- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Saying that Obama is considered "far left" which in reality is a centrist moderate democrat these days... Yes...You seriously think that Republicans holding far left nominees of Obama, similar to Democrats holding far right nominees from Bush, will be seen by any significant number of people as a "war on women"? On what planet?
Saying that Obama is considered "far left" which in reality is a centrist moderate democrat these days... Yes...
I didn't say anything about Obama's leanings - in fact, one could argue that Obama is invisible and simply jumps in front of a moving trend whenever he sees the end in sight. I was referring to his nominees, many of which are indeed from the far left of politics, law, and labor.
Yes.. I think a lot of the Senate rules are inherently just idiotic and slow down an efficient democracy.
Which of his current nominees do you think is to the far left of politics, law, and labor?
That's only because you don't understand how the Senate works, and your term "efficient" is so broad to be useless.
I didn't say anything about Obama's leanings - in fact, one could argue that Obama is invisible and simply jumps in front of a moving trend whenever he sees the end in sight. I was referring to his nominees, many of which are indeed from the far left of politics, law, and labor.
The simple answer would be the current two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board whom Obama illegally appointed before the last election, claiming the Senate was in recess. Obama now wants them formally confirmed. Obama is paying the price for acting illegally, like a dictator, in appointing these two NLRB members while the Senate was legally sitting and the courts have slapped him down for it. Obama's other three nominees currently before the Senate are being approved by Republicans but they are not going to let Obama off the hook on the other two, and rightly so. Obama chose to disrespect Republicans in the Senate and so Republicans in the Senate are now telling him to go **** himself.
I didn't say anything about Obama's leanings - in fact, one could argue that Obama is invisible and simply jumps in front of a moving trend whenever he sees the end in sight. I was referring to his nominees, many of which are indeed from the far left of politics, law, and labor.
How do i not understand how the Senate works? And how am i being to broad?
was there any problem with the canidates themselves, or was it because the NLRB is something that republicans hate vehemently?
and what about Obamas Current nominees? any problems with them?
I thought he had a radical socialist agenda bent on destroying the United States because **** it why not? Supervillain motivations, after all, happen in real life.
And will you still be happy about this move when there is a Republican president again and the same rules apply?
Yes, Republicans and business in general have problems with the rulings of the NLRB, the Boeing issue being one example.
Obama has currently made 5 nominees to the NLRB, the two previous illegal recess appointments plus three others. The Republicans have said they will not block the three new nominees and the two illegal appointments are still on the NLRB pending adjudication at the Supreme Court - those two will remain there until the SC rules. Republicans have said they will not approve these two - they want the court to rule on the illegality of Obama appointing them so that this can't happen again and they are not going to allow the two to be nominated in the normal process now, making the Supreme Court review moot, and taking Obama off the hook. We all know that if the Supreme Court has the legal issue taken from them, Obama will not admit he acted beyond his authority.
those are not the only nominees that are being held up.
there is also the nomination of Richard Cordray for head of the consumer financial protection bureau, and Gina Mccarthy as head the environmental protection agency. what is the problem that the republicans have with their nominations, besides being appointed by Obama?
and then there is also the possable nomination of Thomas Perez as Labor Secretary and whoever obama nominates to replace janet napolitano as head of the department of homeland security.
Those happen to be the nominees that are now the primay issue related to the "nuclear option" and they are the ones I brought up - you asked me for examples, I gave you some.
As to the others, I think you'll find that Obama opening his yap and claiming he's going to ignore congress and by executive order initiate financial and environmental protection policy from the White House would be a pretty good reason why Republicans will not assist him in any way going forward on that dictatorial regime.
the EPA, CFPB, labor department and DHS cannot be expected to function without someone to lead their asigned positions.
what is the problem with the nominees of these departments?
Like I said, Obama wants to legislate from the White House, ignoring congress, when it comes to these areas of governance. As a result, it's only natural that Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that those agencies cannot function. You've answered your own question.
As for the individuals involved, I don't have any information on them at this time, so I won't comment on their fitness for the positions they are nominated for.
so is the problem with the candidates, the president who picked them, or is it the cabinet position or bureau that the nominee's are being appointed to?
is the reason that some republicans are againist Richard Cordray, Gina Mccarthy, and thomas Perez as nominees because the republican party is ideologically opposed to the very existance and function of the EPA, The CFPB, and labor department?
Just speaking for myself, I'd be in favor of it. The senate should only block appointee's by the president if there is a big problem with that person, and even then they should be blocked by an up or down vote of the senate, not by a filibuster. If 51 members of the majority party think it is an ok pick for an appointment then that's good enough. This madness has to stop.
In 1949, Lyndon Johnson, the “master of the Senate,” said in defense of the filibuster: “If I should have the opportunity to send into the countries behind the Iron Curtain one freedom and only one . . . I would send to those nations the right of unlimited debate in their legislative chambers . . . If we now, in haste and irritation, shut off this freedom, we shall be cutting off the most vital safeguard which minorities possess against the tyranny of momentary majorities.” Later, former senator George Mitchell told his colleagues that “when I was majority leader, I didn’t always enjoy unlimited debate. There were times when I was frustrated by the ease with which the Senate rules can be used for obstruction. But with time and distance comes perspective . . . [T]he right of unlimited debate is a rare treasure which you must safeguard. Of course, it can be, and it is, abused. But that is the price that must be paid, and the privilege is worth the price.”
I agree with that. If there is a good reason, they should still be able to do something, but with your example, the majority would win all the time. I think the idea is to give the minority some type of option when there is a majority.
The reasons for the Republican opposition are probably all of the above or a combination of them. When ideology drives the Presidency, you often have ideology drive the response.
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?