• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SCOTUS takes away recess appointments

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,570
Well, the SCOTUS has decided that Obama was wrong with his recess appointments, because the congress wasn't really in recess. By keeping one person with a gavel, for 1 minute, at the Senate every three days, the GOP fulfilled the requirements to say that the Senate wasn't really in recess.

I wonder if the GOP understands that this is a double-edged sword.

They don't care, as long as they can wreck the government and blame the black guy for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...reme-court-obama-senate-appointments/8528059/

I guess it's not that big of a deal since the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Well, the SCOTUS has decided that Obama was wrong with his recess appointments, because the congress wasn't really in recess. By keeping one person with a gavel, for 1 minute, at the Senate every three days, the GOP fulfilled the requirements to say that the Senate wasn't really in recess.

I wonder if the GOP understands that this is a double-edged sword.

They don't care, as long as they can wreck the government and blame the black guy for it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...reme-court-obama-senate-appointments/8528059/

I guess it's not that big of a deal since the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Did you notice that the SCOTUS decision was unanimous? Also, did you know that the whole idea of pro forma Senate sessions was started by the Democrats in 2007 as a way of blocking Bush from making recess appointments? And that Bush never challenged the legitimacy of those sessions?

So at least in this area, Obama overstepped his executive authority in a way that Bush refused to do.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit shocking how people are willing to attribute Obama's failure to abide by the plain text of the Constitution to his ethnicity.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Did you notice that the SCOTUS decision was unanimous? Also, did you know that the whole idea of pro forma Senate sessions was started by the Democrats in 2007 as a way of blocking Bush from making recess appointments? And that Bush never challenged the legitimacy of those sessions?

So at least in this area, Obama overstepped his executive authority in a way that Bush refused to do.
Click to expand...


Pro forma sessions were wrong then and are still wrong now. IMO Presidential appointments should get an up-or-down vote in reasonable period of time, and to be considered "in session" the Senate should at least have a quorum present.
 
The administration flouted the rules and got slapped for it. I doubt the ruling was partisan as it was 9-0. Move on.
 
ravdin said:
The administration flouted the rules and got slapped for it. I doubt the ruling was partisan as it was 9-0. Move on.
Click to expand...
No the ruling wasn't partisan, but the reason it got to this point was because of partisanship. And yes, it was partisanship when the democrats did it. Just because the democrats did something dumb, doesn't mean the republicans should follow suit.

Move on? How? Appointees can't and won't be voted on even though they would be approved if they had the chance to be voted on.
 
Spindrift said:
No the ruling wasn't partisan, but the reason it got to this point was because of partisanship. And yes, it was partisanship when the democrats did it. Just because the democrats did something dumb, doesn't mean the republicans should follow suit.

Move on? How? Appointees can't and won't be voted on even though they would be approved if they had the chance to be voted on.
Click to expand...

The loss is not an anomaly. The Obama administration has had a terrible track record of with the Supreme Court. It's actually lost several cases unanimously in the last couple of years:

US v. Jones: SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that it is unconstitutional for the police to attach a GPS to your car without a warrant (the administration argued that the government should be able to track your location at any time for any reason, even if you aren't suspected of any crimes).

Sackett v. EPA: SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that an Idaho couple could challenge the EPA in court over their unilateral decision not to allow them to build on private property deemed to be a wetland.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC: SCOTUS upheld church-state separation 9-0 by ruling that religious institutions are free to hire and dismiss leaders without government interference.

Riley v: California: SCOTUS ruled yesterday, 9-0, that the police cannot search your cellphone without a warrant.

Oddly enough, SCOTUS appears to be much more united since the Obama administration replaced two Republican appointees with two nominated by the current president. Yet even the newest justices apparently find the administration's executive power grabs and anti-civil liberties policies to be untenable.

If you want to blame the Republicans for the continued SCOTUS benchslapping of the administration, go ahead. :D
 
ravdin said:
The loss is not an anomaly. The Obama administration has had a terrible track record of with the Supreme Court. It's actually lost several cases unanimously in the last couple of years:

US v. Jones: SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that it is unconstitutional for the police to attach a GPS to your car without a warrant (the administration argued that the government should be able to track your location at any time for any reason, even if you aren't suspected of any crimes).

Sackett v. EPA: SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that an Idaho couple could challenge the EPA in court over their unilateral decision not to allow them to build on private property deemed to be a wetland.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC: SCOTUS upheld church-state separation 9-0 by ruling that religious institutions are free to hire and dismiss leaders without government interference.

Riley v: California: SCOTUS ruled yesterday, 9-0, that the police cannot search your cellphone without a warrant.

Oddly enough, SCOTUS appears to be much more united since the Obama administration replaced two Republican appointees with two nominated by the current president. Yet even the newest justices apparently find the administration's executive power grabs and anti-civil liberties policies to be untenable.

If you want to blame the Republicans for the continued SCOTUS benchslapping of the administration, go ahead. :D
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension problems? He's not blaming the Republicans for the SCOTUS decision. He's rightly blaming the Republicans for obstructing the process.

Also, what anti-civil liberties policies is the administration pushing?
 
ravdin said:
The administration flouted the rules and got slapped for it. I doubt the ruling was partisan as it was 9-0. Move on.
Click to expand...

I think this is the right ruling. I think Harry Reid correctly changed the filibuster rules, which is the right way to go, rather than using recess appointments. I also think that obstructing all nominees to all executive nominees is a horrible practice and the GOP ought to stop this policy of total obstruction. Absent that, while this is the correct ruling, it's going to make the country even more ungovernable, which is terrible considering how bad things are now.

We're getting to the point where we can't even name a post office without a government shutdown over it.
 
uke2se said:
Reading comprehension problems? He's not blaming the Republicans for the SCOTUS decision. He's rightly blaming the Republicans for obstructing the process.

Also, what anti-civil liberties policies is the administration pushing?
Click to expand...

Asserting the government should be able to track your location at all times, for any reason. Or that your personal effects (such as your cellphone) should be subject to search without a warrant. Operating a mass surveillance dragnet that is the Stasi's wet dream come true. Prosecuting journalists reporting on national security stories. Just a few examples.
 
Unabogie said:
I think this is the right ruling. I think Harry Reid correctly changed the filibuster rules, which is the right way to go, rather than using recess appointments. I also think that obstructing all nominees to all executive nominees is a horrible practice and the GOP ought to stop this policy of total obstruction. Absent that, while this is the correct ruling, it's going to make the country even more ungovernable, which is terrible considering how bad things are now.

We're getting to the point where we can't even name a post office without a government shutdown over it.
Click to expand...

Kudos to you for walking the walk.
 
The correct ruling in my opinion.

I am not a fan of how appointments are currently approved but I agree with the idea that recess appointments are not the right method.
 
ravdin said:
Asserting the government should be able to track your location at all times, for any reason. Or that your personal effects (such as your cellphone) should be subject to search without a warrant. Operating a mass surveillance dragnet that is the Stasi's wet dream come true. Prosecuting journalists reporting on national security stories. Just a few examples.
Click to expand...

I think the question was "is the actual administration pushing those, or are you lumping every LEA and Prosecution office nationwide into 'The Administration'?"
 
PhantomWolf said:
I think the question was "is the actual administration pushing those, or are you lumping every LEA and Prosecution office nationwide into 'The Administration'?"
Click to expand...

I included cases where the president's lawyers argued on behalf of the government.
 
I don't like the thread title.

The SCOTUS didn't take away recess appointments. If anything it (finally) defined what a recess is.

I'm sure if there is a true recess, not just some dude with a gavel for a few minutes on a daily basis...that there is truly not a person running either the House or the Senate, and the Sec of Def dies, I'm sure Obama (or any sitting president) can make a recess appointment.
 
Why the hell does Congress get a recess anyway? If Congress is so damn important, as it keeps asserting it is, how the hell can they just shut up shop for weeks and weeks? Is running the world's only superpower really that easy that we can coast without them? If so, why bother having them at all?

And don't give me that crap about "so they can go talk to their constituents". More like [rude verb] [rude noun] of various interests in exchange for bribe money, and they can do that just as well in DC, the [rude noun]s.
 
Cylinder said:
It's a bit shocking how people are willing to attribute Obama's failure to abide by the plain text of the Constitution to his ethnicity.
Click to expand...

It's also more than a bit shocking, and it is also profoundly obvious, that the deliberate, intentionally destructive obstruction by the minority in the Senate is due to his ethnicity.

So, live with what you've sowed.

The GOP has explicitly, intentionally, and with obvious malice aforethought courted the worst of the racists, misogynists, and haters, and as a result, that is how they behave. Nothing in this country will improve until the GOP is taken away from women-hating racists, and turned back into a rational political party.

In 30 years, the GOP has gone from the party of science to the party of absolute, adamant anti-science, in a deliberate attempt to court the ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom