When it comes to the nominees of both parties, it is as you state. More and more it is a choice of two evils. I know you are talking about the choice between McConnell and Bevins in the Republican Primary. But for quite a lot of independents come general election time, it does boil down to holding one's nose and voting for what they consider the least worst candidate.
When I worked at LBAD, I lived in Winchester.
Could grimes be one of these demo sponsored "republicans"?
I would love to see McConnell gone, but bottom line, we have more power with him that without him. Grimes brings nothing to the table but ideas that are already failing with this administration
I really know nothing of Grimes. My interest is predicting who will win in Kentucky. prognostication of elections has been an hobby of mine for a very long time.
Talk to your friend Perotisa. He introduced Clinton into the topic, and has been arguing it ever since.
However. on topic. The SCOTUS has at least enough of a problem with the recess appointments Obama made to review the case. At a bare minimum that should tell you, and the other Obama supporters that he crossed the line.
See, this was just a symptom of a larger problem, which is, Conservatives believe that given enough pressure from the right, Obama is brazen enough to just go around the Constitution all together. That has never been done before in such an outright, and dishonest manner by an administration. So, the question is, if he will break the law when it is inconvenient, and use the law when it suits his argument, that makes him a dangerous President.
True, and there are very good reasons for conservatives to believe Obama wont think twice to cross the line.
Personally I think this is a line that needed to be crossed. These kinds of positions are important to running our country, and appointing people to these positions are a presidential power.
Personally I think this is a line that needed to be crossed. These kinds of positions are important to running our country, and appointing people to these positions are a presidential power. The GOP (and the Democrats before them, under Bush) has been blocking these appointments in a blanket manner. It's not about any objection to a specific candidate, they're doing this to hamstring Obama. They have a vested interest in him failing, and they'd rather hurt the country as long as he's in power.
Furthermore, temporary appointments during recesses are an express presidential power, and Congress has taken to exploiting a loophole to try and block this ability. They made fake sessions. No actual business was conducted, it literally lasted five seconds just so they could claim to be in session. It's a blatant effort to circumvent an express constitutional power. It was unacceptable when Harry Reid did it, and it's unacceptable now.
This country needs to settle the question about exactly how much leeway Congress should have to be obstructionist regarding these positions. Take the labor board position that kicked off a lot of this: this is an important position. If the appointment was unconstitutional, that means all these decisions made come under question. The result of that? Taxpayers funding the millions of dollars in legal fees that will likely result from challenges to the board's decisions, and an eventual appointment probably re-making all of the same decisions. For what, exactly?
Yet another pointless non-sequitur from Scatt.
I couldn't help but notice you chose to ignore the more substantive response. Obama didn't invent the recess appointment, true. What he invented was using the recess appointment process when Congress wasn't in recess.
Where were you during the Bork hearings?
Recess Appointment ?
Are you also arguing that the GOP can prevent Congress from ever going into recess?
Are you also arguing that the GOP can prevent Congress from ever going into recess?
Dog and pony show over politics.
Dog and pony show over politics.
I believe I remember Ted Kennedy claiming something to the effect of the America of Robert Bork woulf be one of "back alley abortions" and crazy talk like that. He would have been a justice that followed the Constitution, thus, very dangerous to the left.
So, the left is okay with blocking SC nominees based on the fact that they don't like what they would do as a judge, not based at all in their qualifications.
Dog and pony show over politics.
:shrug: If they have the majority they can - just as Democrats used their majority to stay in session in order to keep Bush from making recess appointments.
What is the definition of being in recess, since the children in DC can't figure it out, the SCOTUS will .
More than that - the beginning of the acerbic politicization of the nomination process.
And now for the real reason the GOP is outraged at these recess appointments. The National Labor Relations Board had been gutted by term limits and therefore could not form a quorum to replace themselves due to the GOP blocking appointments.
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?