High court limits president's appointments power

[BlindBoo]

Scalia's opinion is now a Clause within the United States Constitution?? REALLY???? The word need never appeared in the clause to begin with..MY GOD.. you ******* people.. It's called the Originalist INTENT - HIS opinion is founded upon what he construes the Originalist to have meant.. NOTHING WAS RE-WRITTEN in the US Constitution..

Yes, it was his opinion that there is no longer a need for the clause.

Good lord, is it that hard a concept to grasp?

Tell me something, genuius, when was the last time a vacancy occurred during a recess of Congress?

When the Constitution was written there were months between sessions, now, at the most, there are a couple of weeks. Even if someone died on the first day of a recess of two weeks, it would take the President longer than two weeks to even figure out who to appoint for the position.

Want to explain why Scalia is wrong, given that technology allows the President to get Congress back in session in a day if there is a real emergency?

Did I say he was wrong? My question was regarding other aspects of the constitution that the court deems no longer needed.

Nice tangent though. For that matter do they really need to be in DC to cast a vote these days?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You mean in Scalia's dissent, but keep showing how stupid you are.

No the article specifically said it was his own opinion. If it was a 9-0 decision how could it be, as you claim, a dissenting opinion?. I was responding to a post that had that quote in it. #43 I think.

Because there was a 5-4 split on how much to limit the recess appointment power.



Maybe you should learn to read, if it isn't too late.

 

[LiberalMedia]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

A procedural mistake? Obama overstepped his bounds. Even Ruth Ginsburg agreed with the Conservative Justices that Obama willfully flouted the Constitution. It is utterly bemusing to sit here and watch folks like you continue to defend the man even AFTER the Supreme Court sets him in his place. Lemmings the lot of you.

Until you produce direct quote where Justyce Gynsbyrg said or wrote this, I will be forced to assume that you are the lemming here, shoveling talking points packed with conservatard shit into your mouth and regurgitating it mindlessly.t

 

[BlindBoo]

You mean in Scalia's dissent, but keep showing how stupid you are.

No the article specifically said it was his own opinion. If it was a 9-0 decision how could it be, as you claim, a dissenting opinion?. I was responding to a post that had that quote in it. #43 I think.

Because there was a 5-4 split on how much to limit the recess appointment power.



Maybe you should learn to read, if it isn't too late.

Duh you got me, it was a dissent. But it was in response to this post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ident-s-appointments-power-3.html#post9332409

 

[Kosh]

The far left can not handle be held accountable for anything.

 

[Siete]

limits appointments ... the potus can still make appointments ... a major victory slap heard around the world ...


lmao

 

[depotoo]

limits appointments ... the potus can still make appointments ... a major victory slap heard around the world ...


lmao

And here is a prime example of someone on the left changing a statement to meet their own perversive needs...

appointment powers vs appointments

It's there for all to see.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Two 9 to 0 supreme court decisions against the boy king. Lol no wonder why Obama refuses to.release his college transcripts. Oh yes his first executive order was to seal it.

 

[Avatar4321]

he POTUS still has the power to make appointments, today's ruling notwithstanding.


so much about so little ... enter the RW's

Has anyone said otherwise? Nope.

However, the Court just reinforced the obvious idea that the President doesnt have the right to declare the Senate in recess when it's not so he can make recess appointments avoiding the Senate's right and responsibility to advise and consent.

 

[Siete]

limits appointments ... the potus can still make appointments ... a major victory slap heard around the world ...


lmao

And here is a prime example of someone on the left changing a statement to meet their own perversive needs...

appointment powers vs appointments

It's there for all to see.

I didn't change anything ... read the title of the article, read the article.

all of you morons crack me up when you dodge your own article ...

 

[Avatar4321]

In Scalia's opinion.

Justice Breyer wrote the opinion.

Please see post #32

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ident-s-appointments-power-3.html#post9332409

There is Scalia's opinion which is what I was commenting on.

Which is not the controlling opinion, so it's meaningless.

 

[Kosh]

he POTUS still has the power to make appointments, today's ruling notwithstanding.


so much about so little ... enter the RW's

Has anyone said otherwise? Nope.

However, the Court just reinforced the obvious idea that the President doesnt have the right to declare the Senate in recess when it's not so he can make recess appointments avoiding the Senate's right and responsibility to advise and consent.

What do you expect when Reid thinks he is the world leader and not Obama.

 

[Avatar4321]

it is a shame the the GOP is crippling our government by blocking appointees...

Maybe, just maybe, if Obama had actually submitted those appointments, they would have been approved. Instead of doing that, he just appointed them without ever submitting them to the Senate.

In other words, the GOP had nothing to do with the positions not being filled, it is all on Obama.

Obama didn't want to submit these people to a vote in the Senate. Why? Because his appointments are so radical he couldn't get them passed in a Democrat controlled Senate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

A procedural mistake? Obama overstepped his bounds. Even Ruth Ginsburg agreed with the Conservative Justices that Obama willfully flouted the Constitution. It is utterly bemusing to sit here and watch folks like you continue to defend the man even AFTER the Supreme Court sets him in his place. Lemmings the lot of you.

Until you produce direct quote where Justyce Gynsbyrg said or wrote this, I will be forced to assume that you are the lemming here, shoveling talking points packed with conservatard shit into your mouth and regurgitating it mindlessly.t

Does a 9-0 decision mean anything?

 

[BlindBoo]

Justice Breyer wrote the opinion.

Please see post #32

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ident-s-appointments-power-3.html#post9332409

There is Scalia's opinion which is what I was commenting on.

Which is not the controlling opinion, so it's meaningless.

Since you obviously didn't view it, here is the post I was responding to. Please note the bold item.

------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court ruled that the president's actions were unconstitutional:

"President Obama’s attempt to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was still technically in session was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday."

The verdict was 9-0. Scalia said in presenting the opinion of the court that:

"“The need [the recess appointments clause] was designed to fill no longer exists, and its only remaining use is the ignoble one of enabling the president to circumvent the Senate’s role in the appoint*ment process,” Scalia wrote, adding that the majority opinion would ”have the effect of aggrandizing the presidency beyond its constitutional bounds and undermining respect for the separation of powers.”"

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-sup...s-appointments


Obama is a constitutional lawyer.....really?.....too funny.

 

[BlindBoo]

it is a shame the the GOP is crippling our government by blocking appointees...

Maybe, just maybe, if Obama had actually submitted those appointments, they would have been approved. Instead of doing that, he just appointed them without ever submitting them to the Senate.

In other words, the GOP had nothing to do with the positions not being filled, it is all on Obama.

Obama didn't want to submit these people to a vote in the Senate. Why? Because his appointments are so radical he couldn't get them passed in a Democrat controlled Senate.

There was still the 60 vote threshold at that time.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

There was no "mistake". The Court UNANIMOUSLY declared the Obama committed a criminal act by trying to ursurp the power of the Congress to determine when it is in recess. Add this infraction to the list of impeachable offenses.

 

[Papageorgio]

A minor procedural mistake that President Obama will no doubt never make again now that the Supreme Court has finally clarified the confusion surrounding the recess appointment rule.

Tea Party zealots, of course, will harp on this as evidence that President Obama is an evil dictator who usurps power, tramples the Constitution, etc., despite the fact that he hasn't done anything like this since the Court's decision. Our President respects the Constitution, conservatards--get that through your thick skulls.

Imo it's the right ruling, but it is also one of those be careful what you wish for. If congress can essentially say "we're never in recess" this will come back to haunt a gop potus.

Exactly!

These rabid far RWers only see what's directly in front of their faces.

The tables turn eventually, and many years down the road, whenever they manage to scrape up an electable candidate, they'll by crying over the Democrat obstruction of the President's appointments.

I wasn't in favor of some of Bush's recess appointments and the Democrats cried and whined that Bush was trampling over the Constitution, now its is suddenly okay?

I tire of this bullshit of excusing it because it is your party, what is wrong is wrong.

Obama is WRONG! Bush was WRONG!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, it was his opinion that there is no longer a need for the clause.

Good lord, is it that hard a concept to grasp?

Tell me something, genuius, when was the last time a vacancy occurred during a recess of Congress?

When the Constitution was written there were months between sessions, now, at the most, there are a couple of weeks. Even if someone died on the first day of a recess of two weeks, it would take the President longer than two weeks to even figure out who to appoint for the position.

Want to explain why Scalia is wrong, given that technology allows the President to get Congress back in session in a day if there is a real emergency?

Did I say he was wrong? My question was regarding other aspects of the constitution that the court deems no longer needed.

Nice tangent though. For that matter do they really need to be in DC to cast a vote these days?

That ye olde "Judicial Activist" argument doesn't work here.

 

[regent]

Seems to me it is usually the Congress that tramples on the Constitution. In that respect the first trampler on the Constitution was John Adams? Or maybe it was the Supreme Court that first trampled on the Constitution with Marbury. So many tramplers.
In any case trampling on the Constitution is one way, and perhaps the best way to find out what is legal or not legal according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court will not tell us what is legal or illegal without a court case. So with each of these cases we learn more about the Constitution and maybe about the Court.