Raygun made over 250 recess appointments

[BlindBoo]

Oh, please. Both sides have blocked nominees and both sides have had presidents who used recess appointments to get around this obstruction.

Would you guys agree to a law that required all nominees to be given an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate within 30 days of their nomination? No, of course not, because you'd end up with the short end of the stick more often than not.

Are you aware of just how awful some of Obama's nominees have been? Any idea? One of his nominees had argued in defense of an egregious cop killer--the guy was so radical that several Senate Democrats joined Republicans to block his nomination.

Senate blocks Obama's civil rights nominee - Washington Times

Obama Nominates Cop Killer Advocate to Head DOJ Civil Rights Division - Katie Pavlich

What a toxic atmosphere the GOP has allowed in its' echo chamber. Do you know Chief Justice Roberts once defended a notorious mass murderer? Did that ever come up in his confirmation hearings? Adegbile successfully argued a legal point and his career should not be smeared for it. Those type of attacks demean our justice system. Once upon a time those type of attacks were frowned upon and the assholes that made them were called out by their fellows. Obama certainly has ushered in a new day.

 

[BlindBoo]

Missing the point? Obama's "recess" appointments were not recess appointments at all. They were illegal appointments. The full Supreme Court just said so.

No they didn't. They ruled them unconstitutional. There is a difference.

Nope there is no difference. The appointments were illegal. Period. Every act by the NLRB during that time is void. Can we sue them for back salary?

Then you know what law was broken? What was that law he broke?

Are they going to charge the President with unconstitutionally appointing someone?

Does he even get a ticket?

 

[BlindBoo]

The bottom line is this. When an Obama nominee is not approved, he can't use a weekend as an excuse to do an end around congress and evade the constitution. Why do leftists hate the constitution?

Oh, the drama! Neither will the next President facing either a House or Senate controlled by the opposition party. Because using the pro forma sessions will become the norm for denying a president his constitutional authority. Reid should have thought about that when he pulled this trick on Bush.

 

[Ibentoken]

The bottom line is this. When an Obama nominee is not approved, he can't use a weekend as an excuse to do an end around congress and evade the constitution. Why do leftists hate the constitution?

Oh, the drama! Neither will the next President facing either a House or Senate controlled by the opposition party. Because using the pro forma sessions will become the norm for denying a president his constitutional authority. Reid should have thought about that when he pulled this trick on Bush.

I suggest you forget the Obama, Reid, Bush drama and do a study on Advise and Consent. You'll be smarter than your president.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/advice-and-consent-what-the-constitution-says

 

[The Rabbi]

No they didn't. They ruled them unconstitutional. There is a difference.

Nope there is no difference. The appointments were illegal. Period. Every act by the NLRB during that time is void. Can we sue them for back salary?

Then you know what law was broken? What was that law he broke?

Are they going to charge the President with unconstitutionally appointing someone?

Does he even get a ticket?

It's something like violating the Hatch Amendment.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing to me is that the Supreme Court just voted 9-0 that Barack Obama was wrong...that's a unanimous vote including the two extremely liberal Justices that were APPOINTED by Obama to the Court...and yet you STILL don't want to admit that Obama was out of line doing what he did!

I thought Harry Reid was wrong to use that pro forma session stunt to block Bushes constitutional authority too. Many Republicans did at the time if I recall correctly. Funny how the consequences of some ideas change over time.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Boo...and it's been awhile so I apologize if my memory is a bit off...I believe the original intent was to give the President the authority to replace someone who left during the rather long recesses that Congress had back then. The Founding Fathers didn't want to force Congress to have to come back from the jobs that most of them held when they weren't in Washington passing legislation, just to replace someone who departed suddenly. This was never supposed to be a way to do an end run around the Senate.

 

[Redfish]

Other presidents only did it when congress was actually in recess. Thats the difference.

End of story.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Other presidents only did it when congress was actually in recess. Thats the difference.

End of story.

they can keep repeating the same ol bullshit

to draw a false parallel

but that is what it is simply bs

 

[jon_berzerk]

What's amusing to me is that the Supreme Court just voted 9-0 that Barack Obama was wrong...that's a unanimous vote including the two extremely liberal Justices that were APPOINTED by Obama to the Court...and yet you STILL don't want to admit that Obama was out of line doing what he did!

I thought Harry Reid was wrong to use that pro forma session stunt to block Bushes constitutional authority too. Many Republicans did at the time if I recall correctly. Funny how the consequences of some ideas change over time.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Boo...and it's been awhile so I apologize if my memory is a bit off...I believe the original intent was to give the President the authority to replace someone who left during the rather long recesses that Congress had back then. The Founding Fathers didn't want to force Congress to have to come back from the jobs that most of them held when they weren't in Washington passing legislation, just to replace someone who departed suddenly. This was never supposed to be a way to do an end run around the Senate.

yes it recess appointment was meant to fill a vacancy that occurred

during the recess

not to hold on to a nominee until a recess occurs

then drop them in during a recess

however that has become a common practice

 

[jon_berzerk]

No they didn't. They ruled them unconstitutional. There is a difference.

Nope there is no difference. The appointments were illegal. Period. Every act by the NLRB during that time is void. Can we sue them for back salary?

Then you know what law was broken? What was that law he broke?

Are they going to charge the President with unconstitutionally appointing someone?

Does he even get a ticket?

no he got bitch slapped thats it

the appointees remain on

 

[tinydancer]

If hypocrisy was water, the cons would drown.

Well you just march on over to the Supreme Court and lay a hangover legal smackdown on them and tell them they were wrong wrong wrong to give Obama a boo boo!

And make sure you tell them they don't know nothing compared to Obama because he taught Constitutional law once upon a time.

 

[hangover]

I think the author of this thread intentionally misspelled Reagan in a lame attempt at disrespect, he really is that dumb.

It was pointed out to me the other day, that "Raygun" was first given the name at Woodstock in 1969 by two amazing visionaries that could see the crimes he would commit as POTUS. And you're dumb enough to think anyone should have respect for that piece of shit. He sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and missiles to Iran, and gave a billion dollars worth of stingers to the Taliban, and sold cocaine with Noriega, and gave weapons to the Contras, all behind the back of congress, and lied about it. AND HE TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT!

 

[Oldstyle]

I thought Harry Reid was wrong to use that pro forma session stunt to block Bushes constitutional authority too. Many Republicans did at the time if I recall correctly. Funny how the consequences of some ideas change over time.

If I remember my Constitutional law, Boo...and it's been awhile so I apologize if my memory is a bit off...I believe the original intent was to give the President the authority to replace someone who left during the rather long recesses that Congress had back then. The Founding Fathers didn't want to force Congress to have to come back from the jobs that most of them held when they weren't in Washington passing legislation, just to replace someone who departed suddenly. This was never supposed to be a way to do an end run around the Senate.

yes it recess appointment was meant to fill a vacancy that occurred

during the recess

not to hold on to a nominee until a recess occurs

then drop them in during a recess

however that has become a common practice

And it's wrong for BOTH parties to be doing it! So let's take that issue to the Supreme Court and nail it down so this nonsense stops. Nominating people for positions of power that the opposition HATES is not going to make our system run efficiently. How about we nominate people who are SO OUTSTANDING that nobody can question their credentials!

 

[Kosh]

So the far left is still crying like little babies because Obama violated the constitution?

 

[regent]

Oh, please. Both sides have blocked nominees and both sides have had presidents who used recess appointments to get around this obstruction.

Would you guys agree to a law that required all nominees to be given an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate within 30 days of their nomination? No, of course not, because you'd end up with the short end of the stick more often than not.

Are you aware of just how awful some of Obama's nominees have been? Any idea? One of his nominees had argued in defense of an egregious cop killer--the guy was so radical that several Senate Democrats joined Republicans to block his nomination.

Senate blocks Obama's civil rights nominee - Washington Times

Obama Nominates Cop Killer Advocate to Head DOJ Civil Rights Division - Katie Pavlich

What a toxic atmosphere the GOP has allowed in its' echo chamber. Do you know Chief Justice Roberts once defended a notorious mass murderer? Did that ever come up in his confirmation hearings? Adegbile successfully argued a legal point and his career should not be smeared for it. Those type of attacks demean our justice system. Once upon a time those type of attacks were frowned upon and the assholes that made them were called out by their fellows. Obama certainly has ushered in a new day.

And before John Adams became the second president of the United States he defended some of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

 

[hjmick]

If hypocrisy was water, the cons would drown.

You're ignorance is absolutely stunning.

 

[Kosh]

If hypocrisy was water, the cons would drown.

You're ignorance is absolutely stunning.

Not really!

The is the essential essence of being far left and a programmed far left Obama drone.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If I remember my Constitutional law, Boo...and it's been awhile so I apologize if my memory is a bit off...I believe the original intent was to give the President the authority to replace someone who left during the rather long recesses that Congress had back then. The Founding Fathers didn't want to force Congress to have to come back from the jobs that most of them held when they weren't in Washington passing legislation, just to replace someone who departed suddenly. This was never supposed to be a way to do an end run around the Senate.

yes it recess appointment was meant to fill a vacancy that occurred

during the recess

not to hold on to a nominee until a recess occurs

then drop them in during a recess

however that has become a common practice

And it's wrong for BOTH parties to be doing it! So let's take that issue to the Supreme Court and nail it down so this nonsense stops. Nominating people for positions of power that the opposition HATES is not going to make our system run efficiently. How about we nominate people who are SO OUTSTANDING that nobody can question their credentials!

agreed

 

[hangover]

So the far left is still crying like little babies because Obama violated the constitution?

Correction; the far right is crying like little babies, trying to get people to "believe" Obama violated the constitution.....like they tried to get people "believe" he was a Muslim, and a Kenyan, and a communist, and a socialist, and a fascist, and a racist. O for six, going for seven.

 

[hangover]

If hypocrisy was water, the cons would drown.

You're ignorance is absolutely stunning.

Again, calling the truth ignorance is the epitome of a moron.