SCOTUS decides on Obama's picks

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

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

+1


". . . pro forma sessions originated in 2007 as a way for Senate Democrats to prevent President George W. Bush from making recess appointments."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...#ixzz2qKJcll00

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by lustylad

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.

did you flunk comprehension ?

the OP clearly stated 2012 ... that's 2 years ago in case you flunked math too.


speaking of 2012

From the 110

th Congress onward, new scheduling practices have arisen that appear intended to prevent the President from making recess appointments. One set of practices was implemented by the Senate alone; no unusual action or inaction by the House was necessary. A second, related set of practices, which developed in the 112

th Congress, arose from the lack of a concurrent resolution of adjournment, which can result from a lack of consent by either the House or the Senate. As discussed below, these practices appear not to have prevented recess appointments by President Obama.

[lustylad]

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...

Predictions are a very lop-sided vote AGAINST Barry.

Ok, here's what will happen. SCOTUS will vote against Odumbo. This will nullify all NLRB rulings since the phony, invalid recess appointments. Then Harry Reid will just reappoint the same bozos. Now that he has invoked the "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules against filibustering, Odumbo's unqualified and polarizing wingnut appointments can't be stopped anymore. After the reappointments, the NLRB will reissue all of the rulings that were previously challenged.

Bottom line - all of those idiotic, job-stifling NLRB decisions will have been voided for two years, but not rescinded.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, here's what will happen. SCOTUS will vote against Odumbo. This will nullify all NLRB rulings since the phony, invalid recess appointments. Then Harry Reid will just reappoint the same bozos. Now that he has invoked the "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules against filibustering, Odumbo's unqualified and polarizing wingnut appointments can't be stopped anymore. After the reappointments, the NLRB will reissue all of the rulings that were previously challenged.

Bottom line - all of those idiotic, job-stifling NLRB decisions will have been voided for two years, but not rescinded.

like everything else, you're wrong

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, here's what will happen. SCOTUS will vote against Odumbo. This will nullify all NLRB rulings since the phony, invalid recess appointments. Then Harry Reid will just reappoint the same bozos. Now that he has invoked the "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules against filibustering, Odumbo's unqualified and polarizing wingnut appointments can't be stopped anymore. After the reappointments, the NLRB will reissue all of the rulings that were previously challenged.

Bottom line - all of those idiotic, job-stifling NLRB decisions will have been voided for two years, but not rescinded.

Suspect Reid will reinstate the old procedures before the new Congress is seated if the Republicans win control of the Senate.

[ilikefun]

There are some dumbass yahoo bubbas here.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CJ7

did you flunk comprehension ?

the OP clearly stated 2012 ... that's 2 years ago in case you flunked math too.

Wow... you truly are a moron. Are you even paying attention? Listen carefully now, I'm only going to walk you through this once.

Back in 2007, Democrats invented and used the block-recess-appointments strategy that is the topic of this thread. So 2007 is the relevant timeline date for "who did it first".

Now just for the sake of argument - if you want "who did it first" to refer to who was the first President to attempt to SUBVERT the Harry Reid strategy (and violate the Constitution), then the answer is Odumbo. When Harry Reid first employed it back in 2007, then-Pres. Bush declined to challenge it by making illegal "recess" appointments. Unlike Odumbo, Bush understood the separation of powers means the executive branch cannot presume to determine or dictate whether or when the US Senate is in session or in recess.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CJ7

like everything else, you're wrong

And you are soooo convincing, like always.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by lustylad

And you are soooo convincing, like always.

like you predicted what Gates would say about Obama?

go away Cartoon boy, yer dun !

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wow... you truly are a moron. Are you even paying attention? Listen carefully now, I'm only going to walk you through this once.

Back in 2007, Democrats invented and used the block-recess-appointments strategy that is the topic of this thread. So 2007 is the relevant timeline date for "who did it first".

Now just for the sake of argument - if you want "who did it first" to refer to who was the first President to attempt to SUBVERT the Harry Reid strategy (and violate the Constitution), then the answer is Odumbo. When Harry Reid first employed it back in 2007, then-Pres. Bush declined to challenge it by making illegal "recess" appointments. Unlike Odumbo, Bush understood the separation of powers means the executive branch cannot presume to determine or dictate whether or when the US Senate is in session or in recess.

you're full of it ... shit that is .

[CuteOldGuy]

The idea behind recess appointments was that since senators lived so far away and had to travel on horseback to get to Washington, the President was allowed to fill vacancies that arose while they were gone. The practical reason for recess appointments no longer exists. Now they are only used to annoy political opponents, and reward partisan friends.

One of the brilliant DOJ lawyers actually argued that even if the Court found the practice unconstitutional, it should be upheld, because they were already doing it. Seriously?