8 freshman reps block Obama from recess appointments

[spidey07]

Patriots! This is awesome. It looks like some of our new congressmen realize Obama's abuse of recess appointments has to be stopped.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/175767-meet-the-eight-freshman-keeping-congress-in-session

Eight House Republicans are earning their stripes this month while blocking President Obama from making recess appointments.

The rest of their House colleagues are home in their districts for the traditional August recess, but the group first-term lawmakers has pledged to hold pro-forma sessions in the lower chamber every three days for the remainder of the summer, effectively blocking the Democrat-controlled Senate from adjourning.

The group of freshmen, which consists of Landry, Harris, and Reps. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), Allen West (R-Fla), and three-term Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), has agreed to each take one of the nine remaining days over the course of the summer to preside over the House.

 

[a777pilot]

Outstanding!

 

[nageov3t]

seems like it was only yesterday that Republicans were demanding that all presidential nominees deserved a fair up-or-down vote.

they grow up so fast!

 

[a777pilot]

seems like it was only yesterday that Republicans were demanding that all presidential nominees deserved a fair up-or-down vote.

they grow up so fast!

LOL!

Do you even know what a recess appointment is?

 

[nageov3t]

LOL!

Do you even know what a recess appointment is?

yes?

Republicans filibustering Obama appointments in the Senate lead to him having to make recess appointments while Congress is not in session.

the exact same situation that George Bush was in when Democrats were filibustering all of his appointments, while Republicans at large decried the minority party denying his appointments a fair up-or-down vote in the then-Republican-controlled Senate.

 

[a777pilot]

yes?

Republicans filibustering Obama appointments in the Senate lead to him having to make recess appointments while Congress is not in session.

the exact same situation that George Bush was in when Democrats were filibustering all of his appointments, while Republicans at large decried the minority party denying his appointments a fair up-or-down vote in the then-Republican-controlled Senate.

It's a great system. It seems to take of both sides.

 

[spidey07]

yes?

Republicans filibustering Obama appointments in the Senate lead to him having to make recess appointments while Congress is not in session.

the exact same situation that George Bush was in when Democrats were filibustering all of his appointments, while Republicans at large decried the minority party denying his appointments a fair up-or-down vote in the then-Republican-controlled Senate.

And that just means his appointments suck (remember all the communists he's tried to get in?). If there isn't the support needed to make the appointment, or if the person is bad for the position then it is congress's DUTY and RIGHT to prevent it.

I applaud the efforts of these freshmen republicans.

 

[First]

This merely delays it, nothing more. He'll get them all like he has the last 2.5 yrs.

lmao patriots.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

And that just means his appointments suck (remember all the communists he's tried to get in?). If there isn't the support needed to make the appointment, or if the person is bad for the position then it is congress's DUTY and RIGHT to prevent it.

I applaud the efforts of these freshmen republicans.

Or it's an obstruction agenda that's been in place since Obama took office.

 

[Ausm]

Patriots! This is awesome. It looks like some of our new congressmen realize Obama's abuse of recess appointments has to be stopped.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/175767-meet-the-eight-freshman-keeping-congress-in-session

So when a Repub is President and the Democrats do the same thing will they be patriots or Unamerican?

 

[spidey07]

Or it's an obstruction agenda that's been in place since Obama took office.

Yes, just imagine how much greatness Obama could accomplish if everybody just shut up and went along with his brilliance.

They ran on a platform of stopping obama, people elected them on that platform, they're following through on what the people want - stop obama.

 

[spidey07]

So when a Repub is President and the Democrats do the same thing will they be patriots or Unamerican?

I don't believe the executive should make any appointments without congressional review/approval.

cue "but bush" in 3, 2, 1...

 

[spidey07]

This merely delays it, nothing more. He'll get them all like he has the last 2.5 yrs.

lmao patriots.

Not without congressional review and approval. That's why this is so incredibly awesome!

“We understand that our request will very likely mean that the House of Representative will meet no less than once every three days for the remainder of 2011 and all of 2012,” wrote the group, headed up by Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.), who will preside over the House next Friday.

 

[theeedude]

We already know Republicans can obstruct. We also know they can't govern.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't believe the executive should make any appointments without congressional review/approval.

cue "but bush" in 3, 2, 1...

how can congress approve them if they're killed in committee without ever seeing an up or down vote?

even during the Bush years, I was in favor of all presidential appointments receiving a fair up or down vote in the Senate.

 

[werepossum]

I think all Presidential appointments should have an up or down vote, should require a two-thirds or even three-fifths approval for lifetime positions or a simple majority vote for Cabinet positions, and should not be subject to a filibuster as this is a Constitutionally required Senate function. So without knowing which applies, I'll say:
If these candidates were filibustered, this is a bad thing.
If these candidates were not filibustered, this is a good thing.
If these candidates were not passed out of committee, this is a good thing.

This is because while I believe that if lifetime appointments must be made, they should be subject to a super-majority vote, that isn't currently the law. Congress needs to carry out its Constitutionally required functions even when, as is probably the case with these would-be appointments, I probably won't like the results.

 

[thraashman]

Well seeing as the current minority Senate party has filibustered more nomination in less than 3 years under Obama than the minority Democratic party did in 6 years under Bush, I think we can see what's going on. Mitch McConnell said it himself, their primary goal is to prevent Obama getting a second term. And what better way to do that than to block his appointing of competent people who will fix this nation's problems. Thsi is just more proof that the Republicans want one thing and one thing only, to sacrifice the American people for their narrow-minded far right bordering on fascist ideals.

 

[Thump553]

And that just means his appointments suck (remember all the communists he's tried to get in?). If there isn't the support needed to make the appointment, or if the person is bad for the position then it is congress's DUTY and RIGHT to prevent it.

I applaud the efforts of these freshmen republicans.

No, I don't remember ANY of the COMMUNISTS Obama tried to appoint. Please enlighten me by naming even one-and for extra points submit some proof that person was ever a member of the Communist Party.


LOL, Republicans doing what they do best-obstructing government and then so clueless as to brag about it when the American people are begging for a government that functions.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I think all Presidential appointments should have an up or down vote, should require a two-thirds or even three-fifths approval for lifetime positions or a simple majority vote for Cabinet positions, and should not be subject to a filibuster as this is a Constitutionally required Senate function. So without knowing which applies, I'll say:
If these candidates were filibustered, this is a bad thing.
If these candidates were not filibustered, this is a good thing.
If these candidates were not passed out of committee, this is a good thing.

This is because while I believe that if lifetime appointments must be made, they should be subject to a super-majority vote, that isn't currently the law. Congress needs to carry out its Constitutionally required functions even when, as is probably the case with these would-be appointments, I probably won't like the results.

I wish more people were like you instead of Spidey. We could actually get good things done in this country.:thumbsup:

 

[First]

Not without congressional review and approval. That's why this is so incredibly awesome!

Nope, Obama can get around them like he has before, and he will.

 

[Axon]

I'm cool with legit filibusters, but this obstructionist agenda has to go.

 

[PokerGuy]

Apparently there are some people left in the house that take the wishes of their constituents seriously. Good work by these guys. Don't leave the window open for getting idiots appointed without review.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm cool with legit filibusters, but this obstructionist agenda has to go.

So making sure the president doesn't do an end-run around congress is now an "obstructionist agenda"? He needs to appoint decent candidates, pure and simple.

 

[spidey07]

I'm cool with legit filibusters, but this obstructionist agenda has to go.

Doing their constitutional duty is obstructionist how exactly?

 

[spidey07]

So making sure the president doesn't do an end-run around congress is now an "obstructionist agenda"? He needs to appoint decent candidates, pure and simple.

LOL! We both replied at the same time with the same message essentially. Constitution, how does it work?