Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim[W:88]

code1211 · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
If you're gonna get ridiculous and compare Obama to Nixon, you may as well compare Christie to Nixon while you're at it.

Just add these recess appts to the other faux scandals .

Christie is not a President.

If you want to compare Christie to one of his peers, might as well use Jon Corzine.

If you cannot see the parallels between the corruption of Obama and the corruption of Nixon, it is only because your partisanship denies you the luxury of vision.

AliHajiSheik · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
With all respect to your polls on impeachment and other matters, I've never seen you trot out the same type of poll as far as any gun measure is concerned, such as the true conservative Toomey/Manchin, Manchin being your guy.Mr. Obama's EOs on anything guns will be added to the "I" list .

Gun control? Wrong topic.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Speaking of the SCOTUS, I still think the whole ball of wax of what "being in recess" MEANS
is a higher-level issue over legality of what the POTUS did.
Also, Case History is not my memorized greatness, but I'm seeing a pattern of the Court to side with the Executive Branch.

Hoever, when it comes to State's and Individual's Rights, this Court is worse than the Rehnquist court.

Now for Sen. McConnell.
He'll be arguing a case in front of the SCOTUS soon, over Citizens Divided 2.0, Individual's rights to be unlimited giving of money to whatever.
A win would give him more stature and the case started in Alabama.
Citizens 2.0 is another of Linc's "peripheral influences" on the congressional races, in many directions.

Perotista said:
I was just interested in the topic and so too were the others. I think Clinton was a good president and think the Republicans tried to railroad him out of office. Now if my life had been different those 10 years I spent in Southeast Asia, perhaps I would have looked upon his escapes different. But when one has visited the Cellar Bar in Bangkok and Madam Lulu's in Vientiane and partook of the local cuisine, I do not think I am one to condemn him over a simple BJ in the White House.

It was plain stupid on his part, it showed a total lack of common sense and he should have known better. As for gun control, I never got into that as hot and heavy as I did this. But stay tuned, the time will probably come.

AliHajiSheik · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
You're opinion. I suppose the bottom line was he wasn't impeached, or at least found not guilty by the vote in the senate. I think if he had lied about something else that effected his job, perhaps the American public would have been more upset about. But then maybe not. Maybe the majority of Americans were showing sympathy towards him as they perceived the Ken Starr and the Republicans in congress as a witch hunt.

Do you really believe that lying about a BJ is an impeachable offense? It very well maybe to you, but I think in order to remove a president he needs to have done something very bad, unspeakable so to speak. All I can do is show you that at the time 65% of all Americans thought he shouldn't be impeached. You are part of that 35% who did. So in the end it seems to boil down to political persuasion.

Once more into the breach. If Clinton wanted to lie about anything and to whomever, I can't say I care that much, but he lied under oath. Our legal system is based on the the principle that when under oath, you tell the truth. Not just the truth, but also the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As a lawyer he knew better. As a President, there had to be some consequences. Please try to be factual and not what you are representing as the voice of the majority of Americans. That's just political spin and unworthy of you.

Ockham · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Kobie said:
I'm not a Democrat. Nice try, though.

My turn to roll the eyes. :roll:

j-mac · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Ockham said:
My turn to roll the eyes. :roll:

to be fair to Kobie, if I were a progressive liberal like him, I wouldn't admit it either.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Whether it's the House or Senate, the GOP refuses to allow Congress to go into recess, clearly an overreach with the Executive.
This Roberts Court has shown a penchant for not allowing Congress to interfere with EOs, as we saw with Bush and his EOs.

IMO, this "recess definition" issue dwarfs the constitiononality of the appointments,
which is an EO in the larger context, and which are legal but only temporary when "done in recess".
So "what is the definition of recess" will be answered.
Then there're those who say this matter is moot, since Harry blew up the Senate.

Therefore, the SCOTUS may put Harry and the Nuclear Option on the docket.
I'll mention that I believe there is now a third "split-desicion" wing on the Court,
with Sotomayor merging with Roberts and Kennedy, especially on legislative matters .

Anthony60 said:
As far as I know, there is a recess every two years, when we move from one Congress to the next. Also, I believe that the Senate can recess whenever it wants, as much as it wants, but if the House is still in session, then Congress as a whole, is not in recess. So Blaming McConnell makes no sense, since it was the house that stayed in session, I believe, when Obama made the unconstitutional appointments.

Perotista · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

j-mac said:
See, there you go again....You admitted to me that it was the perjury that got him impeached, not the BJ, but now in talking to someone else you are right back to blaming it on a BJ...This is why it is so frustrating, either you understand what a crime it is to lie to a Federal Judge, or you don't...You can't have it both ways. As far as Clinton is concerned it wasn't a common sense matter, more like a lack of moral, and ethical boundaries. Lewenski wasn't the first bimbo in his collection, and thank God he isn't President anymore, because I feel certain it wasn't the last. He is a reprobate. We as a nation need to get back to honorable people, with ethical, and moral compass to run this country. The damage that one President can do in perception, and standing in the world is too important to have some adolescent wanna be running around with a perpetual hard on disgracing the office.

Perhaps, FDR which is one of a consensus great presidents also had his dilly dalliances with women, JFK and LBJ also that we know of. So presidents messing around with other women is nothing new. How many presidents have done this in the past is unknown as the media kept womanizing a secret even if they knew. But after LBJ, one can say Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I were all loyal to their wives. IKE and Truman were also loyal husbands between FDR and JFK. But loyalty to one's wife does not make a president great or even a good president. Not that I am condoning womanizing. Other things come into play as to how a president is perceived. Clinton comes in or is ranked at number 22 by historians, the other womanizers, FDR 2nd, JFK is 11 and LBJ is 14.

Those who rank below Clinton who came after LBJ are Nixon 32, Ford 26, Carter 27, Reagan 17, Bush I at 23, Bush II at 34. Only Reagan ranks ahead of Clinton. In-between FDR was Truman at 7 and Eisenhower at 8.

I personally do not think Clinton disgraced the office. If the historians are right there are 21 Presidents better then him and 21 who were worse not counting the present president who isn't ranked yet.

Born Free · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Threegoofs said:
Because two guys showed up for 30 seconds and gaveled it in and out between drinks?

But that is the problem, isn't it. Congress is either in session or it is not. You first have to define what makes congress in session or not.

The bigger problem here is the willful contempt of Congress by the person who called it to session by himself.

No, that person has the "right", if you disagree then change the law. Like I said, first define "what makes congress in session or not."

It seem the SC is going to define it for Obama and congress.

Perotista · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Anthony60 said:
God, the left will rationalize anything. He was impeached, that is a fact. No maybe, or at least, impeached. Period (to use Oboma's favorite emphasis).
By your rational, the Nixon attempted impeachment was a witch hunt, since he did not know about the break in, he just lied about it. And, in my opinion, far less of an offense than things that Obama has done.

Nixon's was far more than not knowing about the break in and then once he knew lying about it. It was his attempt to use the CIA and FBI to cover it up. It was the cover up that got him. Nixon attempted to use government agencies for his own political purposes, not so with Clinton. The Democrats wanted Nixon out and they got their way. But Nixon dug his own hole. I can remember at the time I was on Nixon's side and had voted for him in 1972. The Democrats had been trying to get Nixon ever since Nixon got Alger Hiss.

j-mac · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Perhaps, FDR which is one of a consensus great presidents also had his dilly dalliances with women, JFK and LBJ also that we know of. So presidents messing around with other women is nothing new. How many presidents have done this in the past is unknown as the media kept womanizing a secret even if they knew. But after LBJ, one can say Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I were all loyal to their wives. IKE and Truman were also loyal husbands between FDR and JFK. But loyalty to one's wife does not make a president great or even a good president. Not that I am condoning womanizing. Other things come into play as to how a president is perceived. Clinton comes in or is ranked at number 22 by historians, the other womanizers, FDR 2nd, JFK is 11 and LBJ is 14.

Those who rank below Clinton who came after LBJ are Nixon 32, Ford 26, Carter 27, Reagan 17, Bush I at 23, Bush II at 34. Only Reagan ranks ahead of Clinton. In-between FDR was Truman at 7 and Eisenhower at 8.

I personally do not think Clinton disgraced the office. If the historians are right there are 21 Presidents better then him and 21 who were worse not counting the present president who isn't ranked yet.

Maybe you just aren't getting it....I don't care who Clinton bonked, or got a BJ from. Other than it being degenerate behavior it's his business, UNTIL he lies to a Federal Judge about it, and then it becomes the peoples business.

Oh, and Clinton was indeed impeached.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim[W:88]

With the Senate voting 55-45, unemployment benefits were defeated by the Senater legislative filibuster.
Clearly no good legislation can come out of the Senate until McConnell wins his Primary.
Maybe Mr. Obama can put it on the credit card with an EO, as 43 predecessors have done .

code1211 · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
Even if the GOP takes the senate come November, it would do no good to expand the nuclear option to legislative matters. President Obama would just veto any repeal. So unless somehow the repeal could garner 2/3rds vote in both the house and senate, it would be just wasting time. If I was a Republican I would wait until I got a president in the white house before expanding it. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Reid doesn't do that first especially if the Dems retain control of the senate. I expect that they will.

I do have a gut feeling that Grimes will come out on top in Kentucky. I was checking into a PPP poll on Kentucky, McConnell has only a 31% approval rating and 61% disapproval. Even if he has more money than Grimes, that will be tough to over come.

Is Grimes the Dem or a Tea Party guy?

Perotista · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
Speaking of the SCOTUS, I still think the whole ball of wax of what "being in recess" MEANS
is a higher-level issue over legality of what the POTUS did.
Also, Case History is not my memorized greatness, but I'm seeing a pattern of the Court to side with the Executive Branch.

Hoever, when it comes to State's and Individual's Rights, this Court is worse than the Rehnquist court.

Now for Sen. McConnell.
He'll be arguing a case in front of the SCOTUS soon, over Citizens Divided 2.0, Individual's rights to be unlimited giving of money to whatever.
A win would give him more stature and the case started in Alabama.
Citizens 2.0 is another of Linc's "peripheral influences" on the congressional races, in many directions.

I wonder if we were better of when it comes to election before all these so called campaign finance reforms which I think started in the late 60's. Prior to that there were no set limits and anyone could give all he wanted to any candidate or political party. But there were no pacs or super pacs, no advocacy groups running their ads outside of political campaigns with the campaigns having no control over or any responsibility for them. No money bundlers, and believe it or not, really no nasty attack ads as we see run today. The parties and candidates were personally responsible for any and all content of any political ad or commercial run.

I think you're right, what recess means and if pro forma sessions is really the senate in session. I was reminded earlier that the constitution does state each chamber makes their own rules and if the senate says pro forma sessions is a session of the senate, they are probably right. History is also not on the presidents side since no other president had ever attempted to make a recess appointment while the senate was in pro forma session. That could very well mean every other president recognized pro forma sessions as the senate being in session. It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS decides. I make no predictions on the SCOTUS, I am always wrong.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

This thread got GOP "fogged" when righties immediately brought in Nixon and then started the drumbeat of Benghazi, etc. derail.

So, my Illinois can certainly compare with your New Jersey when you mention Corzine.
We have a half dozen governors who have been indicted during and after their time in office, going back to the 1920's.
Mr. Obama regularly gets blamed for being them.
But you guys started the "Commission" in 1929 NJ and they support Christie today.

code1211 said:
Christie is not a President.

If you want to compare Christie to one of his peers, might as well use Jon Corzine.

If you cannot see the parallels between the corruption of Obama and the corruption of Nixon, it is only because your partisanship denies you the luxury of vision.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Clinton has nothing to do with the topic.
See how that works?

A person jumps in and interrupts a decent personal conversation with snarky thread police.
Sound familiar ?

AliHajiSheik said:
I think it was a great civics lesson for the entire country that there are checks and balances and that behavior matters in public office. I would have been disappointed had the House not impeached Clinton and I would have also been disappointed had Clinton been removed from office. Some things should just be beyond politics

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

.....

Perotista · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

AliHajiSheik said:
Once more into the breach. If Clinton wanted to lie about anything and to whomever, I can't say I care that much, but he lied under oath. Our legal system is based on the the principle that when under oath, you tell the truth. Not just the truth, but also the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As a lawyer he knew better. As a President, there had to be some consequences. Please try to be factual and not what you are representing as the voice of the majority of Americans. That's just political spin and unworthy of you.

That spin I think is how I became involved in this. Exactly how or what I originally replied to, heck I don't remember. Okay I went back and checked, last night my first reply was to the effect that since the nuclear option had been already used, whether or not or how the SCOTUS, their ruling is basically moot as long as the senate is controlled by the same party of the president. Now I have to figure out how all of this led to Clinton.

Okay, real late last night I got on the womanizing of LBJ and JFK, but nothing yet on the impeachment of Clinton. Then it was back to the SCOTUS and recess appointments.

Ah, I started off with you this fine beautiful AM. That was when you said: It's sad when people are OK with perjury. I hope no one ever lies under oath on a case your are involved with.

Since then it has been Clinton all the time for the rest of today. I suppose my bottom line is the perjury charge didn't warrant impeachment. Then things went from there whereas I showed to the vast majority of Americans back then they agreed with me.

Was Clinton wrong for lying to a grand jury, sure he was. But was that lying enough to impeach him and remove him from office? At the time I thought not and still do. Here is an article from that time that I agree with the author on

Article | First Things

Anthony60 · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
Whether it's the House or Senate, the GOP refuses to allow Congress to go into recess, clearly an overreach with the Executive.
This Roberts Court has shown a penchant for not allowing Congress to interfere with EOs, as we saw with Bush and his EOs.

IMO, this "recess definition" issue dwarfs the constitiononality of the appointments,
which is an EO in the larger context, and which are legal but only temporary when "done in recess".
So "what is the definition of recess" will be answered.
Then there're those who say this matter is moot, since Harry blew up the Senate.

Therefore, the SCOTUS may put Harry and the Nuclear Option on the docket.
I'll mention that I believe there is now a third "split-desicion" wing on the Court,
with Sotomayor merging with Roberts and Kennedy, especially on legislative matters .

I'm not sure why you think that the Congress should have to bow to the executive on this. The Constitution gives a role to both branches on the appointment process. Congress has no duty to give up their power than the president should give up his appointment power to them. Would you support Congress just making the appointments on their own? That would certainly get them done quickly also.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

j-mac said:
Oh, and Clinton was indeed impeached.

Clinton is not the topic, but may I add that the GOP did not get enough blood out of Clinton to satisfy whatever happened to Nixon and Reagan.

Every single day of the rest of this administration will be a legal and legislative fight with the GOP/POTUS.
Today it is Recess, tomorrow, it will be extending the debt limit, everyday it will be ACA.
Nothing good will happen until the GOP primaries are over .

Perotista · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

j-mac said:
Maybe you just aren't getting it....I don't care who Clinton bonked, or got a BJ from. Other than it being degenerate behavior it's his business, UNTIL he lies to a Federal Judge about it, and then it becomes the peoples business.

Oh, and Clinton was indeed impeached.

Yes he was, impeached and found not guilty. Exactly like being indicted by a grand jury and they being found not guilty in court.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Anthony60 said:
I'm not sure why you think that the Congress should have to bow to the executive on this.

Should Congress ever go in recess? Period.
Recess appts. are temporary in the Constitution, Period.
The GOP doesn't even want temporary appts, Period.

Linc · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Perotista said:
I think you're right, what recess means and if pro forma sessions is really the senate in session. I was reminded earlier that the constitution does state each chamber makes their own rules and if the senate says pro forma sessions is a session of the senate, they are probably right. History is also not on the presidents side since no other president had ever attempted to make a recess appointment while the senate was in pro forma session. That could very well mean every other president recognized pro forma sessions as the senate being in session. It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS decides. I make no predictions on the SCOTUS, I am always wrong.

The huge influence of the SCOTUS on all our lives will be on full display in 2014.
The SCOTUS is a huge "peripheral influence" on the Congressional races in 2014, according to Linc .

Perotista · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

code1211 said:
Is Grimes the Dem or a Tea Party guy?

Kentucky's - Democratic Sec. of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. McConnell's primary opponent is Matt Bevin a tea party conservative.

AliHajiSheik · Jan 14, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

NIMBY said:
Clinton has nothing to do with the topic.
See how that works?

A person jumps in and interrupts a decent personal conversation with snarky thread police.
Sound familiar ?

Discussing Presidents and oversight by other branches. Seems at least in the ballpark of the topic. Gun control, there is a whole set of boards for that. You should grind your axes in the Partisan sections, I work hard to stay out of those.

Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim[W:88]

NIMBY

Noblesse oblige

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

NIMBY

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency