In the bigger scope of things...we are supposed to have a representitive government.

It is not as if the GOP were opposed to his nominee, they admit that a majority of Republicans supported the Nominee....which is why they refused to put the nomination to a vote, along with a literal pledge to deny President Obama ANY appointees he is obligated to make.

Don't we elect our representitives to actually represent us? I mean if a bill or nominee is voted down, then at least the democratic process is operating and whether the conservatives or the Liberals like or dislike the bill or nominee..tough...your representitive made your districts voice heard win or lose.

But this nonsense ...proud obstructionism...by either the left or the right...short circuits the whole process.

Seeing as the Senate refused to even vote on ANY of the Presidents Nominees and if those departments he must staff fail ..those same obstructionists will blame him...I am glad he made the appointments.

Next lets refine the congressional rules to disallow a single congressman or senator from preventing the people's will (a vote) by fillibuster!

Win or lose...liberal or republican...lets have a congress that actually is able to VOTE on things. At least then we can call it democracy and our "representives" at least have a chance to "represent us" on the issues.

Just my 2 cents.

Obama used too much toilet paper the other day too!

I read on World net Daily that he rips tags off mattresses and kicked a dog once too!
What will it take to get this tyrant out of office?

There are some who say this is impeachable. They don't know what impeach means. Same folks that whine about free speech when some one doesn't agree with them.

I say he did the responsible thing. The democrats showed up ready to do business, the republicans refused to do business because there were not any republicans in town to do business. They even went to the extent of pulling the c-span feed so people couldn't see the democrats in the room. Showmanship? You bet - but when you are dealing with stubborn children, you have to do something to get their attention.

You go President Obama !!!!!!!!!!

This is all for show.It works up the bases of both parties and allows the dupes from both sides to make pointless arguments endlessly.Ever stop to think this is exactly what they want? It makes things like the passing of the patriot act and indefinite dentition bill easy to pass.

Yes but appointments were made to put people in place to do things that actually work for people. I'm a people and I am good with that.

So actually it wasn't show it was doing the nations business - something the right wing has decided is not important. The making the right wing look foolish - that was just fun.

I tried pro-forma breathing this morning. I almost passed out from lack of oxygen.

The recess appointment provision in the US Constitution (Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3) was intended to assure the government's continued ability to function even when the Senate was unavailable (see Federal essay 67).

In this instance, the Senate went into recess in every way except by name. The Republicans deliberately tried to cheat the President of his Constitutional power to make appointments by refusing to call their recess a recess. Instead they arranged for "pro forma sittings" - something nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist - in which the only Senator present (perhaps the only Senator still in the City of Washington) is the one playing presiding officer, who opens and closes the sitting in less time than it takes to boil an egg, with no votes taken and no quorum. In the meantime, the Senate Republicans have tried to cripple the government by refusing to vote on numerous judicial and executive appointments.

Can the Republicans prevent the President from exercising his authority by simply avoiding using the word recess?

In a case where there are two legal interpretations possible, the one that enables government to function is going to be preferred over the one that paralyzes the government.

Originally posted by Shoonra
The recess appointment provision in the US Constitution (Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 3) was intended to assure the government's continued ability to function even when the Senate was unavailable (see Federal essay 67).

Among others -- Madison expounded on this and the reasoning behind the section and clause.

In this instance, the Senate went into recess in every way except by name. The Republicans deliberately tried to cheat the President of his Constitutional power to make appointments by refusing to call their recess a recess. Instead they arranged for "pro forma sittings" - something nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist

Here you are starting to get a bit murky. The "pro-forma" sessions were instituted by Senator Reid during the Bush Administration to specifically disable any attempts by then President Bush to appoint during recess.

As far as the House, yes -- they were/are playing politics but nothing unconstitutional. They simply are remaining in session by ignoring the Joint Resolution that is required via the Constitution (in which both the Senate and House must agree on the recess).

In regards to the "pro-forma" sessions, they are not unconstitutional because the Constitution gives latitude towards each the Senate and the House to make their own rules.

In the meantime, the Senate Republicans have tried to cripple the government by refusing to vote on numerous judicial and executive appointments.

Lets get specific to who the recess appointments were: 2 of the 3 NLRB nominees were scheduled for their hearing -- yet the President felt they needed to be recessed in. Mr. Cordory's nomination was rejected on political grounds (as are nearly all other rejected nominations) in attempts to make adjustments to specific legislation. Senate Republicans all agree he is the man for the job, just want some changes before he is confirmed. Its politics -- dirty as it may be, nothing unconstitutional about it.

Can the Republicans prevent the President from exercising his authority by simply avoiding using the word recess?

January 3rd is, via the 20th Amendment, the only day required for Congress to be in-session.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Now we should wonder why they held just a pro-forma session in place of their constitutionally mandated duty to assemble.