If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast) Dumbass "President Obama has exceeded his powers by making a recess appointment" says the guy who said the last President had the legal right to crush a child's testicles   (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com) divider line 76
More: Dumbass, President Obama, Richard Cordray, recess appointments, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, John Yoo, eggs  
•       •       •

2544 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2012 at 3:13 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
DamnYankees [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 01:00:26 PM
We need a "despicable piece of shiat" tag.
 
Sin_City_Superhero [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 01:05:48 PM
DamnYankees: We need a "despicable piece of shiat" tag.

That won't fit on a tag. "REPUBLICAN", would however, and really, doesn't that say the same thing?
 
brantgoose [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 01:20:38 PM
Impeach George Washington! He was the first President to make a recess appointment, so it's his fault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

From the above article:

According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.[4]

Footnote 4: # ^ Henry B. Hogue; Richard S. Beth. "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (pdf). Congressional Research Service. http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%2 0P%20%20%0A. Retrieved 4 January 2012.

The article goes on to say that the Republican controlled Senate has been holding very brief recesses in an effort to prevent President Obama from using the recess appointment power.

Among the Bush recess appointments was the ultra-controversial appointment of John Bolton, UN-wolf to guard the sheep pen, and a Swift Boat campaign contributor ($50,000). Partisan whinging about recess appointments reminds me of Oscar Wilde's definition of a fox hunt as the "unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". Faith, sir, I know not why this comes to mind, but it is apt some how.
 
downpaymentblues
2012-01-06 01:46:43 PM
Partisanship once again trumps morality
 
dudemanbro [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 01:47:59 PM
John Yoo should have his testicles crushed, then be eviscerated with a rusty machete.
 
downpaymentblues
2012-01-06 02:01:15 PM
"recess" is the perfect word for this childishness.
 
DjangoStonereaver [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 02:10:28 PM
So, he's saying that Mr. Obama may be a wee bit uppity?
 
dogdaze [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 02:26:54 PM
What happened here is the GOP was using parliamentary procedures to get their way and when Obama used parliamentary procedure to out politic them, they threw a hissy fit. It's called fighting fire with fire.
 
kingoomieiii [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 02:33:14 PM
dogdaze: What happened here is the GOP was using parliamentary procedures to get their way and when Obama used parliamentary procedure to out politic them, they threw a hissy fit. It's called fighting fire with fire.

depinkus.files.wordpress.com
 
WizardofToast
2012-01-06 03:15:31 PM
ATTN goofballs: If you're going to attack Obama, make sure the stuff he's doing wasn't also done by the last guy that you made no outrage against. Also make sure it's in reality. He didn't teleport to Mars.
 
Gergesa
2012-01-06 03:15:45 PM
Recess appointments for me not for thee.
 
CPennypacker
2012-01-06 03:16:44 PM
We get it, he's black.
 
qorkfiend
2012-01-06 03:17:00 PM
Parliamentary tactics are valid for use in overcoming parliamentary tactics.
 
PlatinumDragon
2012-01-06 03:18:30 PM
Nice bunch of kindergarteners you have running the country there.
 
realmolo
2012-01-06 03:19:09 PM
When you are dealing with Republicans, you have to do whatever it takes to stop them. They're a bunch of evil morons. Normal procedures/tactics don't work on an enemy that is completely irrational, short-sighted, and self-serving.

Fark Republicans.
 
Forced Perspective
2012-01-06 03:19:10 PM
brantgoose: According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.[4]

Which would be relevant, if Congress was in recess. Which it wasn't. Under Obama's precedent, the President can simply declare that Congress is not in session and make a "recess" appointment. If he's right, then there's never any need for the "advice and consent" of the Senate again-- a president can simply appoint whomever he wants on the guise of a recess appointment, then appoint them again when their term is up. Obama has effectively read "advice and consent" out of the Constitution and replaced it with "the whimsy of the current President." This could also apply to SCOTUS justices-- the President simply says that Congress is in recess, even if it isn't, and bam, whomever they want is on the Supreme Court. Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't. Obama has essentially declared himself king and liberals are treating it with a big yawn.
 
CPennypacker
2012-01-06 03:20:16 PM
Forced Perspective: brantgoose: According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.[4]

Which would be relevant, if Congress was in recess. Which it wasn't. Under Obama's precedent, the President can simply declare that Congress is not in session and make a "recess" appointment. If he's right, then there's never any need for the "advice and consent" of the Senate again-- a president can simply appoint whomever he wants on the guise of a recess appointment, then appoint them again when their term is up. Obama has effectively read "advice and consent" out of the Constitution and replaced it with "the whimsy of the current President." This could also apply to SCOTUS justices-- the President simply says that Congress is in recess, even if it isn't, and bam, whomever they want is on the Supreme Court. Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't. Obama has essentially declared himself king and liberals are treating it with a big yawn.

This stupid shiat again?
 
qorkfiend
2012-01-06 03:20:49 PM
Forced Perspective: Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't.

How in the name of FSM did you make that leap?
 
imontheinternet
2012-01-06 03:22:18 PM
It's the same damn story every year. Whichever party is out of power complains about recess appointments, then defends them vigorously once they're back in power.

It's beyond hypocrisy; it's theater. None of them believe a word they say. They're making a dramatic presentation to their supporters that is utterly meaningless. Such is modern politics- sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
Jake Havechek
2012-01-06 03:22:50 PM
John Bolton
 
Aidan
2012-01-06 03:24:43 PM
imontheinternet: It's the same damn story every year. Whichever party is out of power complains about recess appointments, then defends them vigorously once they're back in power.

It's beyond hypocrisy; it's theater. None of them believe a word they say. They're making a dramatic presentation to their supporters that is utterly meaningless. Such is modern politics- sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I agree with this in theory. I am heartened to see that Obama has made FEWER appointments than his predecessors, not MORE. However, the 4 years isn't up yet, and I don't know if as many chairs have come up to be appointed to, so... Eh. I'm neutral but ready to be optimistic. :)
 
Smoking GNU
2012-01-06 03:25:36 PM
qorkfiend: Forced Perspective: Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't.

How in the name of FSM did you make that leap?

Putting out a blind fold, lobotomizing his common sense and running for the nearest cliff?
 
Philip Francis Queeg
2012-01-06 03:26:04 PM
How the flying fark does John Yoo have a job as a law professor?
 
qorkfiend
2012-01-06 03:26:46 PM
Aidan: imontheinternet: It's the same damn story every year. Whichever party is out of power complains about recess appointments, then defends them vigorously once they're back in power.

It's beyond hypocrisy; it's theater. None of them believe a word they say. They're making a dramatic presentation to their supporters that is utterly meaningless. Such is modern politics- sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I agree with this in theory. I am heartened to see that Obama has made FEWER appointments than his predecessors, not MORE. However, the 4 years isn't up yet, and I don't know if as many chairs have come up to be appointed to, so... Eh. I'm neutral but ready to be optimistic. :)

The biggest problem I have with all this is that the Senate is there to vote on the nominees, but refuses to do so. If the Senate stopped filibustering all nominees as a matter of course, we probably wouldn't see so many recess appointments.
 
GanjSmokr
2012-01-06 03:26:49 PM
Nobody at all on the left complained when Bush the Idiot was doing this... why the anger from the right now? If Bush the Idiot did it, it makes it perfectly acceptable for Obama to do it as well... just as long as he doesn't do it as many times. This isn't rocket surgery.
 
Serious Black
2012-01-06 03:26:52 PM
Forced Perspective: brantgoose: According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.[4]

Which would be relevant, if Congress was in recess. Which it wasn't. Under Obama's precedent, the President can simply declare that Congress is not in session and make a "recess" appointment. If he's right, then there's never any need for the "advice and consent" of the Senate again-- a president can simply appoint whomever he wants on the guise of a recess appointment, then appoint them again when their term is up. Obama has effectively read "advice and consent" out of the Constitution and replaced it with "the whimsy of the current President." This could also apply to SCOTUS justices-- the President simply says that Congress is in recess, even if it isn't, and bam, whomever they want is on the Supreme Court. Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't. Obama has essentially declared himself king and liberals are treating it with a big yawn.

Damn. Not many people make it blindingly obvious that they're a shameless Republican trollbag flamer in one post, but you've done the improbable. Congratulations, asshat. I hope your kids are embarrassed to share 50% of their genes with you.
 
Jake Havechek
2012-01-06 03:28:29 PM
GanjSmokr: Nobody at all on the left complained when Bush the Idiot was doing this... why the anger from the right now? If Bush the Idiot did it, it makes it perfectly acceptable for Obama to do it as well... just as long as he doesn't do it as many times. This isn't rocket surgery.

Mostly it was about who Bush picked, not that he did recess appointments. Putting sociopath Bolton in the UN was grating.
 
Smoking GNU
2012-01-06 03:28:56 PM
Smoking GNU: qorkfiend: Forced Perspective: Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't.

How in the name of FSM did you make that leap?

Putting out a blind fold, lobotomizing his common sense and running for the nearest cliff?

Putting ON a Blindfold

/FTFM
 
Dubwise [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 03:31:55 PM
Seems like they are in recess to me.

SEE (new window)
 
Aidan
2012-01-06 03:31:55 PM
qorkfiend: The biggest problem I have with all this is that the Senate is there to vote on the nominees, but refuses to do so. If the Senate stopped filibustering all nominees as a matter of course, we probably wouldn't see so many recess appointments.

Agreed. I have nothing against a down vote (even, reluctantly, because of politics), but to refuse to vote at all? Not doing their job. :\
 
coeyagi
2012-01-06 03:36:59 PM
Andrew Sullivan and David Frum: The only non-unilateral conservatives left. And it won't take much to push Sullivan over the ledge with the other clowns.
 
kingoomieiii [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 03:38:23 PM
Forced Perspective: Under Obama's precedent, the President can simply declare that Congress is not in session

Article 2, Section 3: Presidential Responsibilities

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Well looky here. The Senate adjourns. For days on end, the House says "Nuh uh, you're still in session". Looks like we have a Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment.

Stop it.
 
sabreWulf07
2012-01-06 03:38:31 PM
Forced Perspective: Obama has effectively read "advice and consent" out of the Constitution and replaced it with "the whimsy of the current President."

What remedies does the Constitution provide the executive when the congress completely fails their duty to "advice and consent"? How long does the executive have to wait for them to take action? Two full sessions came and went without so much as a simple up-and-down vote to confirm Warren. When it becomes obvious that congress has no intention of meeting their constitutionally-mandated obligations, what do you propose?
 
meat0918 [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 03:38:44 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: How the flying fark does John Yoo have a job as a law professor?

Is it at one of those sham universities grooming the next wave of good little Christian legal warriors like Liberty U?
 
kingoomieiii [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 03:40:43 PM
meat0918: Philip Francis Queeg: How the flying fark does John Yoo have a job as a law professor?

Is it at one of those sham universities grooming the next wave of good little Christian legal warriors like Liberty U?

Whatever he's doing, I don't care. It's less harmful than his last position- LEGAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FARKING STATES.
 
qorkfiend
2012-01-06 03:41:12 PM
meat0918: Philip Francis Queeg: How the flying fark does John Yoo have a job as a law professor?

Is it at one of those sham universities grooming the next wave of good little Christian legal warriors like Liberty U?

Worse: Berkeley.

Seriously though, Yoo must be a fairly smart fellow and I can understand the School of Law at Berkeley wanting some diversity/infamy in their faculty.
 
Philip Francis Queeg
2012-01-06 03:41:22 PM
meat0918: Philip Francis Queeg: How the flying fark does John Yoo have a job as a law professor?

Is it at one of those sham universities grooming the next wave of good little Christian legal warriors like Liberty U?

University of California, Berkeley.

No, I'm not joking.
 
kingoomieiii [TotalFark]
2012-01-06 03:42:03 PM
sabreWulf07: What remedies does the Constitution provide the executive when the congress completely fails their duty to "advice and consent"?

In this specific case, as I said above, this passage fits the situation to a T-

"...he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;..."

Just wish he'd actually done it that way.
 
quizzical
2012-01-06 03:42:30 PM
Let's try to cut through fifty posts of bullshiat in this thread:

The real controversy - whether Congress was in session when Obama made the appointment. Because a President can't make a recess appointment when Congress is in session.

Thrag (new window), from a discussion (new window) on this topic yesterday:

"Intra" basically means "within" and "inter" essentially means "between". An "intrasession" recess is a recess within a session. An "intersession" recess is a recess between sessions.

If they are not in session on a particular day or week but the overall yearly "session" of congress is not over, that's an intrasession recess. If they have quit for the year, that's an intersession recess. The senate is currently (Since Dec. 16th) in at least an intrasession recess.

RexTalionis (new window). in this thread (new window) from earlier in the week:

This recess appointment essentially flows from the case of Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir., 2004), which was an 11th circuit case which upheld President Bush's intrasession recess appointment of a federal judge

Evan v. Stephenns:
The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President's appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the limit today...Twelve Presidents have made more than 285 intrasession recess appointments of persons to offices that ordinarily require consent of the Senate. So, given the words of the Constitution and the history, we are unpersuaded by the argument that the recess appointment power may only be used in an intersession recess, but not an intrasession recess. Furthermore, what we understand to be the main purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause-to enable the President to fill vacancies to assure the proper functioning of our government -supports reading both intrasession recesses and intersession recesses as within the correct scope of the Clause. That an intersession recess might be shorter than an intrasession recess is entirely possible. The purpose of the Clause is no less satisfied during an intrasession recess than during a recess of potentially even shorter duration that comes as an intersession break.

TLDR: Bush did the same thing, and it was found to be legal.

/With apologies to Thrag and Rex if I quoted you incorrectly.
 
culebra
2012-01-06 03:47:02 PM
Even the Senate Republicans approve of Cordray. This is all on the worst House majority in U.S. history, and this time their attempts to deflect blame just aren't working.

Boehner wasn't able to control his own chamber's affairs for all the internal fracturing and now everyone knows it. As has been said, Obama did this at the perfect time. The GOP's only play here is to shut up and take it.
 
EighthDay
2012-01-06 03:47:35 PM
Forced Perspective:

That one got a lot of bites...
 
erveek
2012-01-06 03:48:21 PM
The admins must be really sad that no one submitted this with the hero tag applied to this reprehensible piece of shiat.DamnYankees: We need a "despicable piece of shiat" tag.

Given what gets greenlit on this tab, it's usually the Hero tag.
 
Corvus
2012-01-06 03:50:16 PM
culebra: Even the Senate Republicans approve of Cordray. This is all on the worst House majority in U.S. history, and this time their attempts to deflect blame just aren't working.

Boehner wasn't able to control his own chamber's affairs for all the internal fracturing and now everyone knows it. As has been said, Obama did this at the perfect time. The GOP's only play here is to shut up and take it.

"smart play" you mean. They could cry like babies and take their case to the people (and court) that it's their right to block everything Obama does. That will be a hoot!

Obama should do more of this stuff. Do first and not ask for permission and let the GOP whine "B-b-b-but we want to block everything you do!!"
 
jcooli09
2012-01-06 03:50:28 PM
qorkfiend: Forced Perspective: Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't.

How in the name of FSM did you make that leap?

That logic was Rushed.
 
Jim_Callahan
2012-01-06 03:51:26 PM
Huh, Andrew Sullivan wrote something that I both agree with and don't find retarded in the last third of the article.

Who knew.

//Good to know Yoo is just stupid and blindly loyalist to party rather than disingenuous and evil, I was on the fence about that for a while.
 
tnpir
2012-01-06 03:51:56 PM
Forced Perspective: brantgoose: According to the Congressional Research Service, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments.[4]

Which would be relevant, if Congress was in recess. Which it wasn't. Under Obama's precedent, the President can simply declare that Congress is not in session and make a "recess" appointment. If he's right, then there's never any need for the "advice and consent" of the Senate again-- a president can simply appoint whomever he wants on the guise of a recess appointment, then appoint them again when their term is up. Obama has effectively read "advice and consent" out of the Constitution and replaced it with "the whimsy of the current President." This could also apply to SCOTUS justices-- the President simply says that Congress is in recess, even if it isn't, and bam, whomever they want is on the Supreme Court. Taking ObamaLogic a step further, a President could simply declare that a Justice has resigned, even if he hasn't. Obama has essentially declared himself king and liberals are treating it with a big yawn.

Someone has a new alt.
 
erveek
2012-01-06 03:52:10 PM
One of these days, I'll preview.
 
HotWingConspiracy
2012-01-06 03:53:44 PM
Why was everyone ok when the Senate was preventing the Executive from performing his duties? No Constitutional issue there, eh?
 
Mrtraveler01
2012-01-06 03:57:31 PM
 
coeyagi
2012-01-06 03:58:06 PM
HotWingConspiracy: Why was everyone ok when the Senate was preventing the Executive from performing his duties? No Constitutional issue there, eh?

Example? (I probably agree with you, I just don't recall off-hand exactly, or are you just talking about general obstructionism?)
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »