SCOTUS takes away recess appointments

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...

You mean the stuff that were started under Bush II? I thought you were talking about the current administration.
 
SCOTUS didn't take away recess appointments. It spanked the president for thinking that he has the power to shut down congress when it's convenient to him. He just can't do that and it's black letter law that he knew was black letter law considering he used to teach the very document that says it.

Now that the decision is in, the LRB will have to go back over every single decision made by the LRB with these illegally assigned appointees on it. They might rubber stamp many of the decisions that were going to pass anyway no matter who sat on the board but I expect that many will also be reversed and have to be reheard from scratch if the vote was close. That's not going to be free.

Thanks Obama!
 
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...

When I read this sort of story, all I can do is wonder at the utter stupidity of how the US political system now functions.

Then I worry because the Australian conservative party seems to get all it's ideas from the US.
 
uke2se said:
You mean the stuff that were started under Bush II? I thought you were talking about the current administration.
Click to expand...

So it's OK because Bush did it?
 

Attachments

  • doublefacepalm.jpg
    doublefacepalm.jpg
    66.6 KB · Views: 6
ravdin said:
So it's OK because Bush did it?
Click to expand...

No, it's not ok. It's just unfair to blame it on the Obama administration. I would have liked for Obama to overturn the laws that Bush put into place, but he hasn't. That's something worth criticizing. Allowing the government to follow those laws isn't.
 
uke2se said:
No, it's not ok. It's just unfair to blame it on the Obama administration. I would have liked for Obama to overturn the laws that Bush put into place, but he hasn't. That's something worth criticizing. Allowing the government to follow those laws isn't.
Click to expand...

We're getting OT and this may be a better topic for a new thread, but this touches on what I've been thinking for a long time: the problem is the presidency, not the president. We've set up a deep power structure where too much authority is vested in one person. That alone is bad enough, but much of the power structure is opaque, lacking accountability, and based on lies. And it's clear that it's serving the interests of the few at the expense of the many, whatever party has won the last election.

I no longer believe that any of these problems can be fixed by a politician elected to that office. No one would voluntarily diminish the power and prestige of the presidency once elected, and the temptation to use those powers for what may appear to be positive ends is too great. So to me, recalcitrance (or even obstruction) in Congress is a good thing. SCOTUS asserting the rights of the people is even better. Better yet would be a decentralization of power away from Washington and for states and municipalities to assert local control- although unfortunately I don't see that happening without a major crisis.

Either way, I don't think the history books will judge presidents Bush II or Obama very kindly.
 
a_unique_person said:
Then I worry because the Australian conservative party seems to get all it's ideas from the US.
Click to expand...


The U.S.-style of conservatism as practiced by the Republican Party and supporting pundits isn't just being exported to Australia. It's been making inroads into Canadian conservative parties as well (federal and provincial).
 
uke2se said:
No, it's not ok. It's just unfair to blame it on the Obama administration. I would have liked for Obama to overturn the laws that Bush put into place, but he hasn't. That's something worth criticizing. Allowing the government to follow those laws isn't.
Click to expand...

I'd like to clear up a couple of gross misconceptions here.

First, it is absolutely not the President's job to put laws into place, nor to overturn them. They simply do not have the authority nor the responsibility to do that. Bush did not put any laws into place. There are no laws that are within Obama's power to overturn. Therefore, it is not worth criticizing Obama over this. He has no power to overturn laws, and the laws you describe simply do not exist to be overturned.

In the US, the passing and repealing of laws is the sole authority and responsibility of Congress--a separate and equal branch of the federal government. The President's relationship to laws is something like that of a celebrity spokesperson. He may also be a power broker, depending on the amount of political capital he enjoys with the various factions in the legislature.

So put out of your head right now the misconception that Obama has failed to overturn "Bush era laws" (do the laws you have in mind actually originate from the "Bush era" Congress? Or do they predate Bush's presidency too?). It was never in his power to do so. Just like it was never in Bush's power to put them in place to begin with (and therefore it's wrong to blame Bush for those laws).

Second, if the President can't pass or repeal legislation, then what is the President's job?

Well, one of his jobs is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by Congress. And for that, there is no requirement that the current President follow the same interpretation as his predecessor, nor does he have to follow the same enforcement policy.

Obama doesn't have to let his agencies follow the existing laws--they're already required to do that anyway. Instead, Obama has the authority and the responsibility to tell his agencies what the laws mean, and how he wants them to be enforced.

One benefit of replacing our President every 4-8 years is to get a fresh perspective on the interpretation and enforcement of our laws. Obama isn't stuck with the Bush interpretation and enforcement policies, any more than Bush had to keep doing things the way Clinton did, or Clinton Bush Sr., etc.

The Bush-era interpretation and enforcement passed out of existence the moment Obama formally took office. From that moment on, they became the Obama-era interpretation and enforcement. That transfer of executive authority and responsibility is an existential fact of the office.

Since January 20, 2009, it has been completely within Obama's power to change how his agencies interpret and enforce the law. It has been completely in his power to not defend this case before the Supreme Court.

Your analysis is completely backwards. In reality, we should not criticize him for failing to overturn the law--something he has no power to do. But we should criticize him for choosing to interpret and enforce the law in a way that the Supreme Court has unanimously agreed to be wrong.

In summary: Obama has no power to overturn laws, but he does have power to change how they are interpreted and enforced. He chose not to change interpretation and enforcement in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that he made the wrong choice. You are criticizing him for the wrong thing. You're also trying to blame Bush for things that were 100% Obama's responsibility.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'd like to clear up a couple of gross misconceptions here.

First, it is absolutely not the President's job to put laws into place, nor to overturn them. They simply do not have the authority nor the responsibility to do that. Bush did not put any laws into place. There are no laws that are within Obama's power to overturn. Therefore, it is not worth criticizing Obama over this. He has no power to overturn laws, and the laws you describe simply do not exist to be overturned.

In the US, the passing and repealing of laws is the sole authority and responsibility of Congress--a separate and equal branch of the federal government. The President's relationship to laws is something like that of a celebrity spokesperson. He may also be a power broker, depending on the amount of political capital he enjoys with the various factions in the legislature.

So put out of your head right now the misconception that Obama has failed to overturn "Bush era laws" (do the laws you have in mind actually originate from the "Bush era" Congress? Or do they predate Bush's presidency too?). It was never in his power to do so. Just like it was never in Bush's power to put them in place to begin with (and therefore it's wrong to blame Bush for those laws).

Second, if the President can't pass or repeal legislation, then what is the President's job?

Well, one of his jobs is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by Congress. And for that, there is no requirement that the current President follow the same interpretation as his predecessor, nor does he have to follow the same enforcement policy.

Obama doesn't have to let his agencies follow the existing laws--they're already required to do that anyway. Instead, Obama has the authority and the responsibility to tell his agencies what the laws mean, and how he wants them to be enforced.

One benefit of replacing our President every 4-8 years is to get a fresh perspective on the interpretation and enforcement of our laws. Obama isn't stuck with the Bush interpretation and enforcement policies, any more than Bush had to keep doing things the way Clinton did, or Clinton Bush Sr., etc.

The Bush-era interpretation and enforcement passed out of existence the moment Obama formally took office. From that moment on, they became the Obama-era interpretation and enforcement. That transfer of executive authority and responsibility is an existential fact of the office.

Since January 20, 2009, it has been completely within Obama's power to change how his agencies interpret and enforce the law. It has been completely in his power to not defend this case before the Supreme Court.

Your analysis is completely backwards. In reality, we should not criticize him for failing to overturn the law--something he has no power to do. But we should criticize him for choosing to interpret and enforce the law in a way that the Supreme Court has unanimously agreed to be wrong.

In summary: Obama has no power to overturn laws, but he does have power to change how they are interpreted and enforced. He chose not to change interpretation and enforcement in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that he made the wrong choice. You are criticizing him for the wrong thing. You're also trying to blame Bush for things that were 100% Obama's responsibility.
Click to expand...

But...but..Obama's Black. So, something........:cool:
 
theprestige said:
.... snppage of really important stuff...>>

Well, one of his jobs is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by Congress. And for that, there is no requirement that the current President follow the same interpretation as his predecessor, nor does he have to follow the same enforcement policy.

...
Click to expand...
One tiny error. The Judicial Branch is tasked with interpretation, not the Executive.
What he does (or is supposed to do) is enforce the laws passed by Congress until told to stop, either by repeal of the law, or by a ruling from the SCOTUS. Any interpretation can only be in the HOW to enforce--which is probably what you meant, since you were spot on, sir or madam...
 
rwguinn said:
One tiny error. The Judicial Branch is tasked with interpretation, not the Executive.
What he does (or is supposed to do) is enforce the laws passed by Congress until told to stop, either by repeal of the law, or by a ruling from the SCOTUS. Any interpretation can only be in the HOW to enforce--which is probably what you meant, since you were spot on, sir or madam...
Click to expand...

Heh. Actually I would say that all three branches have a duty to interpret. Congress interprets the Constitution in order to pass laws that are Constitutional. The President interprets both the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, in order to enforce those laws as he understands them. And the Judiciary interprets the laws and the Constitution to determine whether the laws are constitutional, and are being enforced in a constitutional way.

But obviously the President has to interpret the law. One of the duties of the White House Counsel is to provide the President with a legal analysis of what the law means, and what constraints and obligations it places on the Executive branch.
 
theprestige said:
Heh. Actually I would say that all three branches have a duty to interpret. Congress interprets the Constitution in order to pass laws that are Constitutional. The President interprets both the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, in order to enforce those laws as he understands them. And the Judiciary interprets the laws and the Constitution to determine whether the laws are constitutional, and are being enforced in a constitutional way.

But obviously the President has to interpret the law. One of the duties of the White House Counsel is to provide the President with a legal analysis of what the law means, and what constraints and obligations it places on the Executive branch.
Click to expand...

Good one.
 
C_Felix said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, the Senate never actually takes a "true recess". Eliminating the filibuster for most appointments gets rid of the need for most recess appoinments, but only in the current configuration where the Senate and Presidency are held by the same party. If the GOP takes over the Senate in the midterm elections, they'll be back to blocking most of the President's appointees.
 
theprestige said:
I'd like to clear up a couple of gross misconceptions here.

First, it is absolutely not the President's job to put laws into place, nor to overturn them. They simply do not have the authority nor the responsibility to do that. Bush did not put any laws into place. There are no laws that are within Obama's power to overturn. Therefore, it is not worth criticizing Obama over this. He has no power to overturn laws, and the laws you describe simply do not exist to be overturned.

In the US, the passing and repealing of laws is the sole authority and responsibility of Congress--a separate and equal branch of the federal government. The President's relationship to laws is something like that of a celebrity spokesperson. He may also be a power broker, depending on the amount of political capital he enjoys with the various factions in the legislature.

So put out of your head right now the misconception that Obama has failed to overturn "Bush era laws" (do the laws you have in mind actually originate from the "Bush era" Congress? Or do they predate Bush's presidency too?). It was never in his power to do so. Just like it was never in Bush's power to put them in place to begin with (and therefore it's wrong to blame Bush for those laws).

Second, if the President can't pass or repeal legislation, then what is the President's job?

Well, one of his jobs is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by Congress. And for that, there is no requirement that the current President follow the same interpretation as his predecessor, nor does he have to follow the same enforcement policy.

Obama doesn't have to let his agencies follow the existing laws--they're already required to do that anyway. Instead, Obama has the authority and the responsibility to tell his agencies what the laws mean, and how he wants them to be enforced.

One benefit of replacing our President every 4-8 years is to get a fresh perspective on the interpretation and enforcement of our laws. Obama isn't stuck with the Bush interpretation and enforcement policies, any more than Bush had to keep doing things the way Clinton did, or Clinton Bush Sr., etc.

The Bush-era interpretation and enforcement passed out of existence the moment Obama formally took office. From that moment on, they became the Obama-era interpretation and enforcement. That transfer of executive authority and responsibility is an existential fact of the office.

Since January 20, 2009, it has been completely within Obama's power to change how his agencies interpret and enforce the law. It has been completely in his power to not defend this case before the Supreme Court.

Your analysis is completely backwards. In reality, we should not criticize him for failing to overturn the law--something he has no power to do. But we should criticize him for choosing to interpret and enforce the law in a way that the Supreme Court has unanimously agreed to be wrong.

In summary: Obama has no power to overturn laws, but he does have power to change how they are interpreted and enforced. He chose not to change interpretation and enforcement in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that he made the wrong choice. You are criticizing him for the wrong thing. You're also trying to blame Bush for things that were 100% Obama's responsibility.
Click to expand...

THIS.

Agree or disagree with how things have played out, that's what the law says.
 
Of course the best idea is to have an apolitical state (federal) sector where those that run the various departments of the state are hired and fired by a body that is totally independent of the politicians entirely.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Of course the best idea is to have an apolitical state (federal) sector where those that run the various departments of the state are hired and fired by a body that is totally independent of the politicians entirely.
Click to expand...

How high should the rule go? Do you think it should apply to Cabinet members and federal judges, too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom