Court puts doubt on president’s appointments in recess

They did not pass legislation during the 30 second sessions, idiot!



And where did you ever get the dimwitted idea the President cannot sign legislation during a recess?


This is about the Senate recess appointments.

You are very confused about the different roles of the House and Senate.

.

The Senate doesn't make recess appointments, the President does when the Senate is in recess. I know who is confused!

The Senate was in recess. That is a Senate recess. The President made an appointment during the Senate recess.

That is a Senate recess appointment, dipshit.

.

Who says the Senate was in recess? The president?
 
Umm the NHL players are unionized right?
So why do rightwingers patronize them?



Are you speaking to me?


If so, be advised, I've posted several times that I am not opposed to unions, and, in fact, pointed out that the Constitution's freedom of assembly covers same.


Ranger Blue runs in these veins.

that would explain both the stupidity and the lack of talent.
 
If the Majority Leader says, 'yep, we are recessed', then there is no case.

The Senate doesn't make recess appointments, the President does when the Senate is in recess. I know who is confused!

The Senate was in recess. That is a Senate recess. The President made an appointment during the Senate recess.

That is a Senate recess appointment, dipshit.

.

Who says the Senate was in recess? The president?
 
Doesn't matter, Jroc. You lose.

But until the dems and pubs get together and jointly create Senate rules, recess appointments will continue regardless of what the minority says.
 
They did not pass legislation during the 30 second sessions, idiot!



And where did you ever get the dimwitted idea the President cannot sign legislation during a recess?


This is about the Senate recess appointments.

You are very confused about the different roles of the House and Senate.

.

The Senate doesn't make recess appointments, the President does when the Senate is in recess. I know who is confused!

The Senate was in recess. That is a Senate recess. The President made an appointment during the Senate recess.

That is a Senate recess appointment, dipshit.

.
If they were in recess how could they pass legislation?
 
This is the stupidest response ever.

The legislation they passed was not passed during a time when every three days they were opening for 30 seconds and then adjourning.

The appointments he made were.

Please explain how the Senate can meet their Constitutional requirement to "advise and consent" in 30 seconds with only a couple people present.

They did not have a quorum present.

The very term "pro forma session" means they were in session and not in recess.
.

I believe the Senate can be in session without a quorum being present. Since a quorum was NOT present, they couldn't have a vote to recess, hence they were still in session.

No. They actually adjourn until three days hence. The actual language used is an adjournment.

This is to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that they cannot adjourn FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS without the consent of the other body.

They do adjourn. Just not for more than three days.



.

The very term "pro forma session" means they were in session and not in recess.
 
Again, not one of the usual lib suspects can explain how the appointments can be valid and the legislation passed by the Senate also valid. If the Senate was in recess, they cannot pass legislation. If the Senate is not in recess Obama cannot make recess appointments. Can't have it both ways.
 
The explanations have been made, and the far right doofi extremists won't accept them, but, if the court hears the case, it will say, "yup, they are constitutional."
 
These right wingers on this board are fucking retarded

The left thinks the right is retarded, and the right thinks the left is retarded. The middle thinks both are retarded(in some ways anyway)

only the Far Right and Left for me.....but i think they are more Brainwashed into thinking that ONLY what they believe is the way to be......its kinda like the way a Cult Brainwashes their devotees....
 
The explanations have been made, and the far right doofi extremists won't accept them, but, if the court hears the case, it will say, "yup, they are constitutional."

So sayeth Jake Starkey, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement and AUthority on Con Law.

No one has produced a credible explanation.
 
Again, not one of the usual lib suspects can explain how the appointments can be valid and the legislation passed by the Senate also valid. If the Senate was in recess, they cannot pass legislation. If the Senate is not in recess Obama cannot make recess appointments. Can't have it both ways.

If the Senate was in session they should have been able to receive nominations. Furthermore after the Preisdent made the appointments the Senate had the right to take up the nomination in their next session. Did they?
 
Again, not one of the usual lib suspects can explain how the appointments can be valid and the legislation passed by the Senate also valid. If the Senate was in recess, they cannot pass legislation. If the Senate is not in recess Obama cannot make recess appointments. Can't have it both ways.

If the Senate was in session they should have been able to receive nominations. Furthermore after the Preisdent made the appointments the Senate had the right to take up the nomination in their next session. Did they?

They did not have the right. The Senate does not have rights. Only citizens have rights. The Senate had a duty to do so and no appointment is valid without the advise and consent of the Senate.
So were they in session or not?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top