Obama recess appointments unconstitutional

[EagleKeeper]

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.

The original intent was to allow appointments when the Senate was not in session. The Senate could take weeks to be recalled, that allowed the ability to fill the slot until proper confirmation.

With current technology, the Senate cam be recalled inside two days.

 

[Lithium381]

And how long were these positions left open while Congress failed to fill them? If this is in the multiple months count, I don't blame Obama a bit. If Congress fails to do its job, someone has to. Don't want Obama appting people? Do your Fing job.

like passing a budget in the senate?

 

[werepossum]

The original intent was to allow appointments when the Senate was not in session. The Senate could take weeks to be recalled, that allowed the ability to fill the slot until proper confirmation.

With current technology, the Senate cam be recalled inside two days.

That's a good point, and I'm certainly in favor of ending recess appointments altogether IFF the Senate can produce a background investigation, debate, and an up or down vote on every nominee within a reasonable time. But there's no point in recalling the Senate if it refuses to do its job.

Bad as it is to have a massive, unconstitutional government programs, it's even worse to have them and neuter them with a lack of approved nominees. The programs don't end, everyone draws a check except the absent heads. And many of the nominees are federal judges; if we don't need all those federal judges, let's revise the federal court systems to eliminate their positions. If we do need them, let's get them nominated, investigated, debated, and approved or rejected.

 

[monovillage]

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.

Obama has brought some of these problems down on himself with the contemptuous way he's treated the Republicans since his 1st inauguration. "elections have consequences, at the end of the day I won" etc.. compromise is a 2 way street.

 

[werepossum]

Obama has brought some of these problems down on himself with the contemptuous way he's treated the Republicans since his 1st inauguration. "elections have consequences, at the end of the day I won" etc.. compromise is a 2 way street.

Oh, I totally agree. But sometimes you have to work with dickheads to get your job done. "He's an asshole" is not generally a valid excuse for failure.

 

[monovillage]

Oh, I totally agree. But sometimes you have to work with dickheads to get your job done. "He's an asshole" is not generally a valid excuse for failure.

They're all assholes, otherwise they wouldn't be in Washington DC.

 

[Zorba]

Really the republicans are trying to go around the constitution here. The republicans don't like the NLRB and are trying to shut it down by not allowing the senate to vote on the appointments. The proper way to get rid of the NLRB, per the constitution, is by passing a law. But since they can't do that, they are now trying to ensure there is no quorum, thus shutting it down.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

When the Republicans illegally appoint someone then guess what? They'll be guilty of the same thing Obama did. Now if you think that advise and consent means rubber stamp, then fine. Go back and start looking at the history of political obstructionism from day one of this government. You bring up the fact that both sides deserve criticism. Well hells bells, I've been bitching about that for a few decades. More than a few. What the heck was Obamacare? I'll tell you. It wasn't a means to correct serious problems. They were buried and anyone who pointed them out was guess what? Obstructing. You'll probably not want to face that fact so you cry diversion, which is really getting old. "This is the outrage you can talk about, you can't discuss other egregious acts in the context of incompetence or abuse"

The bottom line is that in general both sides are completely off the rails. Now the Dems are getting grief. The Reps will later. Deal with it, because it's a repeating cycle that is reinforced by those who won't hold their own to the same standards as the other.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Really the republicans are trying to go around the constitution here. The republicans don't like the NLRB and are trying to shut it down by not allowing the senate to vote on the appointments. The proper way to get rid of the NLRB, per the constitution, is by passing a law. But since they can't do that, they are now trying to ensure there is no quorum, thus shutting it down.

Of course the Republicans try to shut down what they don't like. Right now Biden is out there talking about how the public shouldn't have automatic weapons which they do not. Guess what? They are trying to get crap they want, and shut down what they don't want.

Personally I'd like to shut the whole political process down, kick every last one out and start fresh.

 

[chucky2]

like passing a budget in the senate?

Right. Not like it matters. If the Fed had to run itself like a business they'd immediately self destruct. Hmmmmm, there's a thought... :hmm::hmm::hmm:

 

[First]

lol Benghazi.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Oh, I totally agree. But sometimes you have to work with dickheads to get your job done. "He's an asshole" is not generally a valid excuse for failure.

It's also true that the Republicans in Congress have never shown him one ounce of compromise from the very beginning, as exemplified by Mitch McConnell's comment that his no. 1 priority in the Senate was making sure the President would not serve a second term (as opposed to, say, actually acting in a legislative capacity, the job he was elected to do).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's also true that the Republicans in Congress have never shown him one ounce of compromise from the very beginning, as exemplified by Mitch McConnell's comment that his no. 1 priority in the Senate was making sure the President would not serve a second term (as opposed to, say, actually acting in a legislative capacity, the job he was elected to do).

I recall reading that a bunch of Republicans were literally meeting at the time the inaugural balls were happening to discuss strategies for throwing monkeywrenches into Obama's presidency.

One of them appears to have been a concerted effort to declare in the right wing media that "Obama was against Republicans from the start".

Accusing your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing -- it's a fairly standard propaganda technique. There's plenty of blame to go around here, but Obama was consistently seen by the public as more willing to deal with the GOP than the other way around.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Now if you think that advise and consent means rubber stamp, then fine.

I've repeatedly, specifically said that this NOT my position. My position is that the job of the Republicans is to conduct hearings, not endlessly obstruct the entire process.

I want the nominations debated and then either approved or rejected. That is nowhere near to "rubber stamping". I just want the senate to do its damned job.

If you're just going to mischaracterize my posts to construct convenient straw men, I see no reason to engage in discussion with you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've repeatedly, specifically said that this NOT my position. My position is that the job of the Republicans is to conduct hearings, not endlessly obstruct the entire process.

I want the nominations debated and then either approved or rejected. That is nowhere near to "rubber stamping". I just want the senate to do its damned job.

If you're just going to mischaracterize my posts to construct convenient straw men, I see no reason to engage in discussion with you.

Well we're getting somewhere now. The Reps should follow the process. I've complained enough about Cuomo that it should be obvious that how things are done matters. I also understand frustration on the part of Obama, but he pushed his solution too far, and considering his stand on the Constitution in other situations does not demonstrate to me that hes overly concerned about the finer points to be charitable about it. Between the two, I find Obamas actions to be more offensive of the two.

There was an article recently, it may have been Time, which addressed the fiscal cliff and changing the constitution to be more modern. It missed the larger issue. No Constitution which does not outlaw the influence of political parties can prevent what we are seeing, the results of partisan thought. Thats hard to address because humans tend to form collective groups which are in essence psychological tribes which defend themselves against outsiders. That's the real problem to address.

I tend to reply to your posts because you think and aren't subject to the same degree of bias s many. We also have differing perspectives about many things so I often add mine to the mix. You don't like that it seems and you take it as an attack. You now accuse me of misstating your posts when you've attacked me elsewhere, mischaracterizing my point which didn't involve you in the first place. I let that drop because I had no interest being involved in an adolescent pissing match over something I didn't think worth it. I still don't so I'll do both of us a favor and do what I haven't with others and put you on ignore so I won't be tempted to interact and risk offending your sensibilities. I regret doing this at some level, but for now at least it's probably for the best.

 

[cave_dweller]

What president would appoint judges who would tell him he cannot do anything he wants? Who appointed the Supreme court judges?

 

[monovillage]

Mr. Obama has also signaled his intention to govern as much as possible by stretching the legal bounds of regulation and executive orders. The D.C. Circuit ruling is thus a particularly timely warning that while Mr. Obama was re-elected, has most of the press in his pocket and is popular with 52% of the public, he's subject to the rule of law like everybody else.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8263793332301584.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

[Charles Kozierok]

HR, I usually enjoy interacting with you, so I'm sorry if you've decided putting me on ignore is the best approach. I'm sorry if my response was an overreaction, but I've said both that Obama overreached and that I just want the Republicans to do their jobs .. many times in this thread. So the "rubber stamp" comment got under my skin.

Maybe we can just write this off as one of those things and strive to interact more constructively next time.

 

[glenn1]

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.

Process arguments are BS. If the Senate can reject a well-qualified Bork by vote, they can block a well-qualified NLRB nominee via filibuster. Once you make a single exception for partisan reasons, saying "Bork is uniquely bad" or such, there is no logical stopping point in escalations. Indeed, game theory says the side which escalates the most and fastest will be better off.

 

[monovillage]

Process arguments are BS. If the Senate can reject a well-qualified Bork by vote, they can block a well-qualified NLRB nominee via filibuster. Once you make a single exception for partisan reasons, saying "Bork is uniquely bad" or such, there is no logical stopping point in escalations. Indeed, game theory says the side which escalates the most and fastest will be better off.

Yep and any tactic that has been used successfully by one side in a conflict will eventually be used by the opposing side.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Indeed, game theory says the side which escalates the most and fastest will be better off.

That's a good way to run a war, not a government.

Of course, if one side has a large contingent of people who hate government and therefore want to gum up the works, then the game theory changes.

As the old joke goes: "Republicans constantly claim that government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."

 

[monovillage]

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it.

P.J. O'ROURKE, Holidays in Hell

 

[monovillage]

And another.

In what may be the best and certainly the funniest book written about the American government, Parliament of Whores, P.J. O'Rourke described what he would consider a perfect politician's platform:



"Why, send yours truly to Capitol Hill, and I'll ship the swag home in boxcar lots. You'll be paving the roads with bacon around here when I get done shoveling out the pork barrel. There'll be government jobs for your dog. Leave your garden hose running for fifteen minutes, and I'll have the Department of Transportation build an 8-lane suspension bridge across the puddle. Show me a wet basement and I'll get you a naval base and make your Roto-Rooter man an admiral of the fleet. There'll be farm subsidies for every geranium you've got in a pot, defense contracts for Junior's spitballs and free day care for Sister's dolls. You'll get unemployment for the sixteen hours every day when you're not at your job, full disability benefits if you have to get up in the night to take a leak, and Social Security checks will come in the mail not just when you retire at sixty-five but when you retire each night to bed. Taxes? Hell, I'll have the government go around every week putting money back in your paycheck, and I'll make the IRS hire chimpanzees from the zoo to audit your tax returns. Vote for me, folks, and you'll be farting through silk."

And you know, they're all promising us that, and we're voting for them.

 

[kage69]

It's also true that the Republicans in Congress have never shown him one ounce of compromise from the very beginning, as exemplified by Mitch McConnell's comment that his no. 1 priority in the Senate was making sure the President would not serve a second term (as opposed to, say, actually acting in a legislative capacity, the job he was elected to do).

It's really surprising to me that so many view Obama as some kind of imperious arsehole and the GOP as just a small, victimized group of innocent hardworkers. Truly, a testament to the power of well funded partisan media.

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. The GOP has acted like a spoiled brat who isn't afraid to throw feces to make an attempt at a point. The filibuster record, the words and deeds of those like McConnell and Issa, yes all this points to OBAMA, that Kenyan Communist Fascist Marxist, as the party in the wrong here.


Also, how funny is it to hear pubbie supporters claim insults on the part of Obama? lol Can we limit the double standards to one per thread? Just imagine the uproar were Obama ever to stoop to Cheney or Boner's level, egads!

 

[kage69]

HR, I usually enjoy interacting with you, so I'm sorry if you've decided putting me on ignore is the best approach. I'm sorry if my response was an overreaction, but I've said both that Obama overreached and that I just want the Republicans to do their jobs .. many times in this thread. So the "rubber stamp" comment got under my skin.

Maybe we can just write this off as one of those things and strive to interact more constructively next time.

Sorry, had to. In case he Ignores it.

You are both party to the best of what this forum can offer, your exchanges are a delight from the norm and if you kill that when then... shit. I guess what I'm trying to say is I engage in a lot of sifting here (agree completely about the dropping) and banter between thoughtful wordsmiths such as yourselves is automatically on my Exclusion list.

Just hoping that write off is what happens.