President to use recess appointment for CFPB :-)

[Wiseacre]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

What goes around comes around, are all you lefties willing to support a GOP president who does the same thing? Far as I'm concerned, elections have consequences and the president should be free to choose whoever he wants to in filling positions in the executive branch. Seems to me the Senate should force a vote within 30 days of the nomination, do your interviews and hearings, and vote up or down. Failure to vote withon the allotted timeframe should result in automatic appointment, same as if it was approved.

I'm tired of the Mickey Mouse bullshit on both sides. Yes, I'm aware Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush, but it's high time this practice was put to bed.

 

[The T]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

What goes around comes around, are all you lefties willing to support a GOP president who does the same thing? Far as I'm concerned, elections have consequences and the president should be free to choose whoever he wants to in filling positions in the executive branch. Seems to me the Senate should force a vote within 30 days of the nomination, do your interviews and hearings, and vote up or down. Failure to vote withon the allotted timeframe should result in automatic appointment, same as if it was approved.

I'm tired of the Mickey Mouse bullshit on both sides. Yes, I'm aware Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush, but it's high time this practice was put to bed.

How about the INTENT of the Constitution be followed?

 

[candycorn]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

What goes around comes around, are all you lefties willing to support a GOP president who does the same thing? Far as I'm concerned, elections have consequences and the president should be free to choose whoever he wants to in filling positions in the executive branch. Seems to me the Senate should force a vote within 30 days of the nomination, do your interviews and hearings, and vote up or down. Failure to vote withon the allotted timeframe should result in automatic appointment, same as if it was approved.

I'm tired of the Mickey Mouse bullshit on both sides. Yes, I'm aware Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush, but it's high time this practice was put to bed.

How about the INTENT of the Constitution be followed?

Gee, when you're not profane...you make some sense.

I totally agree.

Each House of Congress should have 60 days to hear the legislation passed by the other house for an up or down vote by the full body. What Harry Reid is doing in the Senate is candyass. If you guys would have ran a sane person against him, he wouldn't be there right now.

Theres a lot more but I'm late for an appointment.

 

[bripat9643]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

No, A republican president will not make the same "recess appointments." There was no recess.

 

[Wiseacre]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

No, A republican president will not make the same "recess appointments." There was no recess.

When the Senate is not in session, they are in recess. This Mickey Mouse bullshit of pro forma sessions where there's only one or two guys in the place for about 30 seconds is bullshit. I doubt there's anything in the Constitution about that.

 

[Wiseacre]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

What goes around comes around, are all you lefties willing to support a GOP president who does the same thing? Far as I'm concerned, elections have consequences and the president should be free to choose whoever he wants to in filling positions in the executive branch. Seems to me the Senate should force a vote within 30 days of the nomination, do your interviews and hearings, and vote up or down. Failure to vote withon the allotted timeframe should result in automatic appointment, same as if it was approved.

I'm tired of the Mickey Mouse bullshit on both sides. Yes, I'm aware Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush, but it's high time this practice was put to bed.

How about the INTENT of the Constitution be followed?

Do you really think the intent of the Constitution was to prevent the president from appointing people when the Senate uses bullshit tactics such as the pro forma session when only one or two guys are there for 30 seconds? I don't think so, they ain't really in session and I think you know that.

 

[Intense]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

What goes around comes around, are all you lefties willing to support a GOP president who does the same thing? Far as I'm concerned, elections have consequences and the president should be free to choose whoever he wants to in filling positions in the executive branch. Seems to me the Senate should force a vote within 30 days of the nomination, do your interviews and hearings, and vote up or down. Failure to vote withon the allotted timeframe should result in automatic appointment, same as if it was approved.

I'm tired of the Mickey Mouse bullshit on both sides. Yes, I'm aware Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush, but it's high time this practice was put to bed.

How about the INTENT of the Constitution be followed?

Gee, when you're not profane...you make some sense.

I totally agree.

Each House of Congress should have 60 days to hear the legislation passed by the other house for an up or down vote by the full body. What Harry Reid is doing in the Senate is candyass. If you guys would have ran a sane person against him, he wouldn't be there right now.

Theres a lot more but I'm late for an appointment.

What are you saying. Harry Reid payed allot of good money to buy and hold that seat.



You might want to consider that it for the Senate to determine the Rules that govern it, not you or I. It is the Constitution that gives it the Power. Just a thought.

 

[Intense]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

What goes around comes around, are all you lefties willing to support a GOP president who does the same thing? Far as I'm concerned, elections have consequences and the president should be free to choose whoever he wants to in filling positions in the executive branch. Seems to me the Senate should force a vote within 30 days of the nomination, do your interviews and hearings, and vote up or down. Failure to vote withon the allotted timeframe should result in automatic appointment, same as if it was approved.

I'm tired of the Mickey Mouse bullshit on both sides. Yes, I'm aware Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush, but it's high time this practice was put to bed.

How about the INTENT of the Constitution be followed?

Do you really think the intent of the Constitution was to prevent the president from appointing people when the Senate uses bullshit tactics such as the pro forma session when only one or two guys are there for 30 seconds? I don't think so, they ain't really in session and I think you know that.

Actually, Yes. Exactly. Totally.

 

[The T]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

What goes around comes around, are all you lefties willing to support a GOP president who does the same thing? Far as I'm concerned, elections have consequences and the president should be free to choose whoever he wants to in filling positions in the executive branch. Seems to me the Senate should force a vote within 30 days of the nomination, do your interviews and hearings, and vote up or down. Failure to vote withon the allotted timeframe should result in automatic appointment, same as if it was approved.

I'm tired of the Mickey Mouse bullshit on both sides. Yes, I'm aware Harry Reid did the same thing to Bush, but it's high time this practice was put to bed.

How about the INTENT of the Constitution be followed?

Do you really think the intent of the Constitution was to prevent the president from appointing people when the Senate uses bullshit tactics such as the pro forma session when only one or two guys are there for 30 seconds? I don't think so, they ain't really in session and I think you know that.

Then the choice is clear this year...get RID of the lot of 'em that are up for re-election or have already read the writing on the wall and are opting out.

Enema time.

 

[Intense]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

No, A republican president will not make the same "recess appointments." There was no recess.

When the Senate is not in session, they are in recess. This Mickey Mouse bullshit of pro forma sessions where there's only one or two guys in the place for about 30 seconds is bullshit. I doubt there's anything in the Constitution about that.

The Constitution grants the Senate the Power to decide for Itself. So yes, there is something in The Constitution about that. Don't let that stop you though. It has not mattered before what Laws you neglect, abuse, or refuse to follow.

 

[The T]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

No, A republican president will not make the same "recess appointments." There was no recess.

I don't understand WHY people don't get this?

 

[Wiseacre]

How about the INTENT of the Constitution be followed?

Do you really think the intent of the Constitution was to prevent the president from appointing people when the Senate uses bullshit tactics such as the pro forma session when only one or two guys are there for 30 seconds? I don't think so, they ain't really in session and I think you know that.

Actually, Yes. Exactly. Totally.

So you've got no problem with Harry Reid doing the same thing to Bush?

 

[Liability]

Someone somewhere decided that as long as the Senate met every three days, then the Senate is not in recess.

However, Evans clearly states that the length of time the Senate is out of session is not set. They also stated there is precedence for this type of appointment when they said, "offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation -- have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter".

So while "time out" and "time in" might work on the playground, it does not work in the courts.

The Senate was in recess. The appointment is legal.

The Senate was NOT in recess. They say when they are in recess. THEY said they were not.

Game. Set. Match.

You could not be more flatly wrong.

 

[occupied]

It seems that this is the new normal, republicans have only themselves to blame. All along Obama has been bringing library books to the republican knife fight, they count on him to play nice in a rigged game. Republicans built this ultra confrontational, ultra destructive political landscape where it is not enough to win, the other guy has to lose, they need to quit whining like spoiled children when they lose.

 

[Zander]

This is going to end badly. If the President is free to decide that the Senate is in recess, even when they aren't, soon he will bypass the entire "advice and consent" of the Senate. This will be challenged, and Obama will lose.

 

[Wiseacre]

At some point in the future, there will be a repub president. He will do the same recess appointments as Obama did, and the Dems will howl about it as being illegal, immoral, and down right dishonest. How dare he ignore the Constitution?

No, A republican president will not make the same "recess appointments." There was no recess.

I don't understand WHY people don't get this?

Okay, so you're the next repub president and you got a bunch of appointments to fill out positions in the executive branch that require the approval of the Senate. But democratic senators holds up the nomination, maybe for no other reason than to obstruct your ability to do what the people elected you to do. Maybe you don't have enough votes to confirm the person, and somehow through the arcane rules in the Senate they can have 1 guy show up every 3 days for 30 seconds so that the Senate is officially in session and is NEVER in recess.

And you're going to defend that crap?

 

[Liability]

The Democrat controlled Senate is against Obama?

No. The filibuster party controls the Senate. You know that. Don't play dumb.

Even you, rdick, cannot be THAT dishonest.

The "filibuster" Party is the minority party (usually) that needs to resort to a filibuster to prevent legislation getting enacted when they dislike it or disagree with it.

It is not the Dim Party nor the GOP, you dip shit.

The filibuster Party WAS the Dims not that long ago, moron.

They did not control the Senate when they were in the minority. They DID prevent the majority from proceeding as a majority can usually be expected to proceed.

But when the shoe is on the other foot and the Dims are in the majority, suddenly to hypocritical shits like you, the minority party invoking a filibuster suddenly is in the "wrong" and is the Party "in control."

You, rdick, have always been a hypocritical little fraud piece of shit. But THAT was an unusually glaring example of your disdain for honesty, integrity, truth and reality.

 

[The T]

No, A republican president will not make the same "recess appointments." There was no recess.

I don't understand WHY people don't get this?

Okay, so you're the next repub president and you got a bunch of appointments to fill out positions in the executive branch that require the approval of the Senate. But democratic senators holds up the nomination, maybe for no other reason than to obstruct your ability to do what the people elected you to do. Maybe you don't have enough votes to confirm the person, and somehow through the arcane rules in the Senate they can have 1 guy show up every 3 days for 30 seconds so that the Senate is officially in session and is NEVER in recess.

And you're going to defend that crap?

Same as Reagan...the Bully pulpit.

Explain your stance. Take it to the people with fact.

Easy.

 

[Wiseacre]

This is going to end badly. If the President is free to decide that the Senate is in recess, even when they aren't, soon he will bypass the entire "advice and consent" of the Senate. This will be challenged, and Obama will lose.

I think it's obvious when the Senate is in session and when it's not. If you got a guy showing up for 30 seconds every 3 days, that ain't "in session". I got no love for Obama and what he's doing, I hope to God he gets voted out of office next November. But this kind of chicanery really isn't how Washington should be doing it's business.

 

[Intense]

The Democrat controlled Senate is against Obama?

No. The filibuster party controls the Senate. You know that. Don't play dumb.

Even you, rdick, cannot be THAT dishonest.

The "filibuster" Party is the minority party (usually that needs to resort to a filibuster to prevent legislation getting enacted when they dislike it or disagree with it.

It is not the Dim Party nor the GOP, you dip shit.

The filibuster Party WAS the Dims not that long ago, moron.

They did not control the Senate when they were in the minority. They DID prevent the majority from proceeding as a majority can usually be expected to proceed.

But when the shoe is on the other foot and the Dims are in the majority, suddenly to hypocritical shits like you, the minority party invoking a filibuster suddenly is in the "wrong" and is the Party "in control." :liar:

You, rdick, have always been a hypocritical little fraud piece of shit. But THAT was an unusually glaring example of your disdain for honesty, integrity, truth and reality.

Why beat around the bush? Tell us what you really think.

Just lay it out there.