Bloomberg News: President’s Recess-Appointment Power Cut by High Court

[Burgold]

You could make the argument that in the modern telecommunications age, it's not necessary at all. There's no reason that a representative can't indicate his/her vote via phone/email/VTC

I'd be for eliminating this power altogether if you coupled it with a mandatory up/down vote within 3-6 months of a candidate being nominated.  I find what Obama did abusive, but I also find that there have been several appointments unfilled for 3,4, 5 years ridiculous because one side refuses to even hold a vote.  If you can't make a compelling case against a candidate then you shouldn't be able to nullify the vote.  If it's a bad candidate then you should be able to argue a good Nay vote.

 

Mind you, I also find the idea that a practice that has been in place and executed by all Presidents beginning with George Washington to  be unconstitutional utterly absurd.  I mean if the standard is what did the founding fathers intend here you have the clearest example.  Who's more of a founding father than George Washington for liberty's sakes?

[twa]

isn't the refusal to bring a vote basically a vote against?

the CORRECT practice was not found unconstitutional, the ignoring of Congress was 

[Burgold]

isn't the refusal to bring a vote basically a vote against?

the CORRECT practice was not found unconstitutional, the ignoring of Congress was 

Absolutely not, TWA.  Taking your ball and going home is not the same as playing. 

 

Kind of liked this argument from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich

 

House Speaker John Boehner said today he plans to move forward with a lawsuit against President Barack Obama for misusing executive powers by allegedly side-stepping Congress on immigration and other policies. In a memo to Republicans, Boehner accused Obama of asserting “king-like authority.” Baloney. As I’ve pointed out on this page, every rule and legal interpretation Obama has made has been pur...suant to a specific act of Congress. If there’s a misuse of constitutional authority it’s in the Republican House, which has refused to appropriate enough funds to enforce the laws already on the books – laws designed to protect workers, consumers, small investors, and the environment, and to collect taxes. Enforcement budgets at the Department of Labor, Securities and Exchange Commission, EPA, IRS, and consumer protection agencies have been slashed so badly many laws no longer have the full force of law. If the Supreme Court weren’t stacked with rightwing Republicans I might even suggest Obama sue John Boehner for misusing legislative authority.

[twa]

 

Absolutely not, TWA.  Taking your ball and going home is not the same as playing. 

 

 

 

ya might tell dear leader he needs to wait till they go home....Oh wait SCOTUS just did that UNANIMOUSLY.  

 

thirteen SCOTUS slapdowns and counting.

 

I'm not surprised a liberal wants more money or uses it as a excuse 

[Burgold]

ya might tell dear leader he needs to wait till they go home....Oh wait SCOTUS just did that UNANIMOUSLY.  

 

thirteen SCOTUS slapdowns and counting.

 

I'm not surprised a liberal wants more money or uses it as a excuse 

Actually, they ruled on a technicality.  If 99% go home, but one guy stays in to pretend they're in session.  SCOTUS ruled they can claim to be in session even if they do no other business than a call roll and find out there's no one in town.

 

Political games.

 

I actually side with the Supreme Court in its decision about presidential overreach.  However, I do think Congress has been stretching the rules in a terrible way and not holding a vote for some offices for 4 years ought to give a bunch of them the boot whether we're talking judges or administrators.  Really poor behavior.

[twa]

if you feel they are breaking the rules sue them (like you object to Boehner doing) or attempt to replace them

 

I agree a up/down vote rule would be nice,but that is not the rule

 

I don't see it as a ruling on a technicality at all,but rather a fundamental separation of powers....like the power of the purse congress holds 

[Burgold]

The ruling is probably correct.  What caused the ruling to be made were the games that Congress was playing to A) prevent a vote and pretend they were in session when they were not.  Forestalling all votes for years... three, four, years is not a delaying tactic.  It's submarining the business of the country.

 

Edit:  Funny.  Never realized that B ) was

[Larry]

isn't the refusal to bring a vote basically a vote against?

Admiring twa's assertion that there's no difference between filibustering a nominee, and voting against him.

In fact, I think I should bookmark it.

 

Absolutely not, TWA.  Taking your ball and going home is not the same as playing.

You have kind of a point.

 

 

Kind of liked this argument from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich

 

 

And what that has to do with recess appointments? 

[twa]

Admiring twa's assertion that there's no difference between filibustering a nominee, and voting against him.

In fact, I think I should bookmark it.

 

basically = no difference in your book?.....how progressive of you

 

Congress(or the critters in power within) withholding consent or a vote is certainly different....and within their power obviously (to everyone but Obama  )

 

now who gave the power ? 

 

add

 the other team can win (recess appoint) by forfeit but not till the game is called

[twa]

The ruling is probably correct.  What caused the ruling to be made were the games that Congress was playing to A) prevent a vote and pretend they were in session when they were not.  Forestalling all votes for years... three, four, years is not a delaying tactic.  It's submarining the business of the country.

 

Edit:  Funny.  Never realized that B ) was

 

 

What caused the ruling was flaunting the separation of powers by POTUS (whether from impatience,disgust, self important delusions or whatever)

[Burgold]

What caused the ruling was flaunting the separation of powers by POTUS (whether from impatience,disgust, self important delusions or whatever)

So, your saying the flaunting of appointment powers had nothing to do with no one getting appointed? 

[Duckus]

thirteen SCOTUS slapdowns and counting.

Is that a lot? How does it compare historically?

[twa]

Is that a lot? How does it compare historically?

 

• That's a good question.....anyone wanna fetch? 

 

I'll go with rather excessive from memory

 

add

 

 Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time. 

So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somintold the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

[Predicto]

if you feel they are breaking the rules sue them (like you object to Boehner doing) or attempt to replace them

 

I agree a up/down vote rule would be nice,but that is not the rule

 

I don't see it as a ruling on a technicality at all,but rather a fundamental separation of powers....like the power of the purse congress holds 

 

You are correct.   This a separation of powers issue.  The thing is, because of separation of powers, you can't sue them when they are being total ***holes.  Like they are now.  You can't force Congress to do anything.  

 

So when Congress gets to a certain level of obstructionist political hacks like it has now, the appointment process grinds to a halt.   It's a flaw in the system, not something to be gloated about.   

[twa]

I wasn't gloating when the D's did it either....You?

 

POTUS could wait and properly recess appoint, but rules and laws are such a bother....along with not being King

[Predicto]

 

 

POTUS could wait and properly recess appoint, but rules and laws are such a bother....along with not being King

 

No he can't, because Congress never goes out of session anymore.   Everyone goes home, but one guy keeps showing up to bang a gavel every few days so that Congress is ALWAYS in session.

 

Seriously, that is the whole point of this thread.   Troll better.

[Larry]

I wasn't gloating when the D's did it either....You?

They didn't.

But then, you knew that, didn't you?

("But, they did something kinda similar, so when we take it four times further, and 100 times more often, then it's the same" in 3, 2, . . . )

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Jesus man, I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm getting absolutely sick of seeing the "both parties" "both sides" crap. It obfuscates the actual problems. Maybe the President wouldn't have to conduct appointments in this manner if he hadn't been dealing with the most obstructive congress in history. 

[twa]

No he can't, because Congress never goes out of session anymore.   Everyone goes home, but one guy keeps showing up to bang a gavel every few days so that Congress is ALWAYS in session.

 

Seriously, that is the whole point of this thread.   Troll better.

 

Strange the title is about SCOTUS telling him he overstepped and never mentioned congress NEVER adjorns

 

any support for the highlight?

[Slateman]

Didn't these start because it took people days to get to Washington from places like Maine and Georgia?

Yes. And serving in Congress was supposed to be a part time job.

 

I'd be for eliminating this power altogether if you coupled it with a mandatory up/down vote within 3-6 months of a candidate being nominated.  I find what Obama did abusive, but I also find that there have been several appointments unfilled for 3,4, 5 years ridiculous because one side refuses to even hold a vote.  If you can't make a compelling case against a candidate then you shouldn't be able to nullify the vote.  If it's a bad candidate then you should be able to argue a good Nay vote.

 

Mind you, I also find the idea that a practice that has been in place and executed by all Presidents beginning with George Washington to  be unconstitutional utterly absurd.  I mean if the standard is what did the founding fathers intend here you have the clearest example.  Who's more of a founding father than George Washington for liberty's sakes?

I think 3-6 months is 2-5 months to many. Simply put, you should have 1 month to research a nominee. 3-5 days to question by Congress. One day to vote. If you can't come up with a reason to vote for someone (or not) in a month, you never will. A month gives representative's staffs time to research the nominee.

[Burgold]

I think 3-6 months is 2-5 months to many. Simply put, you should have 1 month to research a nominee. 3-5 days to question by Congress. One day to vote. If you can't come up with a reason to vote for someone (or not) in a month, you never will. A month gives representative's staffs time to research the nominee.

Sounds good to me. I was trying to be fair especially keeping in mind that I believe the republicans have refused to allow a vote on well over a hundred potential judicial appointees.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Which has been going on since George Washington.

They're called "recess appointments", and the Constitution specifically says he can do it.

Now, you may think that part of the Constitution isn't needed, any more. (I might even agree with you.)

But, what's that line, every time somebody points out that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the defense of the nation? Something along the line that there is a procedure for amending the constitution?

 

 

I don't care if it's been going on since Methuselah was in short pants, I don't think it's a good thing.  I never said it was no allowable.   The more our political parties are forced to compromise in order to get things done, the closer to the center the legislation becomes IMO.  

 

To me, that is a good thing IMO.

I always find celebrations like this by one side or the other a bit funny, because they forget that they aren't always going to be in control on the Hill.

 

Or be the ones with a pen and phone.

[Zguy28]

Sounds good to me. I was trying to be fair especially keeping in mind that I believe the republicans have refused to allow a vote on well over a hundred potential judicial appointees.

While I disagree with the Republican's tactics with that (again motive), I think it is not the "disease" so to speak, but a symptom. The root is judicial politics, which we've known forever is a problem that is not supposed to exist, but does. Everybody is afraid of judges who they know will lean one way or the other.

 

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch

 

If only this were true.

 

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.