SCOTUS takes away recess appointments

[jj]

There's no way to make a quorum call on this idiocy?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Well, if Senator Reid did it, it must be ok. After all, Bush only used recess appointment 171 times, but Obama has been clearly abusing it with 32.

I wouldn't characterize it as "OK" but those numbers are misleading. Bush had about seven years where the tactic wasn't used against him while it's been used heavily against Obama for pretty much his entire presidency. I think it's more of a case of he was blocked from doing it more than he wouldn't have done it if he could have. Now maybe not, maybe he's loath to use recess appointments but based upon his doing what he did in this SCOTUS decision I doubt it. In my experience it's rare for someone who is loath to do something go ahead and knowingly try to sidestep the law to do it.

You spent 10 minutes every 4 hours, they spend 28 seconds every 3 days. Your job is presumably something only done by one person, their job cannot be done without a quorum, so you both send one person. Yep, exactly the same.

If the rules say that just one person can do the job in certain situations (whatever the job may be) then yes, it's exactly the same (like I said, normally the tour was about an hour). When the recess requirement is changed to a quorum instead of one person to define a session then you will have a point. As far as I've seen a pro forma session consisting of one person is entirely within the rules.

We may think that the rules are wrong but that's a change that only congress can make, not the president. That is explicitly spelled out in the constitution which is why the decision was 9-0. It's black letter law with no virtually no wriggle room.

 

[wareyin]

I wouldn't characterize it as "OK" but those numbers are misleading. Bush had about seven years where the tactic wasn't used against him while it's been used heavily against Obama for pretty much his entire presidency. I think it's more of a case of he was blocked from doing it more than he wouldn't have done it if he could have. Now maybe not, maybe he's loath to use recess appointments but based upon his doing what he did in this SCOTUS decision I doubt it. In my experience it's rare for someone who is loath to do something go ahead and knowingly try to sidestep the law to do it.

My issue is with Congress preventing the President, so those numbers are not misleading at all. Congress allowed Bush 171 times to make a recess appointment, but as you said, this tactic has been used heavily against Obama for pretty much his entire presidency. So he tried to sidestep it to get some positions filled, and, nope, the most do nothing Congress in history was backed by the Supreme Court.

If the rules say that just one person can do the job in certain situations (whatever the job may be) then yes, it's exactly the same (like I said, normally the tour was about an hour). When the recess requirement is changed to a quorum instead of one person to define a session then you will have a point. As far as I've seen a pro forma session consisting of one person is entirely within the rules.

We may think that the rules are wrong but that's a change that only congress can make, not the president. That is explicitly spelled out in the constitution which is why the decision was 9-0. It's black letter law with no virtually no wriggle room.

And I say that this rule is wrong, no matter that I can't change it.

 

[Chaos]

Define "pretending". There are rules that say when congress is no longer in session. If those rules say someone with a gavel has to pound the dais once every three days then that's the minimum standard to meet.

That´s precisely what I mean by "pretending". They´re either in session, but then they actually need to be in session, not just one guy pounding a gavel, or they are on recess, but then the President can make recess appointment without Congress complaining about it.

If the rules say that someone pounding a gavel every three says is the minimum standard for not being in recess, then these rules are a travesty and need to go.

 

[theprestige]

My issue is with Congress preventing the President, so those numbers are not misleading at all. Congress allowed Bush 171 times to make a recess appointment, but as you said, this tactic has been used heavily against Obama for pretty much his entire presidency. So he tried to sidestep it to get some positions filled, and, nope, the most do nothing Congress in history was backed by the Supreme Court.

The Court didn't back Congress on doing nothing, the Court backed Congress on having clear and exclusive authority under the Constitution to set its own rules.

And I say that this rule is wrong, no matter that I can't change it.

The case was about whether the President can change it. Turns out he can't. Only Congress can change it.

You've made it pretty clear that you disagree with the rule. What I'm wondering is, do you also disagree with the Court's decision about the limits of the President's authority?

 

[wareyin]

You've made it pretty clear that you disagree with the rule. What I'm wondering is, do you also disagree with the Court's decision about the limits of the President's authority?

Not that it matters, but I do agree that the President does not have the authority to set the rules for Congress.

 

[Beeyon]

If the rules say that someone pounding a gavel every three says is the minimum standard for not being in recess, then these rules are a travesty and need to go.

This is having your cake and eating it too.

You're saying that the intent of the rule is what matters. But the intent of the whole recess appointment process is to allow the president to make appointments when it was not physically possible to gather congress quickly to do their advise and consent duties. That hasn't really been the case since the jet engine was invented. So, clearly, all recess appointments in the last half century have been a manipulation of the rules. Where's your outrage?

 

[OMGturt1es]

What's your solution? Abolish the rule of law, so that the Obamessiah is finally at liberty to impose his divine and benevolent will upon the nation?

I may not know all the solutions...

Come on man. I never said I wanted to abolish the rule of law. It's over-the-top rhetoric like this that fuels these problems.

You only think the system is broken because you believe the President is supposed to have the power to fix things, and that Congress should be subordinate to his authority. Nothing could be further from the truth.

but between rising health care costs, future climate change impacts, and increased control by special interests due to growing income inequality, I know some things need to change.

As I previously mentioned, I know the system is broken because it fails to even attempt to solve the greatest challenges humanity faces. In fact, it seems half the system denies the challenges exist. That's broken.

In this case, it failed to maintain its own minimum level of service. I mean, we're going to accept a system in which positions just can't be filled because... **** obamacare? It's madness.

ETA: Full disclosure. I firmly believe that "stalled" is almost always the ideal state of any democracy. Mob rule only gets truly scary when it's unified and on the move. Another reason to keep government small and local: The mobs are small and local, too.

1. You can only believe that if you truly believe the current system is better left unchanged. Simply given the impacts of climate change alone under business as usual scenarios, it is inconceivable that anyone could suggest the current system is better off unchanged-- that is, unless they simply don't believe climate science.

2. Obama was not even trying to change anything. He was trying to maintain a minimal level of service by filling usually-filled positions. Obama was simply trying to keep the system as it was. Obama's maintenance was not an example of unified mob rule-- it was a result of it. It is a unified mob-rule of the minority that has proven effective to destroy our system's ability to properly govern.