- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,747
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Obama's Solicitor General argued this? I missed that.
And to top this off, Obama’s own Deputy Solicitor General argued in the Supreme Court in 2010 that Obama could not make a recess appointment unless the recess were longer than three days (via Washington Examiner):
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?
MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.
Why Obama’s “recess” appointments are unconstitutional | The Right Scoop
No it's not. I could believe that Obama had the power to do this before, even if he didn't take advantage of it.
Below is the basis of the claim, with a link.
I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days.
Thank you.
Glad I asked, because that falls short of saying they are unconstitutional. He is making reference to the fact that a previous administration decided 3 days was the limit. That's not the same thing as agreeing with that, just saying that's where things stood.
No, he is arguing what the current administration understands the standard to be.
The intent of the rule was designed to keep the government functioning in an age that pre-dated the telegraph.
So the Senate can now phone in its votes?
If Senate can be in session by letting one Senator show up every three days, it's not about that.
The pro forma session is designed to keep the Executive from circumnavigating Senate checks and balances.
The pro forma session is designed to keep the Executive from circumnavigating Senate checks and balances. It's a dirty trick to counter a dirty trick.
Who needs "advise and consent" anyway. Just be the dictator, and appoint whomever you want. :roll:
Read the constitution and stop watching fox news.
Stop reading comic books and jerking off.
This says alot...about you.
It says that I do not suffer fools well at all. Do you embrace fools ?
let me make a fact here to prove my point. we have NEVER embraced
And with posts like that, you embrace the ad-hominem nonsense that goes on here.
Stop reading comic books and jerking off.
Read the constitution and stop watching fox news.
Case in point:
Which was a reply to the above quote, illustrating absurdity with absurdity.
What is with libs here ?
Telling you to read the constitution and stop watching Fox News is hardly an ad homenim. They were just comments on the state of knowledge behind your opinion, not insults.
I don't know, I'm not a "lib." I do know that lots of people on BOTH sides of the political aisle engage in all sorts of underhanded behavior here.
Then maybe if you also read less comic books and stopped spending so much time examining yourself when no one is watching, you might be more knowledgable too !
That should not offend you then. See how that works.
You're doing it wrong.
However, back to the point. A poster who was apparently unable to debate posted so as to insult my intelligence. That is what forum imbeciles do.
Speaking of imbeciles... Remember this guy??
Recess appointment.
Were you outraged back then??
The issue of this thread is that the two Democrats who were "Recess" Appointments to the NLRB were never even submitted to a Congress in normal session, which bypasses completely the Constitutionally mandated "advise and consent" role of the Senate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?