SCOTUS takes away recess appointments

[PhantomWolf]

How high should the rule go? Do you think it should apply to Cabinet members and federal judges, too?

Federal Judges yes, (in fact all Judges) Cabinet no, though with his cabinet I'd say that the President should get a pretty free hand.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Federal Judges yes, (in fact all Judges) Cabinet no, though with his cabinet I'd say that the President should get a pretty free hand.

Are you calling in Nixon? Because you are using the exact same reasoning that he used. That is the standard set 40+ years ago when he resigned instead of being impeached.

I'm more for accountability as a general principal.

 

[ABC10]

there is a g-d

 

[Beerina]

This ruling is really a nuts and bolts one. The whole recess appointment thing was before the days of jet engines, where it took weeks for some members of Congress to get back and forth from their districts.

We should do an amendment requiring a vote within X time (maybe on the order of a few months) or the appointment is auto-approved. Maybe let Congress vote to delay particular votes, but at least stuff cannot be perma-buried.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Are you calling in Nixon? Because you are using the exact same reasoning that he used. That is the standard set 40+ years ago when he resigned instead of being impeached.

I have no idea what Nixon reasoned, or why

I'm more for accountability as a general principal.

The trouble is that the current system isn't accountable, it's a partisan quagmire. When hundreds of positions lie vacant, or with temporary holders because one party wants to play silly games it shows that the system is broken.

When political parties stack the courts with "their" Judges to insure later favourable rulings, then the system is broken.

When the opposition can prevent the best qualified people from helping to run the West Wing simply because they don't like them, then the system is broken.

Having a nonpartisan committee dealing with the State Appointments would not only ensure that the best people run the departments, but would remove a lot of the Partisan nature of the US Government.

By having a Judicial Board oversee the appointment of Judges from a qualified pool of candidates based on their merit and not their politics, it would help to remove politics from the US Courtrooms.

Chucking the entire notion of elected DAs and having Non-Partisan State Board hire/promote/ and fire them would help a lot too.

 

[Corsair 115]

According to the Congressional Research Service:

President Reagan: 240 recess appointments
President Bush [41]: 77 recess appointments
President Clinton: 139 recess appointments
President Bush [43]: 171 recess appointments
President Obama: 32 recess appointments

 

[Chaos]

According to the Congressional Research Service:

President Reagan: 240 recess appointments
President Bush [41]: 77 recess appointments
President Clinton: 139 recess appointments
President Bush [43]: 171 recess appointments
President Obama: 32 recess appointments

Further evidence that Democrats have been excessively abusing recess appointments!

 

[theprestige]

According to the Congressional Research Service:

President Reagan: 240 recess appointments
President Bush [41]: 77 recess appointments
President Clinton: 139 recess appointments
President Bush [43]: 171 recess appointments
President Obama: 32 recess appointments

Further evidence that Democrats have been excessively abusing recess appointments!

The problem isn't the recess appointments, which are a legitimate and accepted practice, authorized by the Constitution and exercised by Presidents throughout the history of the country.

The problem is the President declaring that Congress is in recess when it isn't, in order to avail himself of his authority to make recess appointments.

 

[wareyin]

The problem isn't the recess appointments, which are a legitimate and accepted practice, authorized by the Constitution and exercised by Presidents throughout the history of the country.

The problem is the President declaring that Congress is in recess when it isn't, in order to avail himself of his authority to make recess appointments.

Or, the problem is that the President is declaring that Congress is in recess to get around Congress pretending that it isn't in recess to obstruct the President from making recess appointments. Seriously, a single Senator banging a gavel in an otherwise empty room every 3 days means Congress is in session?

 

[OMGturt1es]

Or, the problem is that the President is declaring that Congress is in recess to get around Congress pretending that it isn't in recess to obstruct the President from making recess appointments. Seriously, a single Senator banging a gavel in an otherwise empty room every 3 days means Congress is in session?

This. Thank you.

I don't care if the ruling is technically correct or not. I care that congress is broken. I care that we can't fill basic positions. I care that we can't craft necessary policy. I care that my future is at stake and there is no fix in sight. I have to grow old in this system. I have to live under its policy. I may not know all the solutions, 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. And if they don't, I'll pay the price, not these old partisan ******** who are doing everything they can to ruin my future for their personal gain. Technically legal or not, at least Obama is trying to do something to make my future better.

And it is beyond frustrating that we focus not on the fact that congress is broken, but on the legal technicality of a pragmatic tactic to avoid the worst impacts of a broken congress. It's like complaining about a splint someone fashioned for your broken leg because it's not standard medical equipment-- while ignoring the fact that you're lost in the woods.

Look, I get it. If it's illegal, it's illegal. Fine. But that's it? That's where we're going to stop? We're ok with this joke of a system? Or worse yet, we'll just use this as another political football? We'll celebrate that the only pragmatic trick to get around a completely broken system is illegal? Who cares that the system is broken-- at least the other team took a political elbow to the face!

To all of you celebrating this ruling: What's your solution? How do you bend the health care cost curve? How to do you avoid permanent drought and dust bowlification in our bread basket? How do you fight special interests who essentially buy policy? How do you solve any of these major challenges that threaten the very foundation of our system when political contention is so toxic and the system so flawed that an angry collective of the minority can stop even the most mundane political procedures?

This is madness. I'm so tired of it all.

 

[applecorped]

OSeriously, a single Senator banging a gavel in an otherwise empty room every 3 days means Congress is in session?

Yup.

 

[applecorped]

I don't care if the ruling is technically correct or not.

You should.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Seriously, a single Senator banging a gavel in an otherwise empty room every 3 days means Congress is in session?

That's considered too much work, and they're now drafting new rules that would allow Congress to be considered in session as long as a single senator blows his nose once a fortnight within a hundred miles of DC, because that would demonstrate legally that it's snot a recess.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Or, the problem is that the President is declaring that Congress is in recess to get around Congress pretending that it isn't in recess to obstruct the President from making recess appointments. Seriously, a single Senator banging a gavel in an otherwise empty room every 3 days means Congress is in session?

Yes, and you can thank Senator Reid for that, it was a tactic that he devised to block Bush from making his own recess appointments back in 2007.

 

[theprestige]

Or, the problem is that the President is declaring that Congress is in recess to get around Congress pretending that it isn't in recess to obstruct the President from making recess appointments. Seriously, a single Senator banging a gavel in an otherwise empty room every 3 days means Congress is in session?

The Constitution is clear: Only Congress has the authority to decide when it is and is not in session. The Supreme Court upheld this basic constitutional principle unanimously. Getting around Congress is a power the President absolutely does not have.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The Constitution is clear: Only Congress has the authority to decide when it is and is not in session. The Supreme Court upheld this basic constitutional principle unanimously. Getting around Congress is a power the President absolutely does not have.

Exactly, otherwise a sitting president would shut down congress whenever he wanted to. That's a very dangerous precedent to set and is the stuff of dictatorships.

 

[theprestige]

This. Thank you.

I don't care if the ruling is technically correct or not. I care that congress is broken. I care that we can't fill basic positions. I care that we can't craft necessary policy. I care that my future is at stake and there is no fix in sight. I have to grow old in this system. I have to live under its policy. I may not know all the solutions, 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. And if they don't, I'll pay the price, not these old partisan ******** who are doing everything they can to ruin my future for their personal gain. Technically legal or not, at least Obama is trying to do something to make my future better.

And it is beyond frustrating that we focus not on the fact that congress is broken, but on the legal technicality of a pragmatic tactic to avoid the worst impacts of a broken congress. It's like complaining about a splint someone fashioned for your broken leg because it's not standard medical equipment-- while ignoring the fact that you're lost in the woods.

Look, I get it. If it's illegal, it's illegal. Fine. But that's it? That's where we're going to stop? We're ok with this joke of a system? Or worse yet, we'll just use this as another political football? We'll celebrate that the only pragmatic trick to get around a completely broken system is illegal? Who cares that the system is broken-- at least the other team took a political elbow to the face!

To all of you celebrating this ruling: What's your solution? How do you bend the health care cost curve? How to do you avoid permanent drought and dust bowlification in our bread basket? How do you fight special interests who essentially buy policy? How do you solve any of these major challenges that threaten the very foundation of our system when political contention is so toxic and the system so flawed that an angry collective of the minority can stop even the most mundane political procedures?

This is madness. I'm so tired of it all.

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?

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.

The President has essentially three duties: First, interpret and enforce the laws passed by Congress. Second, conduct foreign policy under the watchful eye of Congress. Third, wage war at the bidding of Congress. Whatever else he accomplishes is down to his bully pulpit, his cult of personality if he has one, and his brokering of power among the political factions of the day if he is able.

A Chief Executive that asks--demands!--to be liberated from the checks and balances imposed upon him by the Legislature? Beware that man: He'll break the system worse than any Congressional obstruction ever could. Better a stalled democracy than an untrammeled tyranny.












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.

 

[Chaos]

The problem isn't the recess appointments, which are a legitimate and accepted practice, authorized by the Constitution and exercised by Presidents throughout the history of the country.

The problem is the President declaring that Congress is in recess when it isn't, in order to avail himself of his authority to make recess appointments.

Or the problem is Congress pretending it isn´t in recess when it actually is.

At my last job, this sort of thing was called absenteeism and was grounds for termination.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Or the problem is Congress pretending it isn´t in recess when it actually is.

At my last job, this sort of thing was called absenteeism and was grounds for termination.

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.

I used to have a job where the only requirement was a quick inspection every 4 hours (that was an EPA requirement). It didn't say a thorough inspection of all elements, just that the major components were still working and that poop wasn't flowing into the creek. 10 minutes max not counting logging the tour of the plant. That standard was used on holidays where they didn't want to pay double time and a half overtime. The rest of the time the standard was much tighter and it took about an hour to do including logs.

My point is as long as you meet the letter of the law then you aren't pretending to do anything, you are doing it, it may be a quick pro forma job but if the rules allow for that then as long as you follow the rules there is no wrongdoing. Nobody in a position of power (aside from the president, who got benchsmacked for it), including Harry Reid who started the practice, has said that the congress was in recess. That is entirely their call to make, not the presidents.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, and you can thank Senator Reid for that, it was a tactic that he devised to block Bush from making his own recess appointments back in 2007.

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.

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.

I used to have a job where the only requirement was a quick inspection every 4 hours (that was an EPA requirement). It didn't say a thorough inspection of all elements, just that the major components were still working and that poop wasn't flowing into the creek. 10 minutes max not counting logging the tour of the plant. That standard was used on holidays where they didn't want to pay double time and a half overtime. The rest of the time the standard was much tighter and it took about an hour to do including logs.

My point is as long as you meet the letter of the law then you aren't pretending to do anything, you are doing it, it may be a quick pro forma job but if the rules allow for that then as long as you follow the rules there is no wrongdoing. Nobody in a position of power (aside from the president, who got benchsmacked for it), including Harry Reid who started the practice, has said that the congress was in recess. That is entirely their call to make, not the presidents.

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.