- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,438
- Reaction score
- 47,477
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
how are they "abusing" their power any differently than harry reid did when he first contrived this practice during the dicknbush regime?
and the Republicans are abusing their power & playing games with the Senate.
From senate.gov
pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.
Which, based on their own definition, is required since they aren't on formal recess.
Hell, its a published schedule for every three days.( again, senate.gov ).
FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012
The Senate will convene at 11:00 AM and will conduct a Pro Forma Session.
The Senate will then conduct Pro Forma Sessions on the following dates:
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM.
Friday, January 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM.
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 2:00 PM.
The Senate will next convene for business on Monday, January 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM. There will be in a period of Morning Business for two hours. At 4:00 PM, the Senate will proceed to an Executive Session to consider the nomination of Cal. #438 (John Gerrard to United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska). There will 90 minutes of debate on the nomination followed by a vote on confirmation at 5:30 PM. On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 2:15 PM, the Senate will have a cloture vote on the Motion to Proceed to S. 968 ( Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011).
Well, I am absolutely shocked that the Washington Post Editorial Board is defending Obama, and pushing his agenda openly...:shock::doh
Or that they use Republican progressives from the Bush administration to in a weak assed attempt to justify their UNConstitutional move.
Bradbury and Elwood can, and did that during Bush, but Bush decided to uphold his oath and preserve the Constitution and NOT do it.
This really shows what libs think of our Constitution.
j-mac
The Dems blocked Bush in the same way. In fact, they used the 3-day gavel process on occasion. Look it up.
Try some links next time as well.
Looks like his only window to try this would have been Jan. 17 from 12:01 am to 10:15 am. So why now? Is he intentionally picking a fight to use politically?
j-mac
Agreed. We saw it with OWS. We see it now. The "Law be Damned" if it stands between a lib and getting something at the expense of others.
Recess Appointments, when done to deny the ability of the Senate to Advise and Consent, are gimmicks already for chrissakes. :roll:
It is Obama who avoided negotiating with the Senate.
You're correct in that the Democrats used the 3 day gavel process on one occassion. That being the nomination of John Bolton to be UN ambassador. Bush gave Bolton a recess appointment and Bolton proceeded to live right down to everyone's worst expectations.
I won't argue that Obama is constitutionally correct on this. I suspect he knows as much about that as any of his advisors and critics. But he'll win the optics. Because the GOP will be forced to go to court to block a nominee and stymie the operation of an agency the public overwhelmingly supports.
No, it's Obama going around the GOP's attempt to hold his nominee hostage in order to re fight a battle they lost in the Senate already.
The Senate passed the bill that created the Consumer Protection Agency. Obama didn't have to go around it at all.
The GOP is holding the nominee hostage in order to try and renegotiate the deal. And Obama's just snared them in their own trap (again).
you appear to believe that the GOP bears no responsibility for this mess.
You're correct in that the Democrats used the 3 day gavel process on one occassion. That being the nomination of John Bolton to be UN ambassador. Bush gave Bolton a recess appointment and Bolton proceeded to live right down to everyone's worst expectations.
I won't argue that Obama is constitutionally correct on this. I suspect he knows as much about that as any of his advisors and critics. But he'll win the optics. Because the GOP will be forced to go to court to block a nominee and stymie the operation of an agency the public overwhelmingly supports.
he has 220 other openings to be filled. that window of opportunity might be prime time to do it
he has 220 other openings to be filled. that window of opportunity might be prime time to do it
Bolton was not appointed during a 3-day gavel session. Further, reviews on Bolton's term were good.
No, it's Obama going around the GOP's attempt to hold his nominee hostage in order to re fight a battle they lost in the Senate already.
The Senate passed the bill that created the Consumer Protection Agency. Obama didn't have to go around it at all.
The GOP is holding the nominee hostage in order to try and renegotiate the deal. And Obama's just snared them in their own trap (again).
So, then Obama sees himself as a King or something eh, forget the Constitution right bubba? As long as it is Obama eh?
Good thing this isn't a repub....I suspect that the sentiments would be far different...Hell, Conyers may clean out that broom closet in the basement to hold more faux hearings....heh, heh....
j-mac
Indeed, if Obama really wanted to blow this thing up he could have recess appointed all of them, as Teddy Roosevelt did many years ago. But instead he just made the four appointments that he judged absolutely necessary to the proper administration of government.
Obama did it because he is a massive fail. He has the lowest approvals of any President at this point in their first term. His hallmark legislation, Obamacare, is going down in flames.....
Again, show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress has the right to filibuster a nominee. Then show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress can filibuster a nominee when they aren't even in session.
Bolton was not appointed during a 3-day gavel session. Further, reviews on Bolton's term were good.
Whether the GOP pursues this in Court remains to be seen. They will not make it a primary election issue though, as it will not resonate with most voters. Obama, on the other hand, did this solely to try to blame Congress for his failures. He's an inept clown, "but its someone else's fault". He is pure scumbag.
Nope. The issue with the czars was that they were not confirmed by the Senate. This is simply the GOP not liking a Consumer Protection board and trying to do an end run to gut it.
Kind of a weasly thing.
Politely disagree...
Obama did it because he is a massive fail. He has the lowest approvals of any President at this point in their first term. His hallmark legislation, Obamacare, is going down in flames. Debt out the whazoo. So its "Blame the rich. Blame Congress. It wasn't me who farted."
Massive fail.
Look yourself, or be a lazy lib. The Constitution empowers Congress to make its own rules by which it conducts business.
If Boehner or somebody wants to take it to court they're free to, but I can tell you right now, the court will say it's ok. The clear purpose of the recess appointments clause it to enable the president to ensure that vacancies in key positions get filled promptly to avoid disrupting the government's ability to function. That is exactly what it is being used for and the courts won't let some technicality the legislature cooked up trump the clear intention of the constitution. The advice and consent requirement is there to make sure that the legislature gets input into the process, not as a level they can use to try to disable the federal government.
A few questions for all of you whining about the Republicans gaming the rules...why didnt Harry Reid bang the gavel and present the topic of the appointee for debate? You dont need cloture to debate a topic, only to close it. If this guy wasnt going to pass Senate approval, why didnt Obama present someone else? Yes the I agree the President can nominate anyone he wants, but if he knows the person in question isnt going pass, hes wasting his time and the Senate's.
So...why not?
Something else I dont understand, for some 18months, treasury had tons of openings, but no takers. How is this appointment suddenly so important that Obama couldnt at least TRY the nomination process before going all out?
Re-election...thats why.
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?