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

j-mac · Jan 17, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

Deuce said:
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?

You have it exactly right here Deuce, only thing is, it wasn't one appointment to the NLRB, it was three, tipping the balance of power on the board giving unhindered power to unions. Now, I understand that to you, you believe that it is proper for Obama to get these appointments, however it just isn't. We have a constitution, and law. If you really believe that it is ok when a president that you support does it, then you have NO leg to stand on when you complain if a president you disagree with does it.

See, it's not that the president isn't entitled to choose the people he wants, it is more that the congress has a say in 'advice and consent'. When President Obama appointed these people it was in the NLRB's case designed to shift power of the board, in the case of judicial appointments it was to shift the balance of the court that decides the cases brought against his administration without consideration of other courts that are in greater need of judges, and in the case of the consumer protection board, it was to have a crony in place that will further a heavy government hand against business with the force of law that congress doesn't take up, or pass.

These things are dangerous, and it isn't how the country was set up to run....You can't just ignore the law when there are obstacles to what you want.

j-mac · Jan 17, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

poweRob said:
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. Basically it was the GOP defanging a regulatory firm so that it could not do it's job. Now that Obama did recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board... look what they found:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) illegally retaliated against protesting U.S. workers, the National Labor Relations Board said in a complaint stemming from job actions timed to the busy shopping day after the Thanksgiving holiday.

linkypoo...

The GOP is using their appointment filibusters to protect their corporate masters. But lets not look at reality when we can simply post faux outrage about a topic we don't even know anything about.

There certainly is less than savory things that happen on both sides in the chess game called politics, but the great equalizer is supposed to be the rule of law. If you advocate just tossing that out the window because it's too hard to follow, or you don't want to have to work with the other side to get your appointments in, then you are breaking the law. And maybe don't have the temperament to lead this country.

poweRob · Jan 17, 2014

Re: Justices skeptical of Obama’s recess appointment claim

j-mac said:
There certainly is less than savory things that happen on both sides in the chess game called politics, but the great equalizer is supposed to be the rule of law. If you advocate just tossing that out the window because it's too hard to follow, or you don't want to have to work with the other side to get your appointments in, then you are breaking the law. And maybe don't have the temperament to lead this country.

We are talking about presidential appointments. In that regard, exactly what law are you claiming has been broken. If you are gonna go all selectively legal on me then I present Article II section 2:

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

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

j-mac

j-mac

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency