cut and dried as you do.

I am a strong, and rather radical, 2nd amendment supporter (bear with me for this seeming tangent). My support of it is based in what I hold to be the historical context combined with it's intent, and then I see if the language plausibly permits the intent I believe is there from all of the information. To me, that is the proper way to determine the Constitutionality of an action or law. If I didn't do that with the 2nd, I probably wouldn't be a supporter of its implications.

Taking the same approach with the issue regarding recess appointments:

Briefly, according to the thinking of the writers and the Americans who voted in the Constitution 1) I believe the Senate is expected to vote on nominees. I don't think the founders envisioned the Senate shirking that responsibility, and I think it should be unconstitutional for them to do so. 2) The provision for recess appointments was meant to take care of cases where the Senate could not vote, because it wasn't available to do so.

Given the above, I don't think that the founders intended for the Senate to be able to hamstring the President's ability to name nominees for partisan ends.

Times have certainly changed, as one justice noted that the recess provision is rather out of date, given that the Senate could really be available to vote on any nominee at any time should the need arise. But, if that is their attitude, then why not just blanket declare all recess appointments as Unconstitutional, since the Senate is never really out of session in the sense that the founders envisioned. They didn't do that, and so the fact is they do recognize that the Senate can still be in a valid recess with respect to the provision.

If we are going with that, then the question becomes "when is it really in recess, and when is it not?" I don't agree with you that a Constitutional law can be circumvented by playing tricks, and no one of any honesty could claim that their tactic for staying in session was anything but a trick. So, I disagree with the SCOTUS: If there is anything that can still be called a 'recess' then the Senate was in it in any real sense. In addition, the Senate was Unconstitutionally shirking its responsibility, so this lends a small bit of support from the 'cannot vote' angle.

I admit, I may be wrong because my approach may be wrong, or I may be taking it too far. I am sure there is a good chance even Obama wouldn't agree with me on the finer points of what I am saying. But, one thing I am certain of is that my interpretation comes closer to the original intent of the matter than the SCOTUS decision did. Anyone should admit that if the founders rewrote those parts of the Constitution to reflect things as they are today, they would certainly not permit the Senate to 'make all its own rules' any more, and would have laid at least some of them out in the Constitution to prevent the ridiculous situation we have today. I venture to guess, they may not have even allowed the Senate to confirm them any longer, since they abuse the power so readily. If Obama is wrong, he nevertheless understands the foregoing on some level, and certainly may have been blinded by that.

I really don't think it was that huge of a stretch for Obama to think that it might be Constitutional, without any nefarious spin.

"It is easier to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission."

I think that pretty well covers it.