I'm going with my default opinion: This Constitution and both parties suck.

The senate Republicans' own calendar says "The senate is not in session" (new window). It has been out of session since Dec. 16th.

adiabat: To be Constitutionally in 'recess', the House and the Senate both have to agree to let each other 'recess'.
Considering these guys can't agree on shiat. It should be a slam-dunk reversal when they challenge.

It's amazing just how much wrong one can pack into two sentences.

Hahaha, they really didn't see the irony in this?

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Aarontology: I don't see why we give these people such long breaks to begin with

[mattstil.es image 640x400]

Even in their busiest years, they still worked nearly 100 days LESS than the average working American.

52*5=260

Let's assume the normal person gets 10 days of paid vacation days and 10 days of holidays, which gets you to 240 working days.

Me? 20 days off a year, 12 holidays, 3 personal days, so I'm more like 215 not counting sick days.

And that's just when they're in session. They need to also go back to their districts and have town hall meetings and the like which aren't counted up there.

/Don't get me wrong. They're lazy, but not that lazy.

The House of Representatives don't even have a vote in nominating or not nominating Richard Cordray, that's the Senate's job. The Senate did not nominate Cordray so Obama decide to make an appointment while the Senate was in recess. Thus this measure condemning the President by the House is moot.

This recess appointment shiat has got me so fired up I'm going to call my Senator's office and let that farker ring until he picks up.

kronicfeld: A court isn't going to touch this. They will characterize it as a non-justiciable political question.

This. It is not for the Court to decide if the houses of Congress are in session or not.

Republicans learning new ways to fail everyday.

kronicfeld: A court isn't going to touch this. They will characterize it as a non-justiciable political question.

Or in the common vernacular: You made this farkup, you fix it.

Really. Really?

Seriously?

And what do they say when the reporters ask "Why didn't you do this sooner?"

Are they really this dense? Do they not see how this is playing 'exactly' into his hands? Do they not see that simply dragging this out is only helping him and hurting them? I mean, the only people left who are going to vote against Obama were never going to vote for him in the first place.

Do they not see how bad this is making them look? They're at NINE PERCENT approval rating. NINE. And they're whining that the President did something that he's entitled to do during a time when he's entitled to do it.

My god, are they 'that' detached from the narrative?

Why yes, yes you are hot.



God I love liberal chicks.

adiabat: To be Constitutionally in 'recess', the House and the Senate both have to agree to let each other 'recess'.
Considering these guys can't agree on shiat. It should be a slam-dunk reversal when they challenge.

Apparently you never heard of the legal concept called, "Constitution Shmonstitution".

Code_Archeologist: Evans vs Stephens 2004... yes it is that clear cut. The president has the power to make recess appointment not just when the Senate is in "official" recess but also between sessions (intersession) and during recesses mid session (intrasession). The only controversy here is in that the Republicans are attempting to nullify a law via extra-Constitutional procedural trickery.

This has nothing to do with intra or intersessional appointments. This has to do with appointment during a pro-forma session when the Congress has not per their own rules, gone into recess.

qorkfiend: kronicfeld: A court isn't going to touch this. They will characterize it as a non-justiciable political question.

This. It is not for the Court to decide if the houses of Congress are in session or not.

Actually, it is. I think kronicfeld's point is different than yours. The SCOTUS will not touch it is significantly different than the SCOTUS should not touch it. My opinion, as it seems kronicfeld's as well, is that the SCOTUS is full of pussies who prefer to not rule when they can get away from it.

Code_Archeologist: kingoomieiii: Code_Archeologist: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I'm sure that this will in no way be brought up if/when the GOP challenges these appointments in court.

If I was the solicitor general defending this I would just stand there and read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, then rest the case.

And rule which way? It's not that clear cut.

Evans vs Stephens 2004... yes it is that clear cut. The president has the power to make recess appointment not just when the Senate is in "official" recess but also between sessions (intersession) and during recesses mid session (intrasession). The only controversy here is in that the Republicans are attempting to nullify a law an entire agency via extra-Constitutional procedural trickery.

This whole bullshiat started because the cowards in the GOP didn't like the CFPB (what with it being an agency that A: is designed to protect consumers, B: something Obama likes, and C: safe from the usual tactic of gutting its budget if they don't like it), and thus, they were trying to keep it from having a leader.

It, like every other thing the current congressional Republicans do, is a pathetically childish situation, and it's about damn time Obama stopped putting up with Republican tantrums.

Mrbogey: adiabat: To be Constitutionally in 'recess', the House and the Senate both have to agree to let each other 'recess'.
Considering these guys can't agree on shiat. It should be a slam-dunk reversal when they challenge.

Apparently you never heard of the legal concept called, "Constitution Shmonstitution".

Code_Archeologist: Evans vs Stephens 2004... yes it is that clear cut. The president has the power to make recess appointment not just when the Senate is in "official" recess but also between sessions (intersession) and during recesses mid session (intrasession). The only controversy here is in that the Republicans are attempting to nullify a law via extra-Constitutional procedural trickery.

This has nothing to do with intra or intersessional appointments. This has to do with appointment during a pro-forma session when the Congress has not per their own rules, gone into recess.

It doesn't matter what they 'call' it, they weren't in session, they weren't conducting business and the lawyers have already come out with the verdict.

Why do I say this? Because if the GOP had a chance, even the slightest chance of being legally vindicated, they'd have sent in the lawyers ON THE VERY DAY THAT HE ANNOUNCED THESE APPOINTMENTS.

They didn't. They squealed like a bunch of girls and whined and complained and their grand retribution is to announce a measure(nonbinding Congressional statement) condemning his recess appointments...and they're going to do it AFTER THEY COME FROM THE RECESS THEY CLAIM THAT THEY'RE NOT IN.

They can call it whatever they like, but they know they've lost this, and if they had any sense at all, they'd simply stop mentioning it and move on and pretend like they didn't get spanked.

This clinging to the issue is simply keeping it in the news in the vain hope that they can turn the narrative around...when the American people have already moved on to other things. They Don't Care.

But, by all means, let them continue to smear feces on themselves in an attempt to appear victimized.

Infernalist: It doesn't matter what they 'call' it, they weren't in session

Was the House called into session? If so, then the House was in session.

Mrbogey: Infernalist: It doesn't matter what they 'call' it, they weren't in session

Was the House called into session? If so, then the House was in session.

...their own calendar says they've been in recess since the 16th. I realize you're trolling, but at this point, it just looks embarrassing.

Admit defeat, move on.

Mrbogey: Infernalist: It doesn't matter what they 'call' it, they weren't in session

Was the House called into session? If so, then the House was in session.

So? What role does the house play in senate confirmations?

The GOP is so mind numbingly stupid that they are holding their pro-forma sessions in the house and not the senate and they have even put "The senate is not in session" on their own calendar.

wow, haven't LOLed a headline for a long time.

The President has the power to adjourn both houses if they can't agree on an adjournment date. Couldn't Harry Reid have refused to adjourn the Senate when Boehner wanted to adjourn the House, thus enabling the President to adjourn them both?