Obama recess appointments unconstitutional

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by kage69

snip>......Obama negotiates, compromises, or concedes on a variety of issues and consistently raises the theme of inclusion and responsibility ( "we're in this together" ) since 2008. <snip.......

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. ~John Locke


Well done is better than well said. ~Benjamin Franklin


A promise is a cloud; fulfillment is rain. ~Arabian Proverb


Small deeds done are better than great deeds planned. ~Peter Marshall


Never mistake motion for action. ~Ernest Hemingway


Action is eloquence. ~William Shakespeare


Talk doesn't cook rice. ~Chinese Proverb
http://www.quotegarden.com/action.html
How about some links to the compromises he's made, not just what he's said?

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by monovillage

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. ~John Locke


Well done is better than well said. ~Benjamin Franklin


A promise is a cloud; fulfillment is rain. ~Arabian Proverb


Small deeds done are better than great deeds planned. ~Peter Marshall


Never mistake motion for action. ~Ernest Hemingway


Action is eloquence. ~William Shakespeare


Talk doesn't cook rice. ~Chinese Proverb
http://www.quotegarden.com/action.html
How about some links to the compromises he's made, not just what he's said?

There are 20 on page one of seven.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/compromise/


Or do those not fit your definition of compromise?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

There are 20 on page one of seven.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/compromise/


Or do those not fit your definition of compromise?

Nope, I don't consider most of those "compromises with Republicans" sorry.

Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers -?
Expand the earned income tax credit-?
Include environmental and labor standards in trade agreements-?
Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes-?
Invest in electronic health information systems-?

I mean compromises by politifact? Really?

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Nope, I don't consider most of those "compromises with Republicans" sorry.


I mean compromises by politifact? Really?

Lol

You don't consider most of them compromises or you don't consider any of them compromises?

Please by all means move the goal posts.

Politifact? Yes. I'm sorry it's not from reason.com like you would like it to be.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Lol

You don't consider most of them compromises or you don't consider any of them compromises?

Please by all means move the goal posts.

Politifact? Yes. I'm sorry it's not from reason.com like you would like it to be.

No, I misunderstood, those are obviously compromises that the Republicans made to Obama, not the other way around.

[ivwshane]

Let me help you out here:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to increase capital gains and dividends taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent for those making more than $250,000 (for couples) or $200,000 (for individuals).
The fiscal cliff bill, passed by the House and Senate on Jan. 1, 2013, did raise taxes to 20 percent, but only for taxpayers earning $400,000 (for individuals) or $450,000 (for couples). Taxing capital gains at 20 percent returns taxation to the level under President Bill Clinton. Under Clinton, dividends were taxed as ordinary income, meaning rates as high as 39.6 percent.
Obama's most recent budget proposed returning dividend taxation to the rates for ordinary income, making the 20 percent rate a concession to Republicans. However, we're only rating Obama on his promise from the campaign, and during the campaign, he only promised a 20 percent rate for dividends.
Overall, then, the fiscal cliff bill executed most of what Obama had promised on capital gains and dividends, but it did so only above a higher income threshold than Obama had campaign on. We rate this a Compromise.

The 200k/250k to 400k/450k was the compromise and is what helped to get it passed.


But please do tell what a "compromise" really is.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by monovillage

No, I misunderstood, those are obviously compromises that the Republicans made to Obama, not the other way around.

Lol! Holy shit! Did you really just post that?!

Let me help you again:

compromise[ kom-pruh-mahyz ]
noun
1.*a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2.*the result of such a settlement.
3.*something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.

A compromise isn't a one sided thing, there is no such thing as one side compromising but the other side didn't.


Lol, your post has to be the best post I've seen in a while! You make incorruptible seem like a freaken genius!

[Charles Kozierok]

From 2011 at around the time of the debt ceiling stupidity.



Source.

Note the last item on the list, a 2-to-1 margin saying that the Democrats were more willing to work with the opposition. GOP seen as "more extreme" by a healthy margin.

Also from the same piece:



It's pretty self-explanatory.

[thraashman]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Let me help you out here:



The 200k/250k to 400k/450k was the compromise and is what helped to get it passed.


But please do tell what a "compromise" really is.

Well he seems to believe with every other head up their own ass Republican, so he probably agrees with Richard Mourdock (you remember him, rape babies are from God guy) who said that compromise is Democrats coming to the Republican position.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

There are 20 on page one of seven.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/compromise/


Or do those not fit your definition of compromise?

I need to provide some context here.

Politifact is using "compromise" in a specific way here -- in judging whether or not Obama kept particular promises. A "compromise" means he didn't fully fulfill the promise, or did it in some different way, or something.

Sometimes that does represent a compromise with the GOP, but sometimes it means something completely different.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Lol! Holy shit! Did you really just post that?!
Let me help you again:
A compromise isn't a one sided thing, there is no such thing as one side compromising but the other side didn't.
Lol, your post has to be the best post I've seen in a while! You make incorruptible seem like a freaken genius!

If you had read through this thread you would have seen claims by both DVC

"It's also true that the Republicans in Congress have never shown him one ounce of compromise from the very beginning...."

and Wreckum

"You just like the republicans are idiots who beleive in ideological purity and no compromise are the fucking problem with this country."

that Republicans refuse to compromise. If anything that link proves them both of them and myself are guilty of a bit of hyperbole where some compromises have been done by both sides.

At least I included some cool quotes.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

I need to provide some context here.

Politifact is using "compromise" in a specific way here -- in judging whether or not Obama kept particular promises. A "compromise" means he didn't fully fulfill the promise, or did it in some different way, or something.

Sometimes that does represent a compromise with the GOP, but sometimes it means something completely different.

Uhh what? A compromise is a compromise, no context is needed. Obama campaigned on X and the GOP wanted Z and they both compromised and ended up with Y.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by monovillage

If you had read through this thread you would have seen claims by both DVC and Wreckum that Republicans refuse to compromise. If anything that link proves them both of them and myself are guilty of a bit of hyperbole where some compromises have been done by both sides.

At least I included some cool quotes.

Absofuckinglutely! So now that we can agree that making such claims are rediculous will you now stop saying them?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Absofuckinglutely! So now that we can agree that making such claims are rediculous will you now stop saying them?

I'll always be happy to say that Republicans and conservatives can see the value of intelligent compromise. I'll also be happy to say that on occasion even Obama is willing to compromise.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

Uhh what? A compromise is a compromise, no context is needed. Obama campaigned on X and the GOP wanted Z and they both compromised and ended up with Y.

*shrug*

I tried.

Can you really explain how this, to take one example from your list, represents Obama compromising with the GOP?

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by monovillage

I'll always be happy to say that Republicans and conservatives can see the value of intelligent compromise. I'll also be happy to say that on occasion even Obama is willing to compromise.

Are you willing to acknowledge that polling consistently shows Democrats being more willing to compromise than Republicans? And that the tea party in particular specifically tries to get candidates NOT to compromise and tries to primary out the ones that do?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

Are you willing to acknowledge that polling consistently shows Democrats being more willing to compromise than Republicans? And that the tea party in particular specifically tries to get candidates NOT to compromise and tries to primary out the ones that do?

That's pretty accurate, I won't give it a blanket correct on all counts. That would depend on who's doing the polling and their methodology.
As far as being willing to compromise, if the Tea Party want no taxes/revenues to be raised and Democrats want $2 Trillion in taxes/revenues raised I don't see a $1 Trillion raise in taxes/revenues as a compromise.

[kage69]

Mono, you're hilarious. I know you're not actually trying to be, but credit where credit is due.

A couple proverbs and quips from historical figures - well never mind then! That completely invalidates what I was referring to, clearly the past 4 years of petulant GOP butthurt never happened. lol

Poor shills. If only the Dems had their own version of the Tea Party (and they were willing to damage the country with it), then your lives would be so much easier without having to maintain the "both parties do it" schtick.

[monovillage]

I loved this Slate article.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ral_court.html

She's actually angry because the judges paid attention to the language of the Constitution. Imagine that! A liberal pissed off because the judges actually held to their oath of office.

That’s what three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said Friday. The president has constitutional egg on his face because the judges have blocked his appointments of three NRLB members on Jan. 4, 2012. The president said that on that day, the Senate was in recess, which meant he could exercise his authority to make a recess appointment. But the Senate claimed that it was not in recess at all. Never mind that its members were off on a 20-day holiday. The Republican minority took care during that time to gavel the Senate in and out, every few days, for what Obama called “pro forma” sessions. And that, staunch conservative Judge David B. Sentelle says for himself, and two other judges who also happen to be Republican appointees, is enough to beat the president at the game of declaring recess.

Or perhaps I should say only the recess. What we’re looking at here is this clause from Article II of the Constitution:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

As Sentelle framed it, “the Recess” cannot ever mean anything like “a recess.” “This is not an insignificant distinction,” he writes. “In the end it makes all the difference.” The Framers were not talking about “a generic break in the proceedings,” Sentelle continues, “Either the Senate is in session, or it is in the recess. If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in ‘the Recess.’ ” The upshot is that if the opposing party minority says the Senate is in session, then it does not matter where the flock has fled, or even for how long. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, essentially, gets to decide when the Senate is open or shut, with whatever fiction he wants.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by kage69

Mono, you're hilarious. I know you're not actually trying to be, but credit where credit is due.

A couple proverbs and quips from historical figures - well never mind then! That completely invalidates what I was referring to, clearly the past 4 years of petulant GOP butthurt never happened. lol

Poor shills. If only the Dems had their own version of the Tea Party (and they were willing to damage the country with it), then your lives would be so much easier without having to maintain the "both parties do it" schtick.

The Democrats do have their own version of the Tea Party, they're called "liberals and/or progressives"

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

*shrug*

I tried.

Can you really explain how this, to take one example from your list, represents Obama compromising with the GOP?

That one is a stretch but he promised spending 50 billion and only spent 35 billion.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and lets say this isn't a compromise does that mean Obama isn't willing to compromise? It does not so I'm not sure what your point was in relation to the post I was responding too.

[ivwshane]

Originally Posted by monovillage

The Democrats do have their own version of the Tea Party, they're called "liberals and/or progressives"

No they are not equivalent in any way, he even went on to qualify his statement.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

No they are not equivalent in any way, he even went on to qualify his statement.

Yes they are, you just can't see it.