High court rebukes Obama on recess appointments

a reply to: okachobi

I'm not sure what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with how many appointments he made and the Court didn't say he couldn't make future recess appointments. They said he couldn't slip them in by calling Congress out for 3 days 'a recess'. There is more to it than that of course, but that's the heart of the matter. Congress played games and he played one step beyond them...and got slapped for it.

I have to note, that was splitting hairs on the 3 day thing. If past ones have failed by that same standard, by all means. Which one and lets see how that plays for invalidating all those appointments did as well. That could get wild if it's years old.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Aleister


As I've been reading more on this decision, it's saying recess appointments are still perfectly valid but the President (whichever party that happens to be) cannot play games about how many days to how many required for calling a recess a recess for a technical 'gotcha' to appoint.

Again, I think Congress was playing a game at the same time....but as often happens in life? One side played the game further than the other this time and it determined which way the hand slap went, IMO.

Wabbit, you realize this is a big joke on pubs side right. They are laughing their buttstock off. Why, they all do this and they are laughing about being abstructionists and how good they are at it lol.

Obama did this thirty one times because they stone walled every single appointment. Bush did this 171 times hello.... Over five times more than Obama lol. This been going on since grover Cleveland lol...

The Bot

a reply to: dlbott

I disagree. I don't see the joke at all. The Courts aren't funny places and Judges are generally jerks for the ones I've met outside a courtroom. The 'tude runs beyond the Robe.

Having said that... Of course it's a game at this level. All three Branches have their own attitudes and for their own reasons. All 3 have their own priorities and have their own sense of what matters most to pursue. USUALLY that doesn't outright overstep into each other's patch. Occasionally it does and in recent times, at least between Legislative and Executive? We've got a Congress of mice, not men.

The Courts however....are where I find my entertainment, to be honest. Judges are snarky little delivery systems of their own sense of right and wrong often enough to keep it fun as something to watch. At least at the high level courts.

The thing about courts in the United States is that, as the 3rd Branch, they have equal power. In the hands of so few, that is incredible power to have ....but they were intentionally robbed of one thing for balance. Initiative. They cannot START anything and so their power is limited to applying with whatever cases make it all the way up to them.

I guess the moral of the story is, when in doubt? Sue them out! At least...where it's legitimate Constitutional stuff and one has the means to see it to the end.

The Supreme Court has spoken and FINALLY...

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Yes, They Have, At Last!!!!

Several hundred decisions the NLRB made with the recess-appointed members will now have to be re-decided by the current board. However, the result in most cases is likely to be the same, given similar pro-labor leanings of the current majority.

So, um, nothing is going to change.

Wasted hate and empty rage once again!

a reply to: HauntWok

How is it wasted effort?

Should we stop enforcing all laws that 'won't change anything' by their enforcement after the fact? What is the threshold where enforcement vs. tangible benefit becomes unworthy of effort and hence....effectively negates the law itself in that process?

If we're a nation of law, then enforcing what we have to be enforced is NEVER a wasted effort. (Nor is reforming or changing those laws where they are wrong...but I disgress). If we are NOT a nation of law, then we have nothing left to even call a nation to what it's been before. We just have a cult of personality revolving around one man, as many other nations have come to endure over time.

To law or not to law? That is the question which will literally define our nation going forward.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Even Judges tend to take ridicule poorly and the ones that were there to endure it never forgot being made asses of at the State of the Union speech. I have 0 doubt on that. These are lifers who will die or retire only because they chose to, from where they are now. Then this 4 year wonder happened along and made fools of them to the world ..and has kept poking at them at every opportunity. Oh...you're right. Even Obama friendly members voted against him on this one.

I think the 'Robed ones' have about had it with the elected upstart. After all...he's out in a couple years while they'll be working to clean this mess up for decades in a couple cases at least.

They're not happy campers in this change thing.

I think the old saying is don't get mad get even. Looks like "Robed Ones" as you say got a little payback.

The "Robed Ones" sounds like ancient mystical scholars. Where as the the Disrobed Ones sounds like "Playboy". Funny how 3 little letters changes to whole outcome.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Though when one cherry picks laws to arbitrarily enforce based solely on political grandstanding, it's not equitable under the law.

For years this administration has been forced to use recess appointments because he was being stymied by the opposition party. Then in order to further halt any progress, they faked bring in session just to stop this process further.

None of this would have to be if the GOP wasn't purposefully trying to sabotage this administration.

If the GOP was actually interested in the rule of law they would allow these candidates to go through the confirmation process.

originally posted by: oblvion
Every law they pass is another freedom I lose.

I like it when both parties obstruct eachother, it means the people arent losing at the time.

Hear, hear. I wish the entire Congress and Executive Branch would go on permanent vacation. I think I am one of the few people that does not get wound up when the old 'The President is golfing again' meme reappears. I would even be willing to pay Dear Leader's green's fees if it kept him out of the White House.


Gridlock is good, it is addition by subtraction.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Though when one cherry picks laws to arbitrarily enforce based solely on political grandstanding, it's not equitable under the law.

For years this administration has been forced to use recess appointments because he was being stymied by the opposition party. Then in order to further halt any progress, they faked bring in session just to stop this process further.

None of this would have to be if the GOP wasn't purposefully trying to sabotage this administration.

If the GOP was actually interested in the rule of law they would allow these candidates to go through the confirmation process.

You mean like the illegal immigration issue? Or gun running across the border, or maybe the Blank Panthers standing outside of a polling place with bats, or maybe the IRS breaking the law with not notifying Congress about lost emails, or his own health care law, or the federal marijuana law. Funny thing that oath of office, it is being ignored by the POTUS more than anyone else.

Besides the issue was making recess appointments when there was no recess. Oh yeah cherry picked that one too. Obama is a cherry picker from way back.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Though when one cherry picks laws to arbitrarily enforce based solely on political grandstanding, it's not equitable under the law.

That's a very backward way of looking at a nation based on law, in my opinion. You call it cherry picking to see it enforced and I call the cherry picking where it IS NOT enforced. You see a problem, apparently, in doing something about lawbreaking when it's not done for everyone ..and I'll agree to say lets get busy with EVERYONE. We don't say 'awww..screw it.. lets not enforce anything anymore' because it hasn't been even up to this moment.

That's not a nation of law anymore. That's a nation in hard and fast decline by it's own actions.

For years this administration has been forced to use recess appointments because he was being stymied by the opposition party. Then in order to further halt any progress, they faked bring in session just to stop this process further.

You know why he's having problems? That's because this is an EVENLY DIVIDED NATION by ideaology. Roughly and generally speaking, we're a nation of 49/51% majority votes from local to nation elections and across to off election issues people don't even show up much for. The United States President is elected to *LEAD*...not charge off and dump half the nation in the ditch to ignore and run over. That would be why he can't pass gas without getting a ton of bricks dumped on him.

None of this would have to be if the GOP wasn't purposefully trying to sabotage this administration.

Really? The GOP is that powerful? That overwhelming? That totally dominating in this nation today? Well, if this is ALL just card carrying members of the GOP and they wield that much power? They should win both sides in 2014 and we won't have this divide in the last 2 years. ......or perhaps it's a little silly at this stage to say ONLY GOP card carrying members are sick and tired of this President and his power trips.

If the GOP was actually interested in the rule of law they would allow these candidates to go through the confirmation process.

Oh, Harry Reid decided to solve that, so you have nothing to worry about anymore. The Senate now confirms positions on a simple majority. It was referred to as the "Nuclear Option" before that fool went and made a divided Senate into a one party dictatorship for appointments through the end of this Congressional Session.

So.. Just to be on the record here..You won't have any problem with recess appointments of this nature when we once again have a hard right Republican President, correct?

For the record.. I WILL have the same problem, because we have a President not a King. They appoint...they don't knight people.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You know, i do hope the GOP wins in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. I hope you get everything you wish.

Then the top 0.01% will get everything they want and rain down on their loyal minions the rewards they deserve.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You know, i do hope the GOP wins in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. I hope you get everything you wish.

Then the top 0.01% will get everything they want and rain down on their loyal minions the rewards they deserve.

LOL how would the 0.01% get any more ?

They already have a good start off the Progressive/Democrat leadership policies.

a reply to: xuenchen

How would they get any more?

How about the elimination of the minimum wage?

How about the elimination of the EPA?

How about lowering their tax rate to zero while at the same time receiving subsidies from the taxpayers?

you think they don't want more? What I have listed are GOP policies they want. How good are those for the people?

Dispite what Reaganomics taught you, the rich don't get "full" of money.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You know, i do hope the GOP wins in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. I hope you get everything you wish.

Then the top 0.01% will get everything they want and rain down on their loyal minions the rewards they deserve.

Take a good look at Detroit and see what happens when Democrats get their own way.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You know, i do hope the GOP wins in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. I hope you get everything you wish.

Then the top 0.01% will get everything they want and rain down on their loyal minions the rewards they deserve.

All things being equal, I really hope the GOP DOESN'T win, because I see very few beside the elephant which look any better than those beside the jackass. They're all dumb animals playing like intelligent politicians capable of running a nation.

Further on that, the US has a long history of swinging back and forth. Nixon led to Carter and Carter left the nation happy to see Reagan come along. By the time the nation had 8 of his years and a term of Bush Sr.? Clinton looked dandy and Carter was a distant memory. Good call on that one...but then we jumped up quite a bit in the radical factor for Bush Jr. and Obama.

I can only imagine (and I'd rather not) what the NEXT GOP will look like in real policies. Especially with the new precedents of power Bush and Obama have collectively laid down to follow.

We need Americans in office..not Politicians. Americans don't need a party. We are one BIG special interest if we stop bickering long enough to exert it.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You know, i do hope the GOP wins in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. I hope you get everything you wish.

Then the top 0.01% will get everything they want and rain down on their loyal minions the rewards they deserve.

All things being equal, I really hope the GOP DOESN'T win, because I see very few beside the elephant which look any better than those beside the jackass. They're all dumb animals playing like intelligent politicians capable of running a nation.

Further on that, the US has a long history of swinging back and forth. Nixon led to Carter and Carter left the nation happy to see Reagan come along. By the time the nation had 8 of his years and a term of Bush Sr.? Clinton looked dandy and Carter was a distant memory. Good call on that one...but then we jumped up quite a bit in the radical factor for Bush Jr. and Obama.

I can only imagine (and I'd rather not) what the NEXT GOP will look like in real policies. Especially with the new precedents of power Bush and Obama have collectively laid down to follow.

We need Americans in office..not Politicians. Americans don't need a party. We are one BIG special interest if we stop bickering long enough to exert it.

The problem is we need to get people involved in the process, right now today we really only have two choices. We need to be able to see a ballot with 10 names and have the time to research them and make a good decision. Take the money out of the equation, and if you're caught in a blatant lie it's recall time, and a new election.

I was so disappointed in the knucklehead that was running to take Eric Cantor place as Majority leader. All he could do was talk about what he thought he could do for the party as the majority leader, never once did he say he would report to the people and do what they wanted. The republicans have lost their ideology, and running scared seems to be what distracts them from doing good work.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

I couldn't agree more. We absolutely do need to get people involved in the process.

I'm not sure quite how to create an easy way of seeing just how it works and how easily people can change it in major ways, but I'm working on it. Ron Paul's campaign people put on a free seminar I took that trained on the process and rules of the Caucus system and just how each individual can very much have a say and make a difference in that meeting. Who is on the national ballot is largely decided inside that meeting, too.

It's not quite that simple and I'll bet you know the process to know how true that is. However, how to smoosh that into a logical and sensible info-graphic is the trick.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

I've lived in Detroit, it's much worse than that picture depicts. Much much worse.

And yes that is due to liberal ideology run amok.

I believe it would be worse if the whole nation was under a conservative regime.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I've lived in Detroit, it's much worse than that picture depicts. Much much worse.

And yes that is due to liberal ideology run amok.

I believe it would be worse if the whole nation was under a conservative regime.

The object here is to "Deny ignorance" not embrace it.