Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Stabley Times)   That judge who ruled Obama's recess appointments were unconstitutional? Turns out he's as honest and unbiased as you'd exepect   (stableytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Oliver North, obama, recess appointments, Kenneth Starr, indefinite detention  
•       •       •

6460 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2013 at 4:56 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 03:14:15 PM  
Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-01-27 03:16:13 PM  

St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.


And that's the least partisan body in the country!
 
2013-01-27 03:17:53 PM  

doyner: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

And that's the least partisan body in the country!


Not exactly, but they did break the GOP's heart about Obamacare.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:23 PM  
This looks like a highly reputable blog who is completely unbiased and factually correct.
 
2013-01-27 03:27:14 PM  
yep about what I figured he'd be like.
 
2013-01-27 03:29:45 PM  

cman: This looks like a highly reputable blog who is completely unbiased and factually correct.


and, to add:

This story has no teeth. If all three or at least two of the three judge panel was the same, then you will have a point

These judges all signed off on this opinion
 
2013-01-27 03:44:30 PM  
The U.S. Court of Appeal has ruled that the President does not have constitutional authority to make federal job appointments while congress is in recess.

Just by him writing this I can't take anything he says seriously. He is completely misrepresenting the decision. A general rule when arguing before appellate courts is that you don't want to make an argument so extreme that pisses off a judge or two. The Office of the Solicitor General stepped in it in this case when they put forth the theory that the President could decide when Congress is in recess. That's the sort of argument for which you receive a bench slap.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:33 PM  

St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.


How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.
 
2013-01-27 03:47:40 PM  

GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.


They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL
 
2013-01-27 03:56:43 PM  

ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL


But to declare that a pro-forma session is not a session requires a definition of what a session is then.  How can they define that?  What do they define it as?  One bill considered and voted on?  One hour open for debate?  How does the USSC have that power?
 
2013-01-27 04:19:36 PM  

GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

But to declare that a pro-forma session is not a session requires a definition of what a session is then.  How can they define that?  What do they define it as?  One bill considered and voted on?  One hour open for debate?  How does the USSC have that power?


They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"
 
2013-01-27 04:22:11 PM  

ArkAngel: They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"


And since that would have no impact on anything, there's no reason the USSC will take it up.
 
2013-01-27 04:28:50 PM  

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

And since that would have no impact on anything, there's no reason the USSC will take it up.


They may just to clarify the situation, as well as resolve the conflict between the 11th and 13th Circuits. I feel there's also a good chance they won't limit it to the summer recess.
 
2013-01-27 05:02:21 PM  
I don't see how the judicial branch has any power over this. It's the legislative branch's rules vs the executive branch. Shouldn't this go through the legislative branch since it's their rules that were supposedly violated?

What If this was a supreme court justice obama was nominating? How could the court be involved with that? Isn't that a conflict of interest?
 
2013-01-27 05:02:54 PM  
b..bb..bb..but Fox News and Sean Hannity say that Ollie North is a great American hero and not a felon who should still be in jail who took the fall so that St. Reagan wouldn't be impeached for Iran-Contra.... Why would they say that if it wasn't true? This judge must be a real 'merican. That's why you libs are so scared.

image.blingee.com
 
2013-01-27 05:05:20 PM  
Obama's probably going to take this one on the chin. The dems came up with this trick in the first place to use against GWB. I wonder if this test on it is a way to shut down recess appointments entirely.
 
2013-01-27 05:05:34 PM  
"The U.S. Court of Appeal has ruled that the President does not have constitutional authority to make federal job appointments while congress is in recess. "


He kind of failed right out of the gate, didn't he?
 
2013-01-27 05:07:16 PM  

ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL


Which would probably mean the USSC would roll back part of this decision, since part of the decision declared what counted as a recess. This would mean Obama is SOL without invalidating huge swathes of appointments in the 20th century
 
2013-01-27 05:08:49 PM  
yourblogsucks.jpeg
 
2013-01-27 05:09:14 PM  
FTA: "The ruling will apply to Obama as well as all future Presidents"

stop whining, get with the Constitution...or amend it.
 
2013-01-27 05:12:43 PM  

ArkAngel: Just by him writing this I can't take anything he says seriously. He is completely misrepresenting the decision.


Yeah, the tab was closed as soon as I finished the first sentence.
 
2013-01-27 05:14:40 PM  
Not to justify or excuse the decision or disagree with any conclusions about bias, this is pure FUD and the "journalist" should be horsewhipped:
Sentelle then went on to side with republican George W. Bush on the issue of indefinite detention without the right to trial, in a controversial ruling which saw even a fellow judge on his own panel dissenting against him.

That happens in the majority of cases, more often than the panel is unanimous. This kind of pearl-clutching, oh-my-stars a judge on his own panel disagreed bullshiat should immediately raise huge red flags about the writer's credibility.
 
2013-01-27 05:17:03 PM  

cabbyman: "The U.S. Court of Appeal has ruled that the President does not have constitutional authority to make federal job appointments while congress is in recess. "


He kind of failed right out of the gate, didn't he?


Yep, his ruling is in direct opposition to Article 2, Section 2, of the Constitution, pertinent section below:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

He has to rule, *first*, on whether a "pro-forma" session of the Senate is, in fact, an actual session, which he does not have the authority to do. Only the Senate has the authority to decide what is or is not a session, as a result of Article 1, Section 5, pertinent section below:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
 
2013-01-27 05:27:52 PM  

ArkAngel: GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

But to declare that a pro-forma session is not a session requires a definition of what a session is then.  How can they define that?  What do they define it as?  One bill considered and voted on?  One hour open for debate?  How does the USSC have that power?

They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"


So, is it your opinion that the Senate could declare itself perpetually in session, never in recess, and thus render the recess appointment clause of the Constitution a nullity?
 
2013-01-27 05:28:38 PM  
Can't the president force them into session?
 
2013-01-27 05:30:07 PM  
The GOP and big business continue their war on collective bargaining by any means available. The party of the 2% is coming to take away your freedom.
 
2013-01-27 05:30:53 PM  

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

And since that would have no impact on anything, there's no reason the USSC will take it up.


Plus the SC generally stays out of pissing matches between the executive and legislative.
 
2013-01-27 05:34:21 PM  

ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL


And if they do that, any Bush era rules made by his 17 appointees during pro-forma sessions are automatically null and void.
 
2013-01-27 05:34:59 PM  
So in the future we can expect congress never to be out of session, then?
 
2013-01-27 05:35:51 PM  
OBVIOUS tag on recess?
 
2013-01-27 05:37:00 PM  

fortheloveof: Can't the president force them into session?


He should do that. If he loses in court he should wait until they do another pro-forma and then attempt to force them to do something. If they then claim they are "not in session" he can take it right back to the court and shove it in their faces.
 
2013-01-27 05:39:17 PM  

BMulligan: ArkAngel: GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

But to declare that a pro-forma session is not a session requires a definition of what a session is then.  How can they define that?  What do they define it as?  One bill considered and voted on?  One hour open for debate?  How does the USSC have that power?

They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

So, is it your opinion that the Senate could declare itself perpetually in session, never in recess, and thus render the recess appointment clause of the Constitution a nullity?


Why couldn't they? I imagine it would create all KINDS of openings to attack the senate majority party on politically until they lost control or changed the rules.
 
2013-01-27 05:42:15 PM  

BMulligan: ArkAngel: GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

But to declare that a pro-forma session is not a session requires a definition of what a session is then.  How can they define that?  What do they define it as?  One bill considered and voted on?  One hour open for debate?  How does the USSC have that power?

They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

So, is it your opinion that the Senate could declare itself perpetually in session, never in recess, and thus render the recess appointment clause of the Constitution a nullity?


It's open to interpretation. Article I , Section 4 requires that Congress only meet for at least one day every year. However, Section 5 states that members of Congress may be forced to attend. One could also argue that the mention of the Senate's recess in Article II, Section 2 means that they are required to have one. It'd be an interesting argument in front of a federal judge, but my guess is that the judge would say that it's entirely up to Congress whether or not they had a recess because it'd be within their purview to set their own rules and schedule.
 
2013-01-27 05:42:21 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: I don't see how the judicial branch has any power over this. It's the legislative branch's rules vs the executive branch. Shouldn't this go through the legislative branch since it's their rules that were supposedly violated?

What If this was a supreme court justice obama was nominating? How could the court be involved with that? Isn't that a conflict of interest?


Bush did that. Supreme Court refused to take up the case.
 
2013-01-27 05:45:09 PM  
Be nice if he linked to some actual news stories from legitimate news media. Not that I disbelieve, but...
 
2013-01-27 05:46:04 PM  

TheBigJerk: BMulligan: ArkAngel: GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

But to declare that a pro-forma session is not a session requires a definition of what a session is then.  How can they define that?  What do they define it as?  One bill considered and voted on?  One hour open for debate?  How does the USSC have that power?

They don't have to define any of that. They simply quote Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

So, is it your opinion that the Senate could declare itself perpetually in session, never in recess, and thus render the recess appointment clause of the Constitution a nullity?

Why couldn't they? I imagine it would create all KINDS of openings to attack the senate majority party on politically until they lost control or changed the rules.


Agreed. Keeping the Senate in session in perpetuity while still not doing anything seems like it would drive the populace into a major uproar for either the GOP to do something or the Dems to grow a set.
 
2013-01-27 05:46:53 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: And if they do that, any Bush era rules made by his 17 appointees during pro-forma sessions are automatically null and void.


It's not that simple, cupcake. This issue is different as they weren't holding pro-forma sessions to keep the Congress open.
 
2013-01-27 05:52:37 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Britney Spear's Speculum: I don't see how the judicial branch has any power over this. It's the legislative branch's rules vs the executive branch. Shouldn't this go through the legislative branch since it's their rules that were supposedly violated?

What If this was a supreme court justice obama was nominating? How could the court be involved with that? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Bush did that. Supreme Court refused to take up the case.


No he didn't. He recess appointed two people to federal judgeships, but not SCOTUS. The last recess appointments to SCOTUS were three under Eisenhower. The first was actually done by Washington.
 
2013-01-27 05:52:45 PM  

Mrbogey: Princess Ryans Knickers: And if they do that, any Bush era rules made by his 17 appointees during pro-forma sessions are automatically null and void.

It's not that simple, cupcake. This issue is different as they weren't holding pro-forma sessions to keep the Congress open.


Wanna bet?

On the second working day of the New Year, during a pro forma Senate recess, President Bush appointed 17 people to executive positions, including two at the Department of Homeland Security: Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Tracy Henke, Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. By making these appointments during recess, Bush bypassed the Senate's constitutional "advise and consent" oversight, just as he did on 1 August 2005, when he appointed John Bolton to be US Ambassador to the United Nations.
 
2013-01-27 05:54:50 PM  
"Exepect", Subby?

Is there some subtle reference stuff going on here or was that just a mistake?
 
2013-01-27 05:55:04 PM  

Generic Republican: Obama's probably going to take this one on the chin. The dems came up with this trick in the first place to use against GWB. I wonder if this test on it is a way to shut down recess appointments entirely.


Recess appointment power is in the Constitution. It was imagined that it would be used because a vacancy in an important post might occur when Congress was not in session. It was not imagined that Bush would use it to ram John Bolton into the U.N. when it was clear he wouldn't be confirmed due to Democratic filibusters. It was not imagined that Democrats would create the pro forma session ritual to prevent Bush from doing that again. It was not imagined that Republicans would then adopt the tactic as a way of keeping posts vacant for the purpose of incapacitating functions of government they don't like.

The recess appointment problem stems from the filibuster problem. John Bolton was bad but if he would have been confirmed by a Senate majority under tougher filibuster rules, so be it. If he was a bad enough choice that a Democratic senator would have been willing to stop him with a actual talking filibuster, so be it too. It was because of the filibuster that everybody started looking for more rules to abuse.
 
2013-01-27 05:57:24 PM  

ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL


Justice Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
 
2013-01-27 05:58:14 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

And if they do that, any Bush era rules made by his 17 appointees during pro-forma sessions are automatically null and void.


Bush never made an appointment during pro forma sessions. The Dems in Congress started the sessions with the exact intention to stop recess appointments. Bush asked the DoJ for their opinion and they said he probably wouldn't win a court fight. So he didn't do it.
 
2013-01-27 06:00:39 PM  

ArkAngel: Princess Ryans Knickers: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

And if they do that, any Bush era rules made by his 17 appointees during pro-forma sessions are automatically null and void.

Bush never made an appointment during pro forma sessions. The Dems in Congress started the sessions with the exact intention to stop recess appointments. Bush asked the DoJ for their opinion and they said he probably wouldn't win a court fight. So he didn't do it.


On the second working day of the New Year, during a pro forma Senate recess, President Bush appointed 17 people to executive positions, including two at the Department of Homeland Security: Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Tracy Henke, Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. By making these appointments during recess, Bush bypassed the Senate's constitutional "advise and consent" oversight, just as he did on 1 August 2005, when he appointed John Bolton to be US Ambassador to the United Nations.


Did Bush, or did Bush not make pro forma appointments? The news, which you can find by this newfangled thing called Google, states he did. And by your own words, the Dems did the same as the GOP in creating a pro forma to avoid appointments. Either it's bad for both or good for both. Your pick.
 
2013-01-27 06:06:31 PM  
I'm sure that everyone here knows that Sentelle is a total AssHole.Among a whole pant load of other things, he appointed Ken Starr to go after Clinton on...whatever
 
2013-01-27 06:07:25 PM  
DYK that Republican Theodore Roosevelt used, legally, the right to seat appointments even when the Senate went to lunch as he deemed they were not "in session"?
 
2013-01-27 06:10:30 PM  
You can bet that they'll become magically constitutional again the second a Real Murican is in the White House. The legal principle is "strict constructionism."
 
2013-01-27 06:13:49 PM  

cman: This looks like a highly reputable blog who is completely unbiased and factually correct.


There's this new thing called the internet.  It's totally awesome.  It's chock-full of useful information, like who appointed which judges, what cases came before those judges, and how they ruled.

Check it out, then come back and tell us which of the alleged facts presented by this blog are inaccurate.

Go ahead...we'll wait.
 
2013-01-27 06:15:50 PM  
hey thanks mods, but i don't need to go to sites that tell me how much amy lei from taiwan want to chat with me twice in the first three paragraphs.
 
2013-01-27 06:16:31 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: ArkAngel: Princess Ryans Knickers: ArkAngel: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Probably, but I can only imagine this is headed to the Supreme Court.

How does the USSC have the ability to declare what constitutes a Senate session?  They have no ability to declare a minimum time requirement to be considered a "real" session.

They have the ability to interpret what is written in the Constitution. It's quite likely, IMO, that if they do take up the case they'll decide that Congress is in recess when they say they are, which would still leave the particular Obama appointees SOL

And if they do that, any Bush era rules made by his 17 appointees during pro-forma sessions are automatically null and void.

Bush never made an appointment during pro forma sessions. The Dems in Congress started the sessions with the exact intention to stop recess appointments. Bush asked the DoJ for their opinion and they said he probably wouldn't win a court fight. So he didn't do it.

On the second working day of the New Year, during a pro forma Senate recess, President Bush appointed 17 people to executive positions, including two at the Department of Homeland Security: Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Tracy Henke, Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. By making these appointments during recess, Bush bypassed the Senate's constitutional "advise and consent" oversight, just as he did on 1 August 2005, when he appointed John Bolton to be US Ambassador to the United Nations.


Did Bush, or did Bush not make pro forma appointments? The news, which you can find by this newfangled thing called Google, states he did. And by your own words, the Dems did the same as the GOP in creating a pro forma to avoid appointments. Either it's bad for both or good for both. Your pick.


Pro forma sessions didn't begin until November 2007
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report