Court Says Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

My question is...why no bitching when Bush did it?

Well Obama bitched! LOL


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-abuse-power-argument-recess-appointments/story?id=18317935

May be he decided that Bush was smarter than he and knew better! But sometimes the "realities" of the Presidency (along with the frustrations) modify occupants perspectives of what's "right and wrong" ... so ...

water boarding is wrong, but no one said anything about not "droning" them!

I have now read the opinion.

Quoting from the opinion:

"In any event, if some administrative inefficiency results from our construction of the original meaning of the Constitution, that does not empower us to change what the Constitution commands. As the Supreme Court observed in INS v. Chadha, “the fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution.” 462 U.S. at 944. It bears emphasis that “[c]onvenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives — or the hallmarks — of democratic government.” Id.

"The power of a written constitution lies in its words. It is those words that were adopted by the people. When those words speak clearly, it is not up to us to depart from their meaning in favor of our own concept of efficiency, convenience, or facilitation of the functions of government. In light of the extensive evidence that the original public meaning of “happen” was “arise,” we hold that the President may only make recess appointments to fill vacancies that arise during the recess."

End of quote from opinion

So, using the "lunch break" scenario,

... if a person quits during lunch the President would have to appoint during the same lunch break ... and the appointment would be good until they broke for the evening ..... that would be pure folly and foolishness.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Court ruling will prevent Obama and all future Presidents of either party from being able to perpetrate this scam of recess appointments. It is a good thing. Bush and others since at least the 1960's should never have used this power. It's totally unnecessary, and now the court confirms that. It's late, but it's right.

I'd love to hear John Bolton on Fox News talking about how Obama has abused this power!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'd love to hear John Bolton on Fox News talking about how Obama has abused this power!

Probably will not get asked that question, because as the recent flop of a U.N. Ambassador has shown the U.N. Ambassador is just presenting the "talking points" of the Administration for whom the Amabassador serves and is not making Board decisions that impact on the financial future of companies throughout the U.S. as they relate to the unions attempting to turn them into another tit to suck on. Just saying.

Whether any prior President did it, or not, is immaterial to me. I hope this puts an end to the "practice" (if it in fact existed .. which would require a case-by-case review of each and every appointment of each and every President .. and not just the wants who are "fashionable the focus of hate remarks") and Congress will have more say in who is actually running this country.

Bolton does take a hardline on some of the wimpy decisions of this President.

[WTF]

Bolton is a political hack of the first degree.

Nobody on Fox will ask him about this ruling because it is exactly how he was appointed.

Yey he is one of their main contributors!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Bolton is a political hack of the first degree.

Because you disagree with his opinions?

[JD Barleycorn]

Article one, section five:

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

The House never gave consent to the Senate to go into recess and the Senate never asked. Their "recess" was unconstitutional and the Senate was in session. Sometimes you get lazy when you think you own the law rather than you have to obey the law. Harry Reid got lazy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The House never gave consent to the Senate to go into recess and the Senate never asked.

Doesn't matter .. the Senate was not in "recess" ...

... at best it was temporarily "adjourned"! Here is an excerpt from the opinion:

"
…The Framers did not use the word “adjournment” in the Recess Appointments Clause. Instead, they used “the Recess.” The Adjournments Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause exist in different contexts and contain no hint that they should be read together. Nothing in the text of either Clause, the Constitution’s structure, or its history suggests a link between the Clauses. Without any evidence indicating that the two Clauses are related, we cannot read one as governing the other. We will not do violence to the Constitution by ignoring the Framers’ choice of words…."

Emphasis added by LL.

[JD Barleycorn]

That recess like the other one should be considered in parentheses to show that I don't believe they were in recess not according to the law of the land.

[LexusLover]

The "victory" for Obaminable is that he was able to pacify the unions through the election cycle with his appointments, and that is all that matters. It's a win-win for him. It also sets the tone for things ahead.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by timpage

I see you splitting hairs.

The Constitution explicitly authorizes recess appointments. I can see you like what you think is your clever "congress broke for lunch" analogy but it's utterly inapplicable here. Read the opinion if you want to stop talking out of your ass. They weren't having lunch. They weren't even in town. They were intent on using procedural obstructions designed to deny President Obama his choice in regard to the appointment. Which is why we don't have enough federal judges and other federal governmental appointees that should generally be the choice of the candidate who wins the popular and electoral vote. Obama doesn't get to pick here because of the whackadoo right wing response to any thing that he does...which is to resist it. If you're on board with that, good for you. But, don't give me that "two wrongs don't make a right" shit. This is politics.

Ignore the OBVIOUS, Little Timmy! The Senate never recessed and was conducting pro forma sessions at the time. The rules of the Senate are determined by the Senate, and the president has no constitutional perogative to reinterpret, redefine or ignore the rules set by the Senate for the Senate: read the Article 1 Section 5 of Constitution, Little Timmy: "Each House [NOT the damn president!] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . ."

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constit...nstitution.htm


You Kool Aid sotted Dimwits are a bunch of fuckin' hypocrites --

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...n_on_FISA.html

[JD Barleycorn]

Of course the first time this happened was in 2007 under the democrats. The difference is that Bush respected the Constitution and did not make any appointments.


Will it be necessary? Probably.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You Kool Aid sotted Dimwits are a bunch of fuckin' hypocrites --

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...n_on_FISA.html

Both sides are hypocrites depending on the time of day!