Court Says Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

See the difference? Originally Posted by ExNYer

The "real" question is:

Why didn't a Constitutional Law Professor ... "see the difference"?

The simpler question is how an Appeals Court saw fit to "extend" the ruling beyond the arguments. This preliminary ruling (as are all Appeals Courts rulings) overturns more than two centuries of Presidential "recess appointments".

Bottom line is that is a "stay tuned" situation and not a mindless "See, I told you that your guy was an idiot" . . .regardless of whose side you've chosen to argue.

Facts are a bitch . . .

Flyer

Well, there are some intelligent judges left. I know, because they used the same reasoning I did months ago when this issue came up.

I love being right! And I love it when the courts knock back the government. We need more of this. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1 The Kool Aid sucking sots in this forum both ignored and trumpeted the unconstitutionality of Odumbo's action in this matter last year. Would be neat to show a link to their remarks last year and rub their noses in it.

Both parties should stop, and adhere to this Court's ruling. This court was right. The power to make recess appointments arose when Congress only met a few months per year, and transportation back to Washington to approve an appointment when not in session was not feasible. Now all the power is used for is to sneak controversial appointments past congress. Both parties have abused this power. Both need to stop.

This court was dead on right in their analysis. It's refreshing to see. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1

Not quite.

There is nothing Constitutionally wrong with recess appointments so long as the Congress is ACTUALLY in recess.

So, the fact that Clinton had 139 and Bush had 171 tells us nothing.

If Congress really was in recess, all of those appointments are valid.

If Congress broke for lunch and Bush made a 171 "recess" appointments while they were eating, then those appointments are NOT valid.

See the difference? Originally Posted by ExNYer

+1 The POTUS cannot presume to proscribe the rules of the Senate that are constitutionally set by the Senate.

It`s so funny when right wingers complain about the same crap bush-it did for 8 years. yes the the left complained about bush-its appointments. Get over it.

I see you splitting hairs.

The Constitution explicitly authorizes recess appointments. I can see you like what you think is your clever "congress broke for lunch" analogy but it's utterly inapplicable here. Read the opinion if you want to stop talking out of your ass. They weren't having lunch. They weren't even in town. They were intent on using procedural obstructions designed to deny President Obama his choice in regard to the appointment. Which is why we don't have enough federal judges and other federal governmental appointees that should generally be the choice of the candidate who wins the popular and electoral vote. Obama doesn't get to pick here because of the whackadoo right wing response to any thing that he does...which is to resist it. If you're on board with that, good for you. But, don't give me that "two wrongs don't make a right" shit. This is politics.

Not quite.

There is nothing Constitutionally wrong with recess appointments so long as the Congress is ACTUALLY in recess.

So, the fact that Clinton had 139 and Bush had 171 tells us nothing.

If Congress really was in recess, all of those appointments are valid.

If Congress broke for lunch and Bush made a 171 "recess" appointments while they were eating, then those appointments are NOT valid.

See the difference? Originally Posted by ExNYer

. This is politics. Originally Posted by timpage

People never seem to understand that ugly fact.

People never seem to understand that ugly fact. Originally Posted by WTF

Recess appointments have turned into an ugly political fact, as well. If the POTUS wants to appoint someone who doesn't have a chance to get a "yes" vote or will create a fire-storm of hearing criticism and press to follow, then the POTUS waits until Congress has "recessed" then makes the appointment under the constitutional authority to avoid the "political" fallout or noise of a "no" vote. That is political.

Given the time frame of the crafting of the Constitution and the realities of the existing situation, and without doing a bunch of research, it occurs to me that the intent of the "recess" language was that such appointments could occur between sessions while Congress had gone home at the end of the year prior to the beginning of a new session. Primarily my thinking is based on members of Congress remaining "in town" during the sessions, because traveling back and forth would be too time consuming and was not an "issue" .... at the time.

Like most constitutional/statutory interpretation the language is applied in a strict manner that tends to limit governmental authority as opposed to expanding it when the SCOTUS is leaning more conservatively.

As to your specific observation ... I'm not so sure it is lack of "understanding," but I think it is probably more political in itself ... in that people tend to want to not "see" that with which they disagree. Sometimes it is taken to an extreme in posts on this board when some with whom a disagreement is lodged responds by simply name calling and attempting to paint the other person with a label of being an "idiot" .... "crazy" .... or some other dumb label .. "teawipe"!

Now the responese to a judicial decision: It's just politics.

Hey, it's getting more rare all the time that a court gets one right. We need to commend them, maybe they'll keep it up!

Hey, it's getting more rare all the time that a court gets one right. We need to commend them, maybe they'll keep it up! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm still waiting for StupidOldLyingFart to get one right. When he finally does, I will commend him. Maybe he'll keep it up!

I got this one right, BTLD. Your prayers have been answered.

I got this one right, BTLD. Your prayers have been answered.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If you finally got one right, I would be commending you.

I'm not!

You're still a StupidOldLyingFart!

If you thought I got one right, I'd know I'd gotten one wrong. This just confirms I'm right. Thanks, BTLD!

As to your specific observation ... I'm not so sure it is lack of "understanding," but I think it is probably more political in itself ... in that people tend to want to not "see" that with which they disagree. Sometimes it is taken to an extreme in posts on this board when some with whom a disagreement is lodged responds by simply name calling and attempting to paint the other person with a label of being an "idiot" .... "crazy" .... or some other dumb label .. "teawipe"!

Now the responese to a judicial decision: It's just politics. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are correct-o-mundo

My question is...why no bitching when Bush did it? Well Obama bitched! LOL


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama...ry?id=18317935

President Obama, like presidents for 150 years before him, claims that any time the Senate has stopped conducting business for more than just a few days—that's a recess.
Once again: This is not something President Obama invented. Modern presidents have long used this weapon in their never-ending struggles with Congress.
President Bush made 29 recess appointments when the Senate was adjourned for 14 days or less—including John Bolton, the controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, who was blocked by Senate Democrats. ("It's the wrong thing to do," said then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., about Bush's move. Things always look a lot different from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.)
So: Today, the D.C. federal appeals court said presidents have to stop all this flim-flammery about the word "recess."
The three-judge panel focused on a different word in that constitutional clause: "the."
Look again. The Constitution says presidents can fill up vacancies "that may happen during THE recess of the Senate."

The Court ruling will prevent Obama and all future Presidents of either party from being able to perpetrate this scam of recess appointments. It is a good thing. Bush and others since at least the 1960's should never have used this power. It's totally unnecessary, and now the court confirms that. It's late, but it's right.