President to use recess appointment for CFPB :-)

[Liability]

It's exactly what you said. You said filibustering an agency head is legitimate, but that filibustering a judicial nominee is not. Why? What makes judicial nominations a special case?

No. It is NOT exactly what I said. It is not even remotely what I said.

And if you have to pretend to "ask" why a JUDICIAL nomination is different than a nomination for an agency head, then you might be as dumb as you come across.

A fucking AGENCY can work without a PARTICULAR agency head.

But a COURT can't really function without a judge on the bench.

The EXECUTIVE BRANCH can work without all of its endless bureaucratic slots being filled.

But that isn't true (or nearly as true, anyway) for the Judicial BRANCH.

It's an end run around the Constitution regardless of which party does it.

There MIGHT be an individual case (from time to time) where a blocking move like a filibuster is appropriate. But the wholesale abuse of the filibuster when there are so many vacant judicial slots to fill is not just impractical, but it is dangerously stupid.

 

[Liability]

LOL Awww.... conservatives are whining now about a little dirty pool? Nitpicking over the definition of a Senate recess?

Game on.

It takes a determined hypocrite liberoidal idiot to pretend that taking NOTE of the FACT that the Senate is NOT in recess supposedly amounts to nitpicking.

Game over.

Evidently the Senate WAS in recess otherwise the POTUS wouldn't have made the recess appointment.

Game is far from over.

Wrong. There is NOTHING "evident" about it. The Senate was flatly NOT in recess. The President doesn't make that call. The Senate does; and the SENATE itself said it was in session.

Game still over.

You've lost and the President is a cheater.

Real surprise.

 

[sfcalifornia]

It takes a determined hypocrite liberoidal idiot to pretend that taking NOTE of the FACT that the Senate is NOT in recess supposedly amounts to nitpicking.

Game over.

Evidently the Senate WAS in recess otherwise the POTUS wouldn't have made the recess appointment.

Game is far from over.

Wrong. There is NOTHING "evident" about it. The Senate was flatly NOT in recess. The President doesn't make that call. The Senate does; and the SENATE itself said it was in session.

Game still over.

You've lost and the President is a cheater.

Real surprise.

Do you really think Obama didn't consult legal counsel before making the appointments?

Looks like me, Obama and a whole slew of lawyers agree: you lost.

 

[Liability]

Evidently the Senate WAS in recess otherwise the POTUS wouldn't have made the recess appointment.

Game is far from over.

Wrong. There is NOTHING "evident" about it. The Senate was flatly NOT in recess. The President doesn't make that call. The Senate does; and the SENATE itself said it was in session.

Game still over.

You've lost and the President is a cheater.

Real surprise.

Do you really think Obama didn't consult legal counsel before making the appointments?

Looks like me, Obama and a whole slew of lawyers agree: you lost.

He ignored his own Justice Department.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

America lost.

The President is cheating scumbag.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Wrong. There is NOTHING "evident" about it. The Senate was flatly NOT in recess. The President doesn't make that call. The Senate does; and the SENATE itself said it was in session.

Game still over.

You've lost and the President is a cheater.

Real surprise.

Do you really think Obama didn't consult legal counsel before making the appointments?

Looks like me, Obama and a whole slew of lawyers agree: you lost.

He ignored his own Justice Department.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

America lost.

The President is cheating scumbag.

In line with decades of congressional practice, the U.S. Department of Justice has found that Congress must be in recess more than three days before a President can make a recess appointment. According to news reports White House lawyers believe the President can ignore these sessions as not legitimate — a perspective that has not been adopted by other modern Presidents.

Let the Republicans stand around and do nothing but whine and cry. Some of us want to move forward.

 

[peach174]

If Bush would have done this the Dem's in congress would have been on all the news stations and radio talking about Bush has abused the law and usurp the Constitution.

Looks from this that maybe the justice Dept is in opposition of this.

Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Congress Won’t Hurt Economy So Obama Will

 

[Zander]

Do you really think Obama didn't consult legal counsel before making the appointments?

Looks like me, Obama and a whole slew of lawyers agree: you lost.

He ignored his own Justice Department.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

America lost.

The President is cheating scumbag.

In line with decades of congressional practice, the U.S. Department of Justice has found that Congress must be in recess more than three days before a President can make a recess appointment. According to news reports White House lawyers believe the President can ignore these sessions as not legitimate — a perspective that has not been adopted by other modern Presidents.

Let the Republicans stand around and do nothing but whine and cry. Some of us want to move forward.

yes, because another useless bureaucracy is just what the country needs. How has the republic survived without it?

 

[Trajan]

That doesn't actually say much though, as the Republicans have kept the Senate in these repeated pro forma sessions.

Maybe you can fill us in in the history of Pro Forma Sessions. Please give Harry Reid a big fat wet kiss for me too.

As I said earlier, both of these cases are part of a conflict between the Senate and the President over appointments (and the Senate's overuse of the filibuster more generally). Comparing these sessions to Reid keeping the Senate in pro forma sessions in 2007/2008 doesn't really work though, since a) it was an action taken by the Senate, as opposed to the House refusing to let the Senate adjourn and b) Bush's nominees would have failed on a floor vote anyway, since his party was in the minority.

you are making arguments for/in mitigation. the 3 day rule is the rule. its been sptted by clinton, bush and reid and, last but not least obama just over a year ago, when it apparently suited him to do so.

Further on Dec. 23—three days after beginning its pro forma session the senate passed the tax holiday....surprise eh?

 

[daveman]

"The House passed three more common-sense jobs bills last week, bringing the current number of jobs bills awaiting a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate to 25. Each of these bills is focused on removing government barriers – excessive regulations, the threat of tax hikes, and ‘stimulus’ spending policies – that are hurting job growth"


These are not job bills. This is BS. Speaker of the House John Boehner is lying. These are bills promoting deregulation none of which provide any jobs anywhere. The RINO's stlll pushing the same ole shit that have yet to provide jobs or stimulate new industry of any substance.

Thanks for your worthless input.

I don't think this is worthless input. I think merrill is right on the money.

Everything the Republicans have pushed from the House onto the Senate has been nothing more than deregulation bills, shrouded under the guise of "creating a better environment" for small business growth. What a crock. It's nothing more than a guise to put more money in the pockets of the richest 1%.

As your post demonstrates, your input is worthless, too.

 

[daveman]

You're quoting a source from over a year ago? Okay, whatever.

Oh, so would you like to point out where the Senate has acted on any of those House bills?

I agree that Senate Democrats failed in not reforming the rules of the filibuster. The Senate Republicans have succeeded in stonewalling pretty much everything that comes down the pike. They deserve everything they get in terms of recess appointments. I hope a lot more are on the way.

If the Senate is actually in recess, there's no problem.

But they're not.

LOL Awww.... conservatives are whining now about a little dirty pool? Nitpicking over the definition of a Senate recess?

Game on.

Yet another liberal who feels Obama gets to override the Constitution. Gasp.

My goodness, you all are such sheep.

 

[daveman]

LOL Awww.... conservatives are whining now about a little dirty pool? Nitpicking over the definition of a Senate recess?

Game on.

It takes a determined hypocrite liberoidal idiot to pretend that taking NOTE of the FACT that the Senate is NOT in recess supposedly amounts to nitpicking.

Game over.

Evidently the Senate WAS in recess otherwise the POTUS wouldn't have made the recess appointment.

Game is far from over.

Y'know, you probably shouldn't attempt to re-write history while it's still occurring. You look tremendously stupid doing so.

 

[Dot Com]

The Righties need to wake up America!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Evidently the Senate WAS in recess otherwise the POTUS wouldn't have made the recess appointment.

Game is far from over.

Wrong. There is NOTHING "evident" about it. The Senate was flatly NOT in recess. The President doesn't make that call. The Senate does; and the SENATE itself said it was in session.

Game still over.

You've lost and the President is a cheater.

Real surprise.

Do you really think Obama didn't consult legal counsel before making the appointments?

Looks like me, Obama and a whole slew of lawyers agree: you lost.

Yeah, I'm sure Obama consulted a whole crew of sleazy lawyers about the best strategy to get around the Constitution. Hell, Obama has made a career out of undermining the Constitution.

Your bogus appeal to authority only fools the gullible

 

[bripat9643]

Do you really think Obama didn't consult legal counsel before making the appointments?

Looks like me, Obama and a whole slew of lawyers agree: you lost.

He ignored his own Justice Department.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

America lost.

The President is cheating scumbag.

In line with decades of congressional practice, the U.S. Department of Justice has found that Congress must be in recess more than three days before a President can make a recess appointment. According to news reports White House lawyers believe the President can ignore these sessions as not legitimate — a perspective that has not been adopted by other modern Presidents.

Let the Republicans stand around and do nothing but whine and cry. Some of us want to move forward.

You mean Obama's scumbag defenders want to ignore the Constitution.

Allow me to educate you about something: the opinion of Whitehouse lawyers is not the law.

 

[Polk]

It's exactly what you said. You said filibustering an agency head is legitimate, but that filibustering a judicial nominee is not. Why? What makes judicial nominations a special case?

No. It is NOT exactly what I said. It is not even remotely what I said.

And if you have to pretend to "ask" why a JUDICIAL nomination is different than a nomination for an agency head, then you might be as dumb as you come across.

A fucking AGENCY can work without a PARTICULAR agency head.

But a COURT can't really function without a judge on the bench.

The EXECUTIVE BRANCH can work without all of its endless bureaucratic slots being filled.

But that isn't true (or nearly as true, anyway) for the Judicial BRANCH.

It's an end run around the Constitution regardless of which party does it.

There MIGHT be an individual case (from time to time) where a blocking move like a filibuster is appropriate. But the wholesale abuse of the filibuster when there are so many vacant judicial slots to fill is not just impractical, but it is dangerously stupid.

Federal courts operate all the time with vacancies. Most of the court of appeals circuits have at least one open seat and the Ninth Circuit currently has four open seats. It creates a large workload for the remaining judges, but justice can still operate. The same principle applies to agency heads. Sure, the agencies can perform some functions without a head, but they're much less effective. And, in fact, in the cases in question, the agencies cannot function due to either statutory requirement (CFPB) or because so many seats are empty that a quorum cannot occur (NLRB).

 

[Polk]

If Bush would have done this the Dem's in congress would have been on all the news stations and radio talking about Bush has abused the law and usurp the Constitution.

Looks from this that maybe the justice Dept is in opposition of this.

Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Congress Won’t Hurt Economy So Obama Will

They surely would have and would have been right to do so, just like it's perfectly legitimate for the Republicans to do so in this case.

As for the Justice Department, you're reading something in to the testimony that's not there.

 

[Polk]

For those claiming Obama is usurping the Constitution, please show which part defines what constitutes a recess. You can go look, or I can save you the trouble. It never defines a recess.

 

[candycorn]

For those claiming Obama is usurping the Constitution, please show which part defines what constitutes a recess. You can go look, or I can save you the trouble. It never defines a recess.

Off the topic I know but it's one of the great weaknesses of our system. When we had honest politicians (or at least politicians who were not beholden to party but to their people) the system worked fine. Now we have largely party hacks who care no more for you and I than they do for them and they. Unless you have overwhelming numbers, nothing gets done.

So we have nothing being done.

We desperately need a Constitution that spells out the rules for the legislators since they are not mature enough to manage themselves. Look at what Harry Reid is doing. Shameful. And the same thing happened when the GOP was in the majority.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

 

[daveman]

For those claiming Obama is usurping the Constitution, please show which part defines what constitutes a recess. You can go look, or I can save you the trouble. It never defines a recess.

Article I, Section 5.

 

[Intense]

For those claiming Obama is usurping the Constitution, please show which part defines what constitutes a recess. You can go look, or I can save you the trouble. It never defines a recess.

No it empowers the Senate to exist under It's own Rules. You never seem to be able to connect the dots that are there Polk. Forget the imaginary dots for a moment, and try to focus on Separation of Powers and the Powers of the Senate. I know it's hard.