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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Obama's NLRB recess appointments deemed unconstitutional. Had Rand Paul been president during these appointments he would have relieved President Obama of his post   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 200
    More: Fail, President Obama, National Labor Relations Board, recess appointments, appeals court  
•       •       •

3140 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jan 2013 at 9:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 08:31:45 PM  
Recess appointments?  Outrageous!!

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

This is tyranny at its worst!!
 
2013-01-25 08:33:45 PM  
If they'd just stop BLOCKING EVERYTHING. It's getting pathological.
 
2013-01-25 08:34:49 PM  
That lower court made their decision, now let them enforce it.
 
2013-01-25 08:39:01 PM  
I wonder if the Supreme Court will hear the case.
 
2013-01-25 08:39:16 PM  
Heaven forbid someone that gives a fark about labor and not just management get on the NLRB
 
2013-01-25 08:45:43 PM  
The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!
 
2013-01-25 08:46:13 PM  

fusillade762: If they'd just stop BLOCKING EVERYTHING. It's getting pathological.


What we need is a group of white, propertied males to drum up some legislation. To be fair, it worked before.

This time, I think it's fair to suggest said group be completely debt free individually with no suspicious financial ties.

And, free of divorce, cheating or gay scandals, because that's important to some of our social conservative friends.

Kitchen table economics and Oprah and such. A Formica Olive Branch, if you will. The standard exists; let the candidates meet it. And, save our Nation.
 
2013-01-25 08:47:28 PM  

PreMortem: The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!


When Presidents have being doing this for decades...

But I'm sure it was different when Obama did it.

You know...because Obama
 
2013-01-25 08:49:21 PM  

cmunic8r99: I wonder if the Supreme Court will hear the case.


They need only 4 Justices to agree to hear a case, but 6 to decline to do so. There aren't enough anti-Obama Justices to block the Court from hearing this case.
 
2013-01-25 08:53:07 PM  
I submitted this with a funnier headline...
 
2013-01-25 08:59:21 PM  
Those absurd pro-forma sessions to pretend that a recess wasn't happening are what should be ruled un-Constitutional.
 
2013-01-25 09:01:54 PM  
GOP lawmakers used the tactic specifically to prevent Obama from using his recess power to fill vacancies in an agency they claimed was too pro-union.

Wait, the GOP has control of the Senate now? How did this happen?

And they are whining about 11.3% of the labor workforce?
 
2013-01-25 09:05:17 PM  

King Something: cmunic8r99: I wonder if the Supreme Court will hear the case.

They need only 4 Justices to agree to hear a case, but 6 to decline to do so. There aren't enough anti-Obama Justices to block the Court from hearing this case.


And it's unlikely in the extreme that the USSC takes up a case like this.

kmmontandon: Those absurd pro-forma sessions to pretend that a recess wasn't happening are what should be ruled un-Constitutional.


And it's even less likely they rule those kinds of sessions any form of illegal.  I don't even know how they can rule on that.
 
2013-01-25 09:08:49 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: PreMortem: The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!

When Presidents have being doing this for decades...

But I'm sure it was different when Obama did it.

You know...because Obama


While I may not support the pro-forma session tactic or the delay on voting for appointments (by either party), the Constitution clearly gives sole control over the rules of Congress to each house. The Senate said they were in session so they were. Obama can't change that.
 
2013-01-25 09:15:51 PM  

PreMortem: The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!


Obama is an all powerful dictator who is so inept that he doesn't get his way!

/This is what Republicans actually believe
 
2013-01-25 09:16:55 PM  
This is how the Andrew Johnson impeachment started, more or less.  Should be funny to see them try to push it in this Congress.
 
2013-01-25 09:18:15 PM  

PreMortem: GOP lawmakers used the tactic specifically to prevent Obama from using his recess power to fill vacancies in an agency they claimed was too pro-union.

Wait, the GOP has control of the Senate now? How did this happen?

And they are whining about 11.3% of the labor workforce?



They have enough seats in the Senate to filibuster anything and everything that comes to the floor for a vote; and they will, and have, block anything and everything for which Obama expresses just an iota of support, even their own legislation. Because of this obstructionism, bills now need 60 votes to pass instead of just 50 (more specifically, they need 60 votes for the bills to be allowed to go to the floor for an up-or-down vote, which requires only 50).

That 11.3% of the labor workforce they're whining about are almost all Democratic voters, hence their whining. See also their whining about gays, minorities, immigrants, women, non-Christians, college students, young people, wage slaves, welfare recipients, people who live in cities and people who get any sort of news/information from non-Fox News-approved sources.
 
2013-01-25 09:23:10 PM  
Can they filibuster if they are not in session?
 
2013-01-25 09:30:31 PM  
If this ruling is held to invalidate any of the rules or whatever that these appointed officials implemented, I would expect the same to occur to any number of prior illegitimate recess appointments.
 
2013-01-25 09:30:55 PM  

kmmontandon: Those absurd pro-forma sessions to pretend that a recess wasn't happening are what should be ruled un-Constitutional.


It's only absurd when Republicans do it, amirite?

/try the cheese
//goes great with the whine
///slashies the NLRB
 
2013-01-25 09:31:45 PM  
Here's what pissed me off. They were in pro-forma session (which is bullshiat all on its own), but wouldn't allow any business to be conducted because they weren't really in session. But they still get to block appointments with this bureaucratic bullshiat. It's farking crap. The system is farking broken.
 
2013-01-25 09:34:44 PM  
Rand Paul would also say that this is the greatest abuse of executive power since the Civil War.
 
2013-01-25 09:34:47 PM  

Elandriel: If this ruling is held to invalidate any of the rules or whatever that these appointed officials implemented, I would expect the same to occur to any number of prior illegitimate recess appointments.


Um, I don't believe there have been any "recess appointments" while Congress was still in session, pro-forma or otherwise.

King Peabo was the first to do so, and he got peabo-slapped. I say good show DC Circuit!
 
2013-01-25 09:36:07 PM  
Why do we even need an NLRB
 
2013-01-25 09:36:49 PM  

PreMortem: Wait, the GOP has control of the Senate now? How did this happen?


40% and you can filibuster to infinity and beyond!
 
2013-01-25 09:37:40 PM  

ur14me: Elandriel: If this ruling is held to invalidate any of the rules or whatever that these appointed officials implemented, I would expect the same to occur to any number of prior illegitimate recess appointments.

Um, I don't believe there have been any "recess appointments" while Congress was still in session, pro-forma or otherwise.

King Peabo was the first to do so, and he got peabo-slapped. I say good show DC Circuit!


Are you five?
 
2013-01-25 09:40:26 PM  
Job Creators!
 
2013-01-25 09:40:33 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: PreMortem: The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!

When Presidents have being doing this for decades...

But I'm sure it was different when Obama did it.

You know...because Obama


Actually it's different because they weren't actually made during a recess but during a Senate coffee break.
 
2013-01-25 09:41:43 PM  

ur14me: kmmontandon: Those absurd pro-forma sessions to pretend that a recess wasn't happening are what should be ruled un-Constitutional.

It's only absurd when Republicans do it, amirite?



You can, of course, show when Democrats did exactly the same thing.

The pro-forma sessions to defy an actual recess are just as bullsh*t as the old "silent filibuster" that Reed killed.
 
2013-01-25 09:45:19 PM  
Activist judge or something actually serious?

/honest question
 
2013-01-25 09:46:25 PM  
Yet another case of one rule for Republicans, another for Democrats.  I can't imagine even the SCOTUS will want to delve too deeply into this one.
 
2013-01-25 09:52:13 PM  

mayIFark: Activist judge or something actually serious?

/honest question


I believe the ruling is honest.  They were both in and not in session.  If you accept a pro-forma session where nothing is voted on and last 5 minutes to be a session, then yes, they were not in recess and the President broke the law.  As people in here are arguing, if you do not accept that as a session because nothing happened, then no he didn't.  Partially perspective, partially failure of Congress to carry out their assigned duties.  Since I'm not inclined to see the President with the authority to appoint anyone to anything, I'm not challenging this ruling.
 
2013-01-25 09:56:27 PM  

PreMortem: The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!


Tits or GTFO
 
2013-01-25 10:04:33 PM  

GAT_00: mayIFark: Activist judge or something actually serious?

/honest question

I believe the ruling is honest.  They were both in and not in session.  If you accept a pro-forma session where nothing is voted on and last 5 minutes to be a session, then yes, they were not in recess and the President broke the law.  As people in here are arguing, if you do not accept that as a session because nothing happened, then no he didn't.  Partially perspective, partially failure of Congress to carry out their assigned duties.  Since I'm not inclined to see the President with the authority to appoint anyone to anything, I'm not challenging this ruling.


That's some Schrödinger's Senate shiat going on right there.
 
2013-01-25 10:04:37 PM  
So if illegal, lets go back and revisit all of Bush's recess appointment policy decisions.
 
2013-01-25 10:06:25 PM  
And of course anyone who supports the president on this also supports what the VA legislature did last Monday right?

Lets wait and compare shall we...
 
2013-01-25 10:08:01 PM  

GAT_00: Since I'm not inclined to see the President with the authority to appoint anyone to anything, I'm not challenging this ruling.


There's gotta be a better way. And that perhaps is an entire other argument.

Here, both sides were bending the rules, but I'd still have to side with Obama because he was still using them for their intended purpose, unlike the GOP who just wanted a way to avoid any appointments whatsoever. If they'd just voted, like they were supposed to, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-01-25 10:08:48 PM  

mrlewish: So if illegal, lets go back and revisit all of Bush's recess appointment policy decisions.


let's revisit ALL policy decisions made with recess appointments since 1820.

that should keep 'em busy
 
2013-01-25 10:09:21 PM  

mrlewish: So if illegal, lets go back and revisit all of Bush's recess appointment policy decisions.


AND Clinton's, AND Bush Sr.'s, AND...

Peabo made appointments, not recess appointments.

/First monarch to do so
//Got caught
///Damn that pesky Constitution
 
2013-01-25 10:10:27 PM  

mrlewish: So if illegal, lets go back and revisit all of Bush's recess appointment policy decisions.


I don't think you understand what happened here. Rather than berate you, please re-read the article.
 
2013-01-25 10:10:49 PM  

Mentat: Yet another case of one rule for Republicans, another for Democrats.  I can't imagine even the SCOTUS will want to delve too deeply into this one.


On the contrary. If the SCOTUS wants to keep recess appointments for the GOP they will have to accept the case then overturn it.
 
2013-01-25 10:11:10 PM  
PreMortem:
The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!


You know, PreMortem, I'd love it if idiots like you who conflate your party's loss of a presidential election with "tyranny" and "dictatorship" to spend just one day in an actual dictatorship/tyranny.

You know, the kind where if you dare to criticize the government, you're thrown in prison or a re-education camp, no due process, no nothing, bye bye wife and kids, bye bye everything you've ever owned.

The Founding Fathers would've been ashamed of pussies like you. "Oh my God, universal health care! Appointing a head of a bureau when the Senate is holding only pro-forma sessions! TYRANNYYYYYYYY!!!!!!"
 
2013-01-25 10:13:49 PM  
ArkAngel
While I may not support the pro-forma session tactic or the delay on voting for appointments (by either party), the Constitution clearly gives sole control over the rules of Congress to each house. The Senate said they were in session so they were. Obama can't change that.

Yep, agreed.
 
2013-01-25 10:14:20 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: PreMortem:
The Dictator-in-Chief didn't get his way?

Outrageous!

You know, PreMortem, I'd love it if idiots like you who conflate your party's loss of a presidential election with "tyranny" and "dictatorship" to spend just one day in an actual dictatorship/tyranny.

You know, the kind where if you dare to criticize the government, you're thrown in prison or a re-education camp, no due process, no nothing, bye bye wife and kids, bye bye everything you've ever owned.

The Founding Fathers would've been ashamed of pussies like you. "Oh my God, universal health care! Appointing a head of a bureau when the Senate is holding only pro-forma sessions! TYRANNYYYYYYYY!!!!!!"


Jello has already warned us
The Hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
 
2013-01-25 10:19:13 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: There's gotta be a better way.


Yeah, ban the use of the filibuster for confirmations.
 
2013-01-25 10:21:41 PM  

Fellate O'Fish: ArkAngel
While I may not support the pro-forma session tactic or the delay on voting for appointments (by either party), the Constitution clearly gives sole control over the rules of Congress to each house. The Senate said they were in session so they were. Obama can't change that.

Yep, agreed.


Except did they? I've read at least one article that says it wasn't the guy in charge of the Senate (y'know, Harry Reid) who claimed they were in session. It was the Republicans. You know, the minority party that isn't in control of the Senate. Do they get to decide when it's in session or when it isn't? Up to that point I was more or less in agreement with the "technically still in session, sucks but there it is" argument. Now, not so sure.
 
2013-01-25 10:26:38 PM  
This is how we end up with organizations, such as the ATF, that don't have confirmed directors for longer than six years.
 
2013-01-25 10:27:40 PM  
By Hope Yen, Associated Press | March 22, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, dodging a charged dispute over judicial nominations, declined yesterday to consider whether President Bush overstepped his bounds in naming a federal judge while Congress was on a short break.

The court refused to hear a trio of cases challenging the recess appointment of William Pryor to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta last year. The appeals argued that Pryor's temporary appointment was an end-run around the Senate's right to confirm or reject judicial nominees.

.....................

In a statement accompanying the cert denial, Justice John Paul Stevens emphasized the court did not necessarily reject the case because the appeal lacked merit. He suggested justices might be interested in hearing the case later when the appeals have run their full course in the lower courts.

''It would be a mistake to assume that our disposition of this petition constitutes a decision on the merits of whether the president has the constitutional authority to fill future [judicial] vacancies, such as vacancies on this court," Stevens wrote.
 
2013-01-25 10:30:58 PM  

GAT_00: mayIFark: Activist judge or something actually serious?

/honest question

I believe the ruling is honest.  They were both in and not in session.  If you accept a pro-forma session where nothing is voted on and last 5 minutes to be a session, then yes, they were not in recess and the President broke the law.  As people in here are arguing, if you do not accept that as a session because nothing happened, then no he didn't.  Partially perspective, partially failure of Congress to carry out their assigned duties.  Since I'm not inclined to see the President with the authority to appoint anyone to anything, I'm not challenging this ruling.


Didn't the Dems do the same thing to Bush? I mean if this is ok for one party then it is ok for the other. Fillibusters should not be allowed for appointments.
 
2013-01-25 10:31:03 PM  
AP: Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.

That seems like a bit of an overreach on the part of these Judges.

"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

Sentelle's opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.


Oh, what a surprise.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report