I hate to say, but I agree. While I was giddy that Obama got smacked back to reality, when I read the ruling I'm afraid they went too far... Way too far. Strictly defining who can be recess appointed will never withstand appeal, and limiting it to only end of term probably won't either.
I hate to say, but I agree. While I was giddy that Obama got smacked back to reality, when I read the ruling I'm afraid they went too far... Way too far. Strictly defining who can be recess appointed will never withstand appeal, and limiting it to only end of term probably won't either.
Read the ruling; they're right. The decision far exceeded the scope of the case at hand.
These were not recess appointments. The Senate was not in recess, they were in session. The executive doesn't get to decide when the Senate is in session or recess, the Senate/legislative does.
This has nothing to do with who the judges are, the case is about as straight forward as you can get. Senate was not in recess, Obama made appointments without Senate approval when they were in session. Can't do that.
Read the fucking ruling. The more or less defined what a recess appointment is. They made a bright line test. Most recess appointments have happened outside what they have defined, not just Obamas...
The DC Circuit ruling went well beyond what Obama did... And its NOT dicta in this case.
SCotUS will take the case next year in all liklihood as there is now a split circuit(DC circuit in the minority). SCotUS won't have near the wide reaching/broad decision. I see it being a very fractured/convulated opinion and not just a 5/4 split. Probably going to be a 4-2-3 split.
Last edited:
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
good. i always thought how he went about it was not right.
saying that i think that if they can't do it the right way he should have the right to do it how he did.
it sickens me that the people elected to do a damn job refuse to do it. From leaving town to just refusing to vote on someone. leaving the position empty over voting in someone you don't agree with 100% is insane.
saying that i think that if they can't do it the right way he should have the right to do it how he did.
it sickens me that the people elected to do a damn job refuse to do it. From leaving town to just refusing to vote on someone. leaving the position empty over voting in someone you don't agree with 100% is insane.
Yes, the case was about that.
The decision far exceeded the scope of the case. Aside from nullifying the appointment, they also found that recess in that context could only mean "end of the term" and that only appointments that fell into that time frame could be recess appointed.
Have you bothered to read it?
I'd be willing to agree that what Obama did was outside the legal bounds of his power, if the Republicans would agree that they have employed unconscionable tactics that made this situation possible in the first place.
Explain Cordray. He was already blocked. Obama had his answer and did not care for it.
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
Obama broke the law and violated the Constitution, the Republicans didn't. Sorry.
Republicans haven't met their constitutional obligations. Its assinine there are still 1st term appointments they still refuse to allow to go to a confirmation vote. Republicans can pretty much forget about ever appointing a SCotUS justice.
And until SCotUS rules, which will be atleast a year from now, everything is still up in the air as there is now a split in the circuits.
Last edited:
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,657
- 17,248
- 136
Yeah!! Another win for the republican party and another loss for the Americsn people!
Party before country!
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,926
- 31,455
- 146
hey dingleberry! looks like you you got a new feather in your cap of asshatery. /golfclap
maybe if the GOP weren't piled with sycophantic dicksticks whose only intent is to obstruct obstruct obstruct, these vacancies would have been filled long ago--well, no if here, really.
If truly unconstitutional and it has merit, then it needs to be reviewed. The larger problem, I see, is when a party of whiny babies try to obstruct a man's presidential powers to make the appointments that he chooses to be worthy.
sad, that you and your ilk elect these clowns and assume they are doing good, simply by virtue of being nothing but whiny little bitches.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Obama is not above the Constitution. :thumbsup:
Doing an end around because he is unhappy with the way things work is no excuse.
We have a system of laws and checks/balances; one has to learn to live within it or change it properly.
Just like the liberal, always wanting to live in a dictatorship. If only we let Obama do whatever he wants!
NO! The Constitution specifically limits the executive branch, it was one of the founding fathers greatest concerns - the power of the executive branch. As such there are very specific functions and powers enumerated. Obama flat out rejected the Constitution, there is no mincing words or sugar coating it.
The Senate doing it's Constitutional Duty or keeping the executive in check is not "whiny little bitches", those are 1st rate patriots.
As I said, if he really was wrong then he deserved to get smacked down.
What I find ludicrous is all the grandstanding from people on the right here, who:
A. Know that the only reason Obama had to even try this is that the GOP were being obstructionists and not fulfilling their obligations; and
B. Would be whining like little girls with skinned knees if the roles were reversed.
"Advice and consent" does not mean "indefinitely block the appointments of people because we're trying to neuter agencies we don't like". So cut the constitution-waving -- it's transparent nonsense.
What I find ludicrous is all the grandstanding from people on the right here, who:
A. Know that the only reason Obama had to even try this is that the GOP were being obstructionists and not fulfilling their obligations; and
B. Would be whining like little girls with skinned knees if the roles were reversed.
"Advice and consent" does not mean "indefinitely block the appointments of people because we're trying to neuter agencies we don't like". So cut the constitution-waving -- it's transparent nonsense.
No, Republican's did their job and obligation. They said no to the appointments. That is the Senate's job and obligation, to confirm or deny these appointments. That is the role of the legislative branch, and republican patriots fulfilled it beautifully.
You are a partisan hack if you believe that refusing to confirm minor appointments for 4 years is anything but partisan politics.
Don't say a god damn word when Democrats refuse to allow ANYONE, more specifically ANY SCotUS nominee, to go to confirmation when/if there is a Republican president in 2016. They would be patriots after all...
Last edited:
Hardly......
Bush recess appointments for further Rightists outrage....
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-ap-recess-appointments-glance,0,4657994.story
They haven't confirmed or denied the appointments you retard. They have left them in limbo. If they actually did their job and allowed things to come to vote, the appointments wouldnt be denied.
Last edited:
Hardly......
Bush recess appointments for further Rightists outrage....
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-ap-recess-appointments-glance,0,4657994.story
And almost all those under previous Presidents would be illegal under this ruling.
Their obligation is to assess appointments and approve or deny them in a reasonable amount of time based on reasonable standards.
As a simple matter of fact, the Republicans have not done this. Filibustering nominees indefinitely is not "advice and consent". It's playing games. And so the "tsk-tsk"ing when Obama in turn tries to play games is transparent partisan bullshit.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 53,297
- 47,669
- 136
If memory serves it was Harry Reid who started to keep the Senate in a "pro forma" session to prevent recess appointments from the Bush administration. However I think Bush made far more recess appointments than any president in US history...like 6 times what Obama has done so far and now this trick is used by both chambers.
Regardless, the appointment process is broken and has been for decades.
Edit: apparently 2nd most after Reagan.
Regardless, the appointment process is broken and has been for decades.
Edit: apparently 2nd most after Reagan.
Just like a conservatard. Proud to be ignorant. The advice and consent clause was intended to limit the legislative branch. The founding fathers prevented Congress from grabbing the president's appointment authority.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter