Printable View
So they were hanging around, getting paid for not working?I thought you were against that stuff.Resees Fecees has another scheme going. Change the electoral college. The popular vote will count even less, and electors will vote for the congressional district winner.In a way, that makes a hell of a lot of sense, the minority would in effect have a chance to win presidential elections. Yes, it makes sense if you live in a oligarcy, like we do.
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;507116]Does not matter.............there are official rules for recess and not in recess. The Senate made it clear to the Administration they were NOT in recess.
THEN, with no one around, the Obamunist in Chief decided to "slip" these "recess" appointments past. It didn't work and folks were rightly pissed.
Here is the reasoning for the ruling, and I quite frankly agree:
[I]
"
The court case turned on whether the Senate was in recess when Mr. Obama made the appointments during a holiday break early last year. The Constitution allows a president to unilaterally install nominees to positions that normally require Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.
But Republican lawmakers held minutes-long meetings every few days, and lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that meant the chamber was technically in session.
While the plaintiff's case centered on those sessions, the court went a step further, declaring that Mr. Obama's appointments fell outside the bounds of his authority. It ruled that the Constitution's description of a recess refers only to the period between the roughly yearlong formal "sessions" of Congress, rather than during an effective break in proceedings. In this case, the Republicans contend Congress started a new session on Jan. 3, and Mr. Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4.
"
[/I][/QUOTE]
So what happened was, the court did not comment on whether or not Congress was in recess. What they said was that any and all "intrasession" recess appointments are unconstitutional, only "intersession" recess appointments are allowed. Well, if that's true, then a whole lot of people will have to lose their jobs, because Presidents have been using doing this exact same thing for many years, including many of those appointments made by Clinton and Bush that jcb listed. And what's more, this exact legal question was decided in the President's favor back when Ted Kennedy challenged George W. Bush's nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit:
[URL]http://www.wlf.org/upload/101404RS.pdf[/URL]
So, why would this be constitutional when Bush does it, but not when Obama does it? Because that is what this court is saying. Again, they're not commenting on whether Congress was or was not in recess, at least not from what I've read about the case. They're trying to issue a sweeping ruling against ALL such appointments, and I'd just about bet this will get shot down by the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=RoadToad;507150]So what happened was, the court did not comment on whether or not Congress was in recess. What they said was that any and all "intrasession" recess appointments are unconstitutional, only "intersession" recess appointments are allowed. Well, if that's true, then a whole lot of people will have to lose their jobs, because Presidents have been using doing this exact same thing for many years, including many of those appointments made by Clinton and Bush that jcb listed. And what's more, this exact legal question was decided in the President's favor back when Ted Kennedy challenged George W. Bush's nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit:
[URL]http://www.wlf.org/upload/101404RS.pdf[/URL]
So, why would this be constitutional when Bush does it, but not when Obama does it? Because that is what this court is saying. Again, they're not commenting on whether Congress was or was not in recess, at least not from what I've read about the case. They're trying to issue a sweeping ruling against ALL such appointments, and I'd just about bet this will get shot down by the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
the only problem toad is that your article PROVES my point......the Bush nomination and appointment in this case was done CORRECTLY and while the senate was in recess.....according to the article. So, thanks for validating what I said. It is fine when done LEGALLY.
[I]President Bush nominated Pryor for a seat on the Eleventh Circuit on April 9, 2003.
Although the nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and has the support of
a majority of the Senate, Democratic Senators to date have successfully filibustered the
nomination. On February 20, 2004, while the Senate was in an 11-day recess, President Bush
gave Pryor a temporary "recess" appointment to the court, an appointment that will last through
the end of 2005. [/I]
[QUOTE=RoadToad;507150]So what happened was, the court did not comment on whether or not Congress was in recess. What they said was that any and all "intrasession" recess appointments are unconstitutional, only "intersession" recess appointments are allowed. Well, if that's true, then a whole lot of people will have to lose their jobs, because Presidents have been using doing this exact same thing for many years, including many of those appointments made by Clinton and Bush that jcb listed. And what's more, this exact legal question was decided in the President's favor back when Ted Kennedy challenged George W. Bush's nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit:
[URL]http://www.wlf.org/upload/101404RS.pdf[/URL]
So, why would this be constitutional when Bush does it, but not when Obama does it? Because that is what this court is saying. Again, they're not commenting on whether Congress was or was not in recess, at least not from what I've read about the case. They're trying to issue a sweeping ruling against ALL such appointments, and I'd just about bet this will get shot down by the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
the only problem toad is that your article PROVES my point......the Bush nomination and appointment in this case was done CORRECTLY and while the senate was in recess.....according to the article. So, thanks for validating what I said. It is fine when done LEGALLY.
[I]President Bush nominated Pryor for a seat on the Eleventh Circuit on April 9, 2003. Although the nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and has the support of a majority of the Senate, Democratic Senators to date have successfully filibustered the nomination. On February 20, 2004, while the Senate was in an 11-day recess, President Bush gave Pryor a temporary "recess" appointment to the court, an appointment that will last through the end of 2005. [/I]
As Hillary says, what does it matter. It's just the constitution and BO doesn't even agree with it. It consists of a collection of negative liberties that says what the Government can't do to the american people.
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;507167]the only problem toad is that your article PROVES my point......the Bush nomination and appointment in this case was done CORRECTLY and while the senate was in recess.....according to the article. So, thanks for validating what I said. It is fine when done LEGALLY.
[I]President Bush nominated Pryor for a seat on the Eleventh Circuit on April 9, 2003. Although the nomination was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and has the support of a majority of the Senate, Democratic Senators to date have successfully filibustered the nomination. On February 20, 2004, while the Senate was in an 11-day recess, President Bush gave Pryor a temporary "recess" appointment to the court, an appointment that will last through the end of 2005. [/I][/QUOTE]
You seem to be missing MY point. You keep dwelling on whether Congress was in recess or not. The problem with that is, the court basically ignored that point. All they said was the President can't make recess appointments during intra-session recesses, a point which has already been decided otherwise in the case of Kennedy v. Bush:
[I]Some legal commentators contend that the President's recess appointment powers do not [/I]
[I]include the right to appoint federal judges. However, on the two prior occasions on which that [/I]
[I]issue was raised in the federal appeals courts, the courts upheld the President's right to make [/I]
[I]recess appointments to the federal bench. Accordingly, Senator Kennedy raised a more limited [/I]
[I]challenge to the Pryor appointment. He conceded that the President has the power to make recess [/I]
[I]appointments during inter-session recesses (recesses occurring at the end of the year, after the end [/I]
[I]of one session of Congress and before the beginning of the next). But he insisted that the [/I]
[I]President may not make such appointments during intra-session recesses, such as the 11-day [/I]
[I]Presidents' Day recess during which Judge Pryor received his recess appointment. The appeals [/I]
[I]court rejected that argument, agreeing with WLF that history is on the side of President Bush -- [/I]
[I]Presidents have been making recess appointments to the federal judiciary throughout American [/I]
[I]history, beginning with George Washington. Indeed, many Supreme Court justices, including [/I]
[I]Earl Warren and William Brennan, first reached the High Court by means of recess [/I]
[I]appointments.
[/I]This is the exact same reasoning being used in the current case, except this time the court has ruled against Obama. That's why I say, how can it be constitutional for Bush, but not for Obama? It can't. And as the court noted when Kennedy challenged Bush, presidents have been doing this since Washington. With that much history on his side, the Supreme Court is sure to rule in Obama's favor.
BTW, I keep reading in news articles that this has been decided in the courts "multiple times," not just the one time in the Kennedy v. Bush case. I just haven't found descriptions of the other cases.
Most of Obama's regulations and executive orders are unconstitutional