SCOTUS decides on Obama's picks

[JD Barleycorn]

Two years ago Obama appointed three "pro-union" members to the National Labor Relations Board that is supposed to provide oversight by union-management relations. He did this with a recess appointment because the democratically controlled Senate was not in session...anyway, that's the story being put out by the White House. The democratically controlled Senate was IN SESSION and those recess appointments were illegal. This is the first time that a president has tried to use the recess appointment clause to bypass the "advise and consent" reponsibility of the Senate. Understand that? No other president has even TRIED. They knew it was unconstitutional though our legal scholar president doesn't know that.

The reasoning of the White House is that the democratically controlled Senate was not doing it's job and giving his nominees a vote. They believe that the fact that the White House and the democratically controlled Senate can't get along is reason enough.

Predictions are a very lop-sided vote AGAINST Barry.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Two years ago Obama appointed three "pro-union" members to the National Labor Relations Board that is supposed to provide oversight by union-management relations. He did this with a recess appointment because the democratically controlled Senate was not in session...anyway, that's the story being put out by the White House. The democratically controlled Senate was IN SESSION and those recess appointments were illegal. This is the first time that a president has tried to use the recess appointment clause to bypass the "advise and consent" reponsibility of the Senate. Understand that? No other president has even TRIED. They knew it was unconstitutional though our legal scholar president doesn't know that.

The reasoning of the White House is that the democratically controlled Senate was not doing it's job and giving his nominees a vote. They believe that the fact that the White House and the democratically controlled Senate can't get along is reason enough.

Predictions are a very lop-sided vote AGAINST Barry.

The senate was kept "in session" at the insistence of the GOP minority so they could block recess appointments. They would hold a pro forma meeting with a few senators present every few days in order to make the exact argument the Admiral is making now. The senate was not "in session" in the normal way......normal Republican dirty tricks. You forgot to mention that while regurgitating your FOX news summary dunce boy.

That having been said, the stories you read this morning are probably correct. The 3rd Circuit as already dinged the administration on this one. I suspect SCOTUS will follow suit.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by timpage

The senate was kept "in session" at the insistence of the GOP minority so they could block recess appointments. They would hold a pro forma meeting with a few senators present every few days... The senate was not "in session" in the normal way......normal Republican dirty tricks.

Hey Dumbfuck, you call this "Republican dirty tricks"? You need to do your fucking homework. Harry Reid and the Democraps invented the whole scheme. Are you seriously stupid, or just a total hypocrite like Harry Reid?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/-21044-1.html

[JD Barleycorn]

I could point out who was running the Senate at the time (the democrats) but I am just amazed that Timmie realized that the Senate was in session. That puts him ahead of Barry. Wow!

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I could point out who was running the Senate at the time (the democrats) but I am just amazed that Timmie realized that the Senate was in session. That puts him ahead of Barry. Wow!

Wow, but it doesn't make any different who is running the senate. The minority can keep it "in session" at least in legal terms, Admiral. Which is exactly what happened here. The senate was kept in session by the GOP for the express purpose of blocking recess appointments. Just tell the truth Admiral.....if you can still recognize it after so many years of gobbling down the RWW propaganda that you apparently dine on for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by timpage

Wow, but it doesn't make any different who is running the senate. The minority can keep it "in session" at least in legal terms, Admiral. Which is exactly what happened here. The senate was kept in session by the GOP for the express purpose of blocking recess appointments. Just tell the truth Admiral.....if you can still recognize it after so many years of gobbling down the RWW propaganda that you apparently dine on for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

for all the moron rightwingers ignorant of the government, keeping the senate in session eliminates recess appointments..

glad I could help.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by timpage

Wow, but it doesn't make any different who is running the senate. The minority can keep it "in session" at least in legal terms, Admiral. Which is exactly what happened here. The senate was kept in session by the GOP for the express purpose of blocking recess appointments. Just tell the truth Admiral.....if you can still recognize it after so many years of gobbling down the RWW propaganda that you apparently dine on for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Ok, Timpooporpimp... Now tell us, who invented the strategy of keeping the Senate "in session" to block recess appointments? Who used it first? Who owns it as a "dirty trick" if that's what it is? Just tell the truth, dickhead...

[timpage]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, Timpooporpimp... Now tell us, who invented the strategy of keeping the Senate "in session" to block recess appointments? Who used it first? Who owns it as a "dirty trick" if that's what it is? Just tell the truth, dickhead...

Try to keep your eye on the ball moron. Read the OP again and make a relevant comment.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by timpage

The senate was kept "in session" at the insistence of the GOP minority so they could block recess appointments. They would hold a pro forma meeting with a few senators present every few days... The senate was not "in session" in the normal way..... normal Republican dirty tricks.

Answer the question, limpdick, your intellectual integrity (assuming you have any intellect or integrity) is at stake:

WHO INVENTED THIS SENATE STRATEGY? WHO EMPLOYED IT FIRST? DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Answer the question, limpdick, your intellectual integrity (assuming you have any intellect or integrity) is at stake:

WHO INVENTED THIS SENATE STRATEGY? WHO EMPLOYED IT FIRST? DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS?

it doesn't make any difference who did it FIRST, the timeline was 2 years ago

difficult to understand timelines aint it ?

[timpage]

He has a point. It was the dems that started it.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by timpage

He has a point. It was the dems that started it.

or the blame 2 independent senators that gave the dems a majority in the 110th congress

nah,

[Yssup Rider]

actually, I think Admiral is too complimentary a term for this dipshit, Timmy.

I think he should be busted down to semen.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by timpage

He has a point. It was the dems that started it.

+1


Yet this didn't stop Harry Reid from defending Obama's attempt to subvert and override the strategy that he (Harry and the dems) invented. Maybe Harry doesn't care about being consistent in his arguments, but SCOTUS does.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CJ7

it doesn't make any difference who did it FIRST, the timeline was 2 years ago

difficult to understand timelines aint it ?

Hey CBJ7, what are you babbling about? Did you flunk math or reading comprehension or both? My link in #3 is dated Nov. 2007. That's over 6 years ago.