WashPost Hails Obama's 'Bold Act' In Making Recess Appointment During Senate Session

[rightwinger]

Here is a great idea

When the Republicans come back, why don't they file for impeachment?

LOL, we can only hope.

It is time for republicans to show Obama who is boss. Impeaching him right before the elections should do it

 

[peach174]

Both parties have used this tactic of pro forma;

Are Obama’s Recess Appointments Unconstitutional? Probably Not

Sen. Harry Reid did the same thing to block President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador.

President Bush respected the pro forma by Sen. Reid and John Bolton resigned in December 2006 when his recess appointment would have ended, because he was unable to gain confirmation from the Senate.

 

[konradv]

You mean the Wall Street Bankers who overwhelmingly support Barack Obama? Those Bankers?

Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough:

COOL!!!

Got a problem with that, support public financing of elections. Otherwise, SUCK IT, LOSER.

tell obama

Tell him what? He'll play by the rules as they are and swamp everybody with a warchest that he won't have to touch for months. Hope you righties have your checkbooks ready. It's going to be expensive!!!

 

[paulitician]

And yet he is enacting regulations they hate, it apparently didn't buy them much and this election should look somewhat different.

And btw,you apparently haven't received your new Talking-Point orders from the DNC yet. OWS is dead so now you're supposed to be cheerleading for Wall Street Gains & Profits. You're supposed to like Wall Street now. Supposedly that's gonna make your guy in the White House look like he has done something for the Economy. So you need to get in touch with the DNC. Your Talking-Points are outdated.

Fuck Wall Street.

Yea you definitely haven't received your new DNC marching-orders yet. OWS is dead & buried. It's time for you to start cheerleading and boasting about Wall Street gains & profits. That's supposed to help your guy in the White House. I've already seen some former OWS nutters on this board now boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. So you better get onboard. The DNC will not tolerate insubordinance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anyone still think the Liberal Press is credible and independent?


Nakamura and Sonmez waited until the 10th paragraph in their 33-paragraph page A1 story to get to the Republican side of the argument, that "precedent, over the past two decades, has been that no president can make such an appointment during a recess of less than 10 days."

Nakamura and Sonmez omitted, however, that the actual minimal threshold of inactivity to constitute a Senate "recess" has been considered, since the days of the Clinton Department of Justice, a length of at least three days.

From "frequently asked questions" brief published on December 12, 2011 by Henry Hogue of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (emphases mine):

The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days. In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This “Adjournments Clause” provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days ....” Arguing that the recess during which the appointment at issue in the case was made was of sufficient length, the brief stated:

If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented. The Constitution restricts the Senate’s ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives. ... It might be argued that this means that the Framers did not consider one, two and three day recesses to be constitutionally significant. …

Apart from the three-day requirement noted above, the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days. Whatever number of days is deemed required, that number would of necessity be completely arbitrary.

The logic of the argument laid out in this brief appears to underlie congressional practices, intended to block recess appointments, that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.

In other words, President Obama is pushing the limits of his executive recess appointment-making authority even further than the Clinton administration dreamed possible.



Read more: WashPost Hails Obama's 'Bold Act' in Making Recess Appointment While Senate's Still In Session | NewsBusters.org

Of course the MSM is credible and independent, or as independent as its ownership allows. Who owns the MSM btw? The proper question is, is Fox News and Murdoch's empire credible and independent?

Why shouldn't Obama push the limits? The GOP has stonewalled him at every turn. If McConnell and Boehner feel the president has overstepped his authority they have options. Boehner can try to impeach the president, or they can ask their pals on the SC to rule against the president, creating a Constitutional crisis. Or they, like you, can whine because Obama has once again outsmarted them.

 

[konradv]

Republicans are going to discover much too late just how popular this action was and just how dirty and bought off they look fighting it. When congress comes back they are going to look like shameless banker puppets proclaiming their false outrage to a public that knows all to well that banks are never to be trusted.

Funny how Obama received more money from wall street than any other POTUS in history

Which means what? He's their toady or he'll take their money and kick them in the nuts anyway? Either way, he's playing the game according to the rules in force. Want to change things? SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

 

[occupied]

And btw,you apparently haven't received your new Talking-Point orders from the DNC yet. OWS is dead so now you're supposed to be cheerleading for Wall Street Gains & Profits. You're supposed to like Wall Street now. Supposedly that's gonna make your guy in the White House look like he has done something for the Economy. So you need to get in touch with the DNC. Your Talking-Points are outdated.

Fuck Wall Street.

Yea you definitely haven't received your new DNC marching-orders yet. OWS is dead & buried. It's time for you to start cheerleading and boasting about Wall Street gains & profits. That's supposed to help your guy in the White House. I've already seen some former OWS nutters on this board now boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. So you better get onboard. The DNC will not tolerate insubordinance.

Saying the same thing twice does not make you sound any less silly.

 

[paulitician]

Republicans are going to discover much too late just how popular this action was and just how dirty and bought off they look fighting it. When congress comes back they are going to look like shameless banker puppets proclaiming their false outrage to a public that knows all to well that banks are never to be trusted.

Funny how Obama received more money from wall street than any other POTUS in history

His followers can't face that. They have to live in denial. It's all psychological. Barack Obama has received more Wall Street money than any other Politician in the last 20yrs. That's just fact.

 

[del]

COOL!!!

Got a problem with that, support public financing of elections. Otherwise, SUCK IT, LOSER.

tell obama

Tell him what? He'll play by the rules as they are and swamp everybody with a warchest that he won't have to touch for months. Hope you righties have your checkbooks ready. It's going to be expensive!!!

tell him to support public funding of elections. he said he did, and then he changed his mind after wall st bought him.

shocker, i know

 

[paulitician]

Fuck Wall Street.

Yea you definitely haven't received your new DNC marching-orders yet. OWS is dead & buried. It's time for you to start cheerleading and boasting about Wall Street gains & profits. That's supposed to help your guy in the White House. I've already seen some former OWS nutters on this board now boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. So you better get onboard. The DNC will not tolerate insubordinance.

Saying the same thing twice does not make you sound any less silly.

Some of your old OWS nutter buddies are already back here boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. What a sudden transformation ay? From OWS Nutter to Jubilant Wall Street Cheerleader over night. Face it,OWS is dead. You're just not following orders yet.

 

[The Infidel]

tell obama

Tell him what? He'll play by the rules as they are and swamp everybody with a warchest that he won't have to touch for months. Hope you righties have your checkbooks ready. It's going to be expensive!!!

tell him to support public funding of elections. he said he did, and then he changed his mind after wall st bought him.

shocker, i know

He is a hypocrite.

 

[konradv]

tell obama

Tell him what? He'll play by the rules as they are and swamp everybody with a warchest that he won't have to touch for months. Hope you righties have your checkbooks ready. It's going to be expensive!!!

tell him to support public funding of elections. he said he did, and then he changed his mind after wall st bought him.

shocker, i know

I chalk that up to the learning curve. It would be foolish to do something like that unilaterally. He can't make public funding a rule all by himself. That requires a constitutional amendment. Be shocked all you want. He's learned to play hardball. DEAL WITH IT.

 

[occupied]

Yea you definitely haven't received your new DNC marching-orders yet. OWS is dead & buried. It's time for you to start cheerleading and boasting about Wall Street gains & profits. That's supposed to help your guy in the White House. I've already seen some former OWS nutters on this board now boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. So you better get onboard. The DNC will not tolerate insubordinance.

Saying the same thing twice does not make you sound any less silly.

Some of your old OWS nutter buddies are already back here boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. What a sudden transformation ay? From OWS Nutter to Jubilant Wall Street Cheerleader over night. Face it,OWS is dead. You're just not following orders yet.

For a libertarian you sure have a dim view of populism.

 

[del]

Tell him what? He'll play by the rules as they are and swamp everybody with a warchest that he won't have to touch for months. Hope you righties have your checkbooks ready. It's going to be expensive!!!

tell him to support public funding of elections. he said he did, and then he changed his mind after wall st bought him.

shocker, i know

I chalk that up to the learning curve. It would be foolish to do something like that unilaterally. He can't make public funding a rule all by himself. That requires a constitutional amendment. Be shocked all you want. He's learned to play hardball. DEAL WITH IT.

of course you do, he's your hypocrite, and that makes all the difference.

mccain had already agreed to public financing, it was obama who weaseled out, but again, he's your weasel so it's otay.

you people crack me up

 

[konradv]

tell him to support public funding of elections. he said he did, and then he changed his mind after wall st bought him.

shocker, i know

I chalk that up to the learning curve. It would be foolish to do something like that unilaterally. He can't make public funding a rule all by himself. That requires a constitutional amendment. Be shocked all you want. He's learned to play hardball. DEAL WITH IT.

of course you do, he's your hypocrite, and that makes all the difference.

mccain had already agreed to public financing, it was obama who weaseled out, but again, he's your weasel so it's otay.

you people crack me up

TOUGH SHIT. He's gonna swamp the oposition with a $billion or so and all you want to talk about is "hypocrisy" and being a "weasel"? You crack ME up. What happened to solutions?!?!

 

[paulitician]

Saying the same thing twice does not make you sound any less silly.

Some of your old OWS nutter buddies are already back here boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. What a sudden transformation ay? From OWS Nutter to Jubilant Wall Street Cheerleader over night. Face it,OWS is dead. You're just not following orders yet.

For a libertarian you sure have a dim view of populism.

You'll get onboard though. The closer it gets to Election Day,the more you'll be ordered to cheerlead for Wall Street gains and profits. Barack Obama is not going to give all his Wall Street cash up. In fact,he'll be boasting loudest if Wall Street is doing well around Election Time. OWS is dead and the Democrats know it. So you better get onboard soon...Or else.

 

[occupied]

Some of your old OWS nutter buddies are already back here boasting about how well Wall Street is now doing. What a sudden transformation ay? From OWS Nutter to Jubilant Wall Street Cheerleader over night. Face it,OWS is dead. You're just not following orders yet.

For a libertarian you sure have a dim view of populism.

You'll get onboard though. The closer it gets to Election Day,the more you'll be ordered to cheerlead for Wall Street gains and profits. Barack Obama is not going to give all his Wall Street cash up. In fact,he'll be boasting loudest if Wall Street is doing well around Election Time. OWS is dead and the Democrats know it. So you better get onboard soon...Or else.

Claiming I am somehow being issued orders a third time is just compounding your silliness. If Wall Street somehow manages to gain stability and grow well then that is just fine but it will not mean they are in any way off the hook with me or many others. OWS is not dead, they are morphing into something that you cannot fight without showing your true fascist colors.

 

[paulitician]

For a libertarian you sure have a dim view of populism.

You'll get onboard though. The closer it gets to Election Day,the more you'll be ordered to cheerlead for Wall Street gains and profits. Barack Obama is not going to give all his Wall Street cash up. In fact,he'll be boasting loudest if Wall Street is doing well around Election Time. OWS is dead and the Democrats know it. So you better get onboard soon...Or else.

Claiming I am somehow being issued orders a third time is just compounding your silliness. If Wall Street somehow manages to gain stability and grow well then that is just fine but it will not mean they are in any way off the hook with me or many others. OWS is not dead, they are morphing into something that you cannot fight without showing your true fascist colors.

OWS was a well-funded and controlled George Soros/Democratic Party scam. They were never 'Non-Partisan' or had 'No political agenda' like they claimed early on. But the Democratic Party no longer has any use for them. It's Election Time. Time to start baosting about Wall Street gains and profits. And you will get onboard eventually. I suspect we'll be seeing you and your former OWS Nutters here boasting about how well Wall Street is doing in the near future. I'm already seeing some of your comrades doing that. So,do you hate Wall Street or do you love Wall Street? I suspect you don't even know.

 

[BlindBoo]

Anyone still think the Liberal Press is credible and independent?


Nakamura and Sonmez waited until the 10th paragraph in their 33-paragraph page A1 story to get to the Republican side of the argument, that "precedent, over the past two decades, has been that no president can make such an appointment during a recess of less than 10 days."

Nakamura and Sonmez omitted, however, that the actual minimal threshold of inactivity to constitute a Senate "recess" has been considered, since the days of the Clinton Department of Justice, a length of at least three days.

From "frequently asked questions" brief published on December 12, 2011 by Henry Hogue of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (emphases mine):

The Constitution does not specify the length of time that the Senate must be in recess before the President may make a recess appointment. Over time, the Department of Justice has offered differing views on this question, and no settled understanding appears to exist. In 1993, however, a Department of Justice brief implied that the President may make a recess appointment during a recess of more than three days. In doing so, the brief linked the minimum recess length with Article I, Section 5, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. This “Adjournments Clause” provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days ....” Arguing that the recess during which the appointment at issue in the case was made was of sufficient length, the brief stated:

If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented. The Constitution restricts the Senate’s ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives. ... It might be argued that this means that the Framers did not consider one, two and three day recesses to be constitutionally significant. …

Apart from the three-day requirement noted above, the Constitution provides no basis for limiting the recess to a specific number of days. Whatever number of days is deemed required, that number would of necessity be completely arbitrary.

The logic of the argument laid out in this brief appears to underlie congressional practices, intended to block recess appointments, that were first implemented during the 110th Congress.

In other words, President Obama is pushing the limits of his executive recess appointment-making authority even further than the Clinton administration dreamed possible.



Read more: WashPost Hails Obama's 'Bold Act' in Making Recess Appointment While Senate's Still In Session | NewsBusters.org

If a Congressional representative steps out for a smoke break, that's recess enough for Obama to knight another of his radical buddies in order to expand his rule by fiat.

The problem is that the minority party objects to the watchdog agency created by Congress and refused to appoint someone to lead it. Fuck the Republican Senators who seek to thwart the will of the people.