Obama recess appointments unconstitutional

[piasabird]

So you guys remember when the president insulted a member of the supreme court during one of his state of the union speeches?

Payback is hell. Dont insult the supreme court justices if you want decisions to go your way!

 

[Brainonska511]

So you guys remember when the president insulted a member of the supreme court during one of his state of the union speeches?

Payback is hell. Dont insult the supreme court justices if you want decisions to go your way!

So you're saying that these judges are basing their decision on emotion and not on the rule of law?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So you guys remember when the president insulted a member of the supreme court during one of his state of the union speeches?

Payback is hell. Dont insult the supreme court justices if you want decisions to go your way!

This post is wrong in, literally, every way a post could be wrong.

The President did not "insult" the Supreme Court, much less any particular justice. He said he did not agree with their holding in Citizens United, but no "insult" was stated.

This decision was not a holding of the Supreme Court, but the D.C. Circuit.

If you're seriously saying it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to hold against the President as "payback," your expectations of our justice system are both wrongheaded and amazingly cynical.

 

[piasabird]

What I am saying is the supreme court could have said something like whether their were in recess is kind of jubjective because there were no real sessions going on and they could have ruled a little differently and give the president some lee-way. However, I do think that the supreme court was snubbed by the president. Maybe you did not see it that way, but it looked like that to me. The president has made many statements indicating he thinks he is somehow above the law and can just make decisions without any need to follow the constitution. Things like this do not go unnoticed by the supreme court. They could easily see this as a necessary measure to put the executive branch in its place. There is suppose to be a system of checks and balances last time I checked.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What I am saying is the supreme court could have said something like whether their were in recess is kind of jubjective because there were no real sessions going on and they could have ruled a little differently and give the president some lee-way. However, I do think that the supreme court was snubbed by the president. Maybe you did not see it that way, but it looked like that to me. The president has made many statements indicating he thinks he is somehow above the law and can just make decisions without any need to follow the constitution. Things like this do not go unnoticed by the supreme court. They could easily see this as a necessary measure to put the executive branch in its place. There is suppose to be a system of checks and balances last time I checked.

This decision had nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

 

[Wreckem]

Senate republicans have said many times over they won't block appointments if Democrats would pass a budget. This could all be avoided, but the Senate democrats haven't passed a budget since Obama got into office. Disgusting democrats.

And why cant they pass a budget? Because the Republicans won't let pass anything that isn't their house bill.

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

When one party doesn't compromise there isn't much the other side can fucking do, but you are complete hack so you don't see that.

 

[OutHouse]

What's disgusting is that the GOP has been so obstructive to this nation's well-being that Obama had to attempt this appointment anyway. I really am tired of this seditious GOP minority in the Senate.

so A federal court's ruling against your God and you bitch about a gop minority senate? wtf is wrong you?

 

[Ryan]

so A federal court's ruling against your God and you bitch about a gop minority senate? wtf is wrong you?

LOL - you say minority as if they have no control.

 

[CitizenKain]

Senate republicans have said many times over they won't block appointments if Democrats would pass a budget. This could all be avoided, but the Senate democrats haven't passed a budget since Obama got into office. Disgusting democrats.

Except they'd still block it because they are liars and dishonest people. Just like everyone that voted them in.

Funny how the conservatives never had a problem with this before, but when you have a party identity based on dishonesty what can you expect from them?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

I have trouble with this. Obviously the Republicans were blocking Obama, but that has not been ruled an illegal act. What Obama did has been. Dirty politics is equivalent to breaking the Constitution? Does that make the Reps right? That doesn't matter. What matters is what is legal and what is not. If you want to excuse Obama for breaking the law so be it, but I'll stand by the Constitution and you and others by O. BTW, I gave Bush hell when he used the founding document as toilet paper. Obama doesn't get a pass either. YMMV.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If you want to excuse Obama for breaking the law so be it...

Was there something ambiguous in "if he really was wrong then he deserved to get smacked down"?

I'm not defending Obama's actions if they were ruled unconstitutional. I *am* defending his attempts to work around the endless roadblocks put in his way by opponents who care more about politics than governing. If he went too far here, then, well, that's why we have a court system.

I am also pointing out the myopia in the right-wingers cheering this move, who are practically pretending that there is no context and Obama just woke up one morning and decided to do this. The Republicans, as any reasonable person can see, are NOT fulfilling their constitutional obligations, so the crowing strikes me as hollow.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Was there something ambiguous in "if he really was wrong then he deserved to get smacked down"?

I'm not defending Obama's actions if they were ruled unconstitutional. I *am* defending his attempts to work around the endless roadblocks put in his way by opponents who care more about politics than governing. If he went too far here, then, well, that's why we have a court system.

I am also pointing out the myopia in the right-wingers cheering this move, who are practically pretending that there is no context and Obama just woke up one morning and decided to do this. The Republicans, as any reasonable person can see, are NOT fulfilling their constitutional obligations, so the crowing strikes me as hollow.

I remember the crowing from the left telling the majority to suck it when the mandate was ruled constitutional. As much as I felt a punishment tax concept was a dangerous precedent, thats how it was. How many tech threads rubbing that in? It wasn't a Constitutional mandate, but it was allowed. Biden is now deceiving people about guns and Obama doesn't do a damn thing about it, but will the left call them on it? Not a chance. So everyone has to put up with all of it, but when something actually illegal happens? Damn right people who don't care for it will point it out. The magical sword of craptastic politics cuts both ways. Personally I think Obama cares about the Constitution as Bush did, which doesn't say much, so personally I'm delighted when he gets slapped down. Now if you find Republicans who back holding citizens without Constitutional rights, then they also have my scorn. That said don't accept any mitigation because a party plays dirty. Both do that, and not surprisingly those who support an agenda apply different standards.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I remember the crowing from the left telling the majority to suck it when the mandate was ruled constitutional. As much as I felt a punishment tax concept was a dangerous precedent, thats how it was. How many tech threads rubbing that in?

You should know better by now than to try a "Mom! He did it too!" type argument on me, HR.

Biden is now deceiving people about guns and Obama doesn't do a damn thing about it, but will the left call them on it? Not a chance.

Yes. So? You're completely trying to change the subject here.

So everyone has to put up with all of it, but when something actually illegal happens? Damn right people who don't care for it will point it out.

Again, you are ducking the issue. I agree with pointing out when something is (so far) ruled illegal. I don't agree with doing that while pretending the other side are a bunch of saints.

Every single person here knows that if the Republicans were fulfilling their constitutional role to evaluate appointees, this case would never have happened.

Every single person here also knows that this case occurred because the Republicans were playing games with recess.

So, yet again, I am not justifying Obama's overreach. I am criticizing that and criticizing the ridiculous obstructionism that has led to this situation in the first place.

You want to blast Obama? Go ahead. But don't do it while pretending it happened in a vacuum.

Not bothering to respond to the remaining diversions and excuses. Pretty disappointing.

 

[monovillage]

You should know better by now than to try a "Mom! He did it too!" type argument on me, HR.
Yes. So? You're completely trying to change the subject here.
Again, you are ducking the issue. I agree with pointing out when something is (so far) ruled illegal. I don't agree with doing that while pretending the other side are a bunch of saints.

Every single person here knows that if the Republicans were fulfilling their constitutional role to evaluate appointees, this case would never have happened.

Bullshit! I do not know that and consider you a liar to baldly state it

Every single person here also knows that this case occurred because the Republicans were playing games with recess.

Again bullshit! They were not games but their powers under the Constitution.

So, yet again, I am not justifying Obama's overreach.

Yes, you are.

I am criticizing that and criticizing the ridiculous obstructionism that has led to this situation in the first place.
You want to blast Obama? Go ahead. But don't do it while pretending it happened in a vacuum.
Not bothering to respond to the remaining diversions and excuses. Pretty disappointing.

Obama is the one to blame for refusing to compromise with Republicans to get his choices approved, you absolve Obama for his fuck ups while blaming Republicans for doing the best they can do.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Bullshit! I do not know that and consider you a liar to baldly state it

My mistake. I should have said "every honest and reasonable person here", since every honest and reasonable person knows the job of the senate is to debate and confirm or deny appointments based on reasonable arguments, not hold them up indefinitely.

Thanks for the correction.

Again bullshit! They were not games but their powers under the Constitution.

This has nothing to do with the constitution. They manipulated the parliamentary rules to create a fake "session" that wasn't really a session.

Yes, you are.

I hope some day you're able to correct your reading difficulties.

Obama is the one to blame for refusing to compromise with Republicans to get his choices approved, you absolve Obama for his fuck ups while blaming Republicans for doing the best they can do.

They didn't do "the best they could do". They deliberately gummed up the whole works.

Only the most blinded partisan would try to claim only one side was responsible for this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Also, as someone has already pointed out, this doesn't just claim as unconstitutional appointments made during the GOP-game-playing pro-forma fake sessions. It would make unconstitutional all appointments made during session breaks.

Where's the precedent for such a ruling?

 

[boomerang]

I'm wondering if there is anything, anything Obama could do that would not be justified by his followers. The ends justify the means trumps everything it seems.

The man needs to understand that their are constraints on him. I for one, am thankful that his second term started out with him getting a dressing down however minor it may have been. It's long overdue. We elect a President not a Dictator.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm wondering if there is anything, anything Obama could do that would not be justified by his followers.

It is actually possible to criticize someone and his opposition at the same time.

Try arguing against real posts instead of strawmen.

 

[monovillage]

My mistake. I should have said "every honest and reasonable person here", since every honest and reasonable person knows the job of the senate is to debate and confirm or deny appointments based on reasonable arguments, not hold them up indefinitely.

Thanks for the correction.

So anyone who disagrees with you on this political point is dishonest and unreasonable?

 

[boomerang]

It is actually possible to criticize someone and his opposition at the same time.

Yes, when one is so desperate to not offend anyone that straddling the fence becomes more important than taking a stand for what you believe in.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So anyone who disagrees with you on this political point is dishonest and unreasonable?

There's a simple test here. Anyone who would be okay with the behavior done by one party but not the other, is either employing a double standard, or is incapable of understanding concepts of fairness.

So I'll ask you simply: if it was a Republican president facing a Democratic senate, and the Democrats were holding up record numbers of appointments, and then using gavel-games to prevent the Republican president from making recess appointments, would you be okay with that? Or would you say the senators were engaging in obstructionism and not doing their jobs?

If you don't think that would be okay, then you can't honestly or reasonably say that the GOP senators are doing their jobs here.

If you do think that would be okay, then I guess we'd just have very different ideas of what "advice and consent" means, but at least you'd be fair.

Yes, when one is so desperate to not offend anyone that straddling the fence becomes more important than taking a stand for what you believe in.

Or, when both sides are deserving of criticism. Which, guess what, is usually the case in Washington these days.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Remember that this started under Reagan and was escalated under Bush II, when Democrats explicitly refused to ever schedule hearings for some Bush nominees. Now with Obama the Pubbies escalated, with the House meeting every three days to keep Congress out of recess, and Obama escalated by making recess appointments even though Congress was not in recess. Thus the slap-down.

There is going to have to be a de-escalation at some point. Advice and consent is a Constitutionally mandated duty; refusing to schedule hearings and filibustering nominees for unrelated issues is NOT acceptable. I don't give a damn if the Senate locks up on all its non-Constitutionally mandated business - hell, I'd prefer it - but what IS Constitutionally mandated needs to happen.

Republicans are trying to kill the pay of the Senate budget committee, which receives $15 million even though they have not actually produced a budget or even made a real attempt in years. I'd like to see something similar for the committees responsible for getting nominees up for votes. Don't get all the nominees out of committee within 180 days, lose your committee funding. Don't get all the approved nominees up for votes within 120 days, lose your leadership funding. Don't get all the nominees voted up or down within 60 days of opening debate, no Senators get paid for that Congress. Unfortunately only Congress can write such laws, so it'll never happen.

 

[monovillage]

There's a simple test here. Anyone who would be okay with the behavior done by one party but not the other, is either employing a double standard, or is incapable of understanding concepts of fairness.

So I'll ask you simply: if it was a Republican president facing a Democratic senate, and the Democrats were holding up record numbers of appointments, and then using gavel-games to prevent the Republican president from making recess appointments, would you be okay with that? Or would you say the senators were engaging in obstructionism and not doing their jobs?

If you don't think that would be okay, then you can't honestly or reasonably say that the GOP senators are doing their jobs here.

If you do think that would be okay, then I guess we'd just have very different ideas of what "advice and consent" means, but at least you'd be fair.



Or, when both sides are deserving of criticism. Which, guess what, is usually the case in Washington these days.

I felt it was well within the powers of the Senate to delay and/or prevent what they thought were bad nominations as far back as the Reagan administration and while I think that they had been unfair to Robert Bork and others, it was within their Constitutional power to do so.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Remember that this started under Reagan and was escalated under Bush II, when Democrats explicitly refused to ever schedule hearings for some Bush nominees. Now with Obama the Pubbies escalated, with the House meeting every three days to keep Congress out of recess, and Obama escalated by making recess appointments even though Congress was not in recess. Thus the slap-down.

There is going to have to be a de-escalation at some point. Advice and consent is a Constitutionally mandated duty; refusing to schedule hearings and filibustering nominees for unrelated issues is NOT acceptable. I don't give a damn if the Senate locks up on all its non-Constitutionally mandated business - hell, I'd prefer it - but what IS Constitutionally mandated needs to happen.

Thank you. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make about the greater context.

It's just that here, one side finally went too far. Though there's still the SCOTUS...

I felt it was well within the powers of the Senate to delay and/or prevent what they thought were bad nominations as far back as the Reagan administration and while I think that they had been unfair to Robert Bork and others, it was within their Constitutional power to do so.

Fine. I withdraw my earlier comment. You're entitled to your opinion on this, much as I consider it severely uninformed in a constitutional sense.

 

[werepossum]

I felt it was well within the powers of the Senate to delay and/or prevent what they thought were bad nominations as far back as the Reagan administration and while I think that they had been unfair to Robert Bork and others, it was within their Constitutional power to do so.

It's certainly within the Senate's power to delay and/or prevent what they think are bad nominations; it's also their responsibility. I think this stopped working when the filibuster was gutted. If a Senator has to stand up and argue his points, presumably he'll be more circumspect about choosing to do so. And as much as I despised Robert Byrd for reading phone books and his mother's recipes to hold up a bill to get yet another Robert Byrd memorial federal building or project for West Virginia, at least he had to stand up there and look like an idiot.

Now the Republicans have escalated again; the Senate not doing its job is nothing new, but by keeping Congress in session with faux House sessions, they are also short-circuiting the Constitutional procedure developed to allow the President to bypass Congress (with certain necessary limitations) when it has not executed its duties.