Obama Wins

User avatar
Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

Obama Wins

Postby Litlebritdifrnt2 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:02 pm

I disagree, the congress had said it was in recess and therefore could not vote to disapprove the president's raising of the debt ceiling and asked him to move it back until they were. He did so. In doing that they told him they were in recess. So he went ahead and did some recess appointments. POTUS pwned them once again.

User avatar
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5620
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Obama Wins

Postby Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:40 pm

If a federal court has to decide if the Senate was still in recess January 4, this may present a problem for the White House.


Tuesday, January 3, 2012


Mr. Mark R. Warner, from the Commonwealth of Virginia, called the Senate to order at 11:01 a.m.

[/break1]senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/floor_activity.htm]http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/f ... tivity.htm

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31426
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Obama Wins

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:49 pm

And the Senate did no business and adjourned for the day.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Obama Wins

Postby Suranis » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:56 pm

I'm sure Obama is shaking at the prospect of a court case where the Republicans have to fight for their right to pretend to stay in session just to stop the president appointing someone to run a department they don't like in order to prevent that Agency functioning. That will go over so well in an election cycle.

"The use of pro forma sessions to block recess appointments is a very recent development," said Katherine Scott, an assistant historian for the United States Senate Historical Office. "Republicans threatened it with President Clinton in the 1990s, but didn't use it. Senator Reid was the first to declare, in 2007, that the Senate would hold pro forma sessions to block recess appointments."

Have you tried the Internet? It's made out of millions of people missing the point of everything and then getting angry about it.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31426
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Obama Wins

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:59 pm

For the Senate to be engaging in these charades is another shining example of Harry Reid's great leadership of the Senate.Too bad Hillary is such a good SoS. She would have been a great Majority Leader.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Obama Wins

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:08 am

If a federal court has to decide if the Senate was still in recess January 4, this may present a problem for the White House.


Tuesday, January 3, 2012


Mr. Mark R. Warner, from the Commonwealth of Virginia, called the Senate to order at 11:01 a.m.

[/break1]senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/floor_activity.htm]http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/f ... tivity.htm

And then gaveled it closed literally seconds later. This "pro forma" session bullshit is not enough to defeat recess appointments. Nor is it unprecedented. Teddy Roosevelt did no fewer than 160 recess appointments in a recess lasting mere hours. If attacking this process of fake "pro forma" Senate sessions, called into existence for the sole purpose of obstructing recess appointments, is Obama's purpose, then doing it the previous day would not have served that purpose.

User avatar
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5620
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Obama Wins

Postby Joseph Robidoux III » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 am

And then gaveled it closed literally seconds later. This "pro forma" session bullshit is not enough to defeat recess appointments. Nor is it unprecedented. Teddy Roosevelt did no fewer than 160 recess appointments in a recess lasting mere hours. If attacking this process of fake "pro forma" Senate sessions, called into existence for the sole purpose of obstructing recess appointments, is Obama's purpose, then doing it the previous day would not have served that purpose.

When a President may make recess appointments is not settled and I didn't mean to imply it is. I do however agree with the interpretation taken from this [/break1]senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A]CRS Report.


For the purposes of the recess appointment clause, the word “session” refers to the period between the reconvening of the Senate after a sine die adjournment and the next sine die adjournment. The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress will meet annually on January 3, “unless they shall by law appoint a different day.”3 Generally, a session of the Senate begins on that day and continues until sine die adjournment, usually in the fall.4 The Senate could be called back into session after sine die adjournment if certain conditions have been included in the adjournment resolution. Nonetheless, sine die adjournment is generally considered to be the end of the Senate’s session for purposes of the expiration of a recess appointment.5


<>


The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days.10 In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This “Adjournments Clause” provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days ....”

If the President's primary purpose was to get a court ruling regarding pro forma sessions being able to block recess appointments, then I agree making the appointments on or after Jan 4 is necessary. If his primary purpose however was to have the apointments ruled legal if challenged, he could have removed one possible impediment by making the appointment prior to the Jan 3 Senate session.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Obama Wins

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:55 am

If the President's primary purpose was to get a court ruling regarding pro forma sessions being able to block recess appointments, then I agree making the appointments on or after Jan 4 is necessary. If his primary purpose however was to have the apointments ruled legal if challenged, he could have removed one possible impediment by making the appointment prior to the Jan 3 Senate session.

He may be thinking about other appointments in his second term, when he may be facing a majority Republican Senate virtually guaranteed to abuse the bogus pro forma sessions. He chose four highly popular appointments for this challenge. Three NLRB members guarantee the continued function of the NLRB, which would otherwise effectively cease to exist. C.f. New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, 2644-45, 177 L. Ed. 2d 162, 174-75 2644-45, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4973, *25-26 (2010) (5-4 decision). Cordray's appointment is also highly popular, and blocking it is something I'd like to see the pigs fight. Any fight they pick on this issue will be either arguing that the NLRB should be destroyed and rendered inoperable, or that consumer protection should similarly be obliterated. I don't see how you get better optics in an election year.





I give little credence to the so-called "three day rule" and other Presidents, including Truman, have ignored it. I don't believe it ever existed. I see nothing about three days in the Constitution. I also see nothing indicating the Framers intended that the Senate could simply use its "advise and consent" role simply to block the President from making any appointments and stop the government from working, as an act of sabotage.





If he doesn't win and doesn't get reelected, then the next (Republican) President has no power to make recess appointments over Senate obstructionism. If he does win and gets reelected, he's taken the rattle from the baby.





I'm not seeing the flaw in this strategy other than that he might not win.





As even a Bush DAG commented, it's a "high-roller move."





I'm not sure he'll win, but it's about time he showed some balls.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 5023
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Obama Wins

Postby Mikedunford » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:16 am

If the President's primary purpose was to get a court ruling regarding pro forma sessions being able to block recess appointments, then I agree making the appointments on or after Jan 4 is necessary. If his primary purpose however was to have the apointments ruled legal if challenged, he could have removed one possible impediment by making the appointment prior to the Jan 3 Senate session.

He may be thinking about other appointments in his second term, when he may be facing a majority Republican Senate virtually guaranteed to abuse the bogus pro forma sessions. He chose four highly popular appointments for this challenge. Three NLRB members guarantee the continued function of the NLRB, which would otherwise effectively cease to exist. C.f. New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, 2644-45, 177 L. Ed. 2d 162, 174-75 2644-45, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4973, *25-26 (2010) (5-4 decision). Cordray's appointment is also highly popular, and blocking it is something I'd like to see the pigs fight. Any fight they pick on this issue will be either arguing that the NLRB should be destroyed and rendered inoperable, or that consumer protection should similarly be obliterated. I don't see how you get better optics in an election year.





I give little credence to the so-called "three day rule" and other Presidents, including Truman, have ignored it. I don't believe it ever existed. I see nothing about three days in the Constitution. I also see nothing indicating the Framers intended that the Senate could simply use its "advise and consent" role simply to block the President from making any appointments and stop the government from working, as an act of sabotage.





If he doesn't win and doesn't get reelected, then the next (Republican) President has no power to make recess appointments over Senate obstructionism. If he does win and gets reelected, he's taken the rattle from the baby.





I'm not seeing the flaw in this strategy other than that he might not win.





As even a Bush DAG commented, it's a "high-roller move."





I'm not sure he'll win, but it's about time he showed some balls.

This almost certainly falls into the "pure fantasy" category, but if the Senate sues the President for violating the appointments clause, I'd love to see the President counter-sue, and demand that the Senate be forced to carry out their duty to provide advice and/or consent.

User avatar
Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5620
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Obama Wins

Postby Joseph Robidoux III » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:15 am

He may be thinking about other appointments in his second term, when he may be facing a majority Republican Senate virtually guaranteed to abuse the bogus pro forma sessions. He chose four highly popular appointments for this challenge. Three NLRB members guarantee the continued function of the NLRB, which would otherwise effectively cease to exist. C.f. New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, 2644-45, 177 L. Ed. 2d 162, 174-75 2644-45, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4973, *25-26 (2010) (5-4 decision). Cordray's appointment is also highly popular, and blocking it is something I'd like to see the pigs fight. Any fight they pick on this issue will be either arguing that the NLRB should be destroyed and rendered inoperable, or that consumer protection should similarly be obliterated. I don't see how you get better optics in an election year.

I agree with you that Pres Obama's decision to use these appointments rather than that of some Article III judges the Republicans won't let through is a smart political move.





I give little credence to the so-called "three day rule" and other Presidents, including Truman, have ignored it. I don't believe it ever existed. I see nothing about three days in the Constitution. I also see nothing indicating the Framers intended that the Senate could simply use its "advise and consent" role simply to block the President from making any appointments and stop the government from working, as an act of sabotage.

The "three day rule" is taken directly from Article I Section 5 Clause 4. I previously admitted this is not settled law. We are both offering opinions. As for Pres Truman, he wasn't afraid of a fight with anyone except Bess (insert story of Margaret's singing talent here). I agree the founding fathers may not have forseen how some Senate rules have been used for partisan/regional purposes (eg, tactics used attempting to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from becoming law).





If he doesn't win and doesn't get reelected, then the next (Republican) President has no power to make recess appointments over Senate obstructionism. If he does win and gets reelected, he's taken the rattle from the baby.





I'm not seeing the flaw in this strategy other than that he might not win.





As even a Bush DAG commented, it's a "high-roller move."





I'm not sure he'll win, but it's about time he showed some balls.

It is a high roller move. If Obama wins a court battle, sooner or later a Republican President will nominate someone that stood no chance of ever gaining confirmation. Fortunately it most likely won't be a nominee for an Article III judge.





Regarding balls, the following is President Harry S Truman's response to music critic Paul Hume regarding Margaret's (Harry & Bess's daughter) Dec 1950 singing performance.





THE WHITE HOUSE


WASHINGTON





Mr Hume:





I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."





It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.





[highlight=#ffff00]Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below![/highlight]





Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.





H.S.T.




[/break1]rjgeib.com/heroes/truman/truman-daughter.html]http://www.rjgeib.com/heroes/truman/tru ... ghter.html

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Obama Wins

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:27 am

The "three day rule" is taken directly from Article I Section 5 Clause 4. I previously admitted this is not settled law.

I think we both agree on the latter point. The Article I "three days" though, appears to relate to the relation of the two chambers of Congress with each other. It simply states that one chamber shall not go into a recess without the consent of the other. It does not state, however, that if the Senate does, in fact, go into a recess, that this in any way affects the President's power to make recess appointments, if the Senate chooses an illegal path, which it has.(I note that these "pro forma" and IMO bullshit sessions of Senate to prevent recess appointments occurred in opposition to Bush and were just as sleazy then.)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Obama Wins

Postby Slartibartfast » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:38 am

Thank you both for that thorough deconstruction! =D> :-bd I wonder if Harry Reid was responding to an unprecedented use of recess appointments by the Bush administration or if it was just a power grab (which was bound to cause exactly this sort of blowback... ](*,) ).

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 28136
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Obama Wins

Postby mimi » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:37 am

doug mataconis has an argument with himself as to whether the appointments are constitutional or not.[/break1]outsidethebeltway.com/are-obamas-recess-appointments-unconstitutional-probably-not/]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-ob ... bably-not/For any who don't want to read the whole thing, the spoiler is in the last paragraph. :P

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 10100
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Obama Wins

Postby Suranis » Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:25 am

It is a high roller move. If Obama wins a court battle, sooner or later a Republican President will nominate someone that stood no chance of ever gaining confirmation. Fortunately it most likely won't be a nominee for an Article III judge.

Already happened. I clearly remember Bush using a recess appointment to nominate John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN over the opbections of virtually everybody, and Bolton proved their point by being a total disaster as UN ambassador

I wonder if Harry Reid was responding to an unprecedented use of recess appointments by the Bush administration or if it was just a power grab (which was bound to cause exactly this sort of blowback... ](*,) ).

[/break1]senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270DP%2BP\W%3B%20P%20%20%0A]Not hugely

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. PresidentGeorge W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions.2 As ofDecember 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-timepositions

Now that being said as noted above Bush's recess appointments were highly partisan in nature and pissed everyone off. It should also be noted that Bush made no recess appointments in from 2007 onwards due to the "pro-forma" bullshit.
Have you tried the Internet? It's made out of millions of people missing the point of everything and then getting angry about it.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Obama Wins

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:12 pm




It is a high roller move. If Obama wins a court battle, sooner or later a Republican President will nominate someone that stood no chance of ever gaining confirmation. Fortunately it most likely won't be a nominee for an Article III judge.


Already happened. I clearly remember Bush using a recess appointment to nominate John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN over the opbections of virtually everybody, and Bolton proved their point by being a total disaster as UN ambassador.

Actually, Presidential nominations for completely unconfirmable candidates have been commonplace. Bush nominated the obviously completely unqualified Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but after even the Republicans broke into unrestrained guffaws, he withdrew it. Similar examples are not exactly difficult to remember.





Recess appointments, as well, have been commonplace, and similarly, often to appoint officeholders who stood no chance of confirmation. However, it is one thing when a recess appointment is to ram an unpopular nominee into an office. It is something else entirely when the Senate absolutely refuses to confirm anyone at all to fill a position, because they don't like the position itself. That is an abuse of the "advise and consent" power, and like most checks, has a balance (recess appointments) to counter it.





Since it results in drama, the electorate gets to decide whether or not it is an abuse or not, and whether the elected official gets replaced at the next election. I think these appointments will be a huge political success. For that matter, even if the Supreme Court chooses to throw out these appointments after a prolonged battle, it will be the Supreme Court itself that will be the long-term loser.





I'd also love to see the SCROTUS, perpetually worshipful of executive authority, suddenly do an about-face and say an obstructionist Senate can basically castrate the President and there's nothing the President can do in response.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Obama Wins

Postby Slartibartfast » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:51 pm

I'd also love to see the SCROTUS, perpetually worshipful of executive authority, suddenly do an about-face and say an obstructionist Senate can basically castrate the President and there's nothing the President can do in response.

Me too (they'll probably just come up with explicitly different standards for Republican and Democratic presidents... after all, IOKIYAAR). I'm wondering if all of this is just something that President Obama is doing to set up the State of the Union. As Suranis mentioned, this is a high-roller move, and I think it might be laying groundwork for an even bigger play in the SotU. At least I hope so... {SMILIES_PATH}/pray.gif

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Obama Wins

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:25 pm

Tolland, Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek article is causing all kind of reactions from Conservatives. doug mataconis has a post about the reactions:Andrew Sullivan: What Obama’s Critics On The Left And Right Are Missing[/break1]outsidethebeltway.com/andrew-sullivan-what-obamas-critics-on-the-left-and-right-are-missing/]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/andrew ... e-missing/I saw tweets about a post on breitbart's big gov site. "Why Is Andrew Sullivan So Dumb?" I didn't get a chance to read any of these yet. I just found it fun that one article seems to be causing so much uproar.

I'm transplanting this response into the Obama Wins thread, since it quite cogently answers a lot of the completely crazy lies about Obama by RWNJs, as well as making a reasonable argument that even the factually accurate criticisms of Obama miss the forest for the trees.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 28136
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Obama Wins

Postby mimi » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:56 am

rikker posted a different link in another thread. Still... I'm posting.

Yes, the president is comfortable with cool, and Willard has to dial "1" just to get to Doofus.

:-bd Two videos at the link. Obama & Mittens. [/break1]esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-al-green-video-6642022?hootPostID=a78667dffab2ceb744e5185a4b46b404]http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/o ... 5a4b46b404

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8378
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

Obama Wins

Postby Whatever4 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:46 pm

Singing [link]Dionne Warwick...,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo8nLMCLT60[/link][link]Paul McCartney...,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvorqcgcdtw&feature=related[/link][link]Aretha...,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcbG7wLWthE&feature=related[/link]But his Al Green was awesome. Where's my smelling salts...

neonzx
Posts: 4413
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Obama Wins

Postby neonzx » Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:17 pm


User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 11366
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Obama Wins

Postby Reality Check » Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Powerful!! :-bd
“The reality of what we really are is often times found in the small snips, way down at the bottom of things.” – Jean Shepherd

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Obama Wins

Postby Slartibartfast » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:12 pm

Great video! You know, the Republican party must be gnawing on its own liver that their guy ignored warnings about Bin Ladean and President Obama put a bullet through his head. :(( :(( :(( They can't swift boat him or he'll just treat them like a Somali pirate--and we all know what that means...





OBAMA WINS!

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 10614
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm

Obama Wins

Postby kate520 » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:27 pm

If we can manage to reverse the Tea Party gains in Congress this year -I know, it's a long shot with us Democrats - and have a Democratic advantage, or even just a more balanced Congress, I think we are in for an amazing four more years. He's just hitting his stride.


Return to “President & Executive Branch”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest