SCOTUS Slaps Down Obama Recess Appointments

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Does the Constitution say much about a Head Nigger In Charge?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

They would have had to have been just as tired of President Bush's Stalinist's tactics, as he made the same kind of recess appointments, sadly no one challenged those. I fail to see how you all seem to think this is a loss for President Obama, any more than any other past president who did the same thing. What it really is a win for us Americans, all of us not just you Obama haters.

The true reason both Presidents violated the Constitution is not without reason. As long as the Senate fails to act Constitutionally and Advice and consent, instead of delay and filibuster our government well remain crippled. We the American people deserve better and we are not getting it from either the Republicans or the Democrats, they both hold equal guilt. You can make this all you want about I hate Obama but what you should be doing is demanding the Senate does what the Constitution, the one all you haters seem to love, says and acts in a responsible manner and actually Advice and Consent, which simple mean discuss the nominee, vote on the nomination and approve or disapprove.

All you conservative may dance in jubilee as the Republicans obstruct the Constitution but when the time comes and the shoe is on the other foot you all are going to scream bloody murder forgetting you condoned the behavior in the first place.

This may be one small victory but the truth is unless all of us, conservatives, liberals and progressive, stop allowing both the Senate and House to act as irresponsibly as they've been doing the wonderful ship the United States of America is going to sink.

You made Vette take you off ignore and got him to piss/shit his pants in aging impotent conservative male frustration again, Dys. Good stuff, good times.

http://i.imgur.com/Mg1zFRV.gif

And don't worry about the mess he made fouling the joint. The obsolete shitstain that posted directly after him will lick it up.

 

[cjh]

This must have been too devastating even to CJ, Obama's legal bulwark here at Lit.

I don't know why you think Supreme Court decisions are predictable or obvious.

Few are. That's why the they make it to SCOTUS.

And this opinion as not as far reaching as you're suggesting.

It's a rebuff to Obama's DOJ of course.

Which DOJ hasn't been rebuffed?

For that matter, which Congress?

Remember O'Connor writing about blank checks?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I don't know why you think Supreme Court decisions are predictable or obvious.

Few are. That's why the they make it to SCOTUS.

And this opinion as not as far reaching as you're suggesting.

It's a rebuff to Obama's DOJ of course.

Which DOJ hasn't been rebuffed?

For that matter, which Congress?

Remember O'Connor writing about blank checks?

[vetteman]

Well grumble grumble grumble that's your purview grumble grumble grumble something perfidy grumble grumble something benighted grumble something Obama grumble something besieged grumble something death of America more grumble more mumble plus harumph harumph harumph.

[/vetteman]

 

[Wrong Element]

I don't know why you think Supreme Court decisions are predictable or obvious.

Few are. That's why the they make it to SCOTUS.

And this opinion as not as far reaching as you're suggesting.

It's a rebuff to Obama's DOJ of course.

Which DOJ hasn't been rebuffed?

For that matter, which Congress?

Remember O'Connor writing about blank checks?

It's a rebuff to all of Obama's predecessors as well, but pointing that out would have detracted from Vette's "The Negro Dictator Gets Slapped Down!" drivel.

Not only that, but four of the justices would have gone along with the notion that recess appointments can only be used to fill vacancies that are created during the recess itself, a point I had never heard anyone make before now, and clearly isn't even remotely implied by the Constitution.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's a rebuff to all of Obama's predecessors as well, but pointing that out would have detracted from Vette's "The Negro Dictator Gets Slapped Down!" drivel.

Not only that, but four of the justices would have gone along with the notion that recess appointments can only be used to fill vacancies that are created during the recess itself, a point I had never heard anyone make before now, and clearly isn't even remotely implied by the Constitution.

Granted, history hasn't played out that way but it seems to me that's common sense. If there was a vacancy before the Congress went on recess they wouldn't fucking go on recess. It's like having to put a special rule in place about how you will clean the table before you go to your room.

 

[Que]

You are mostly missing the point.

Recess appointments were not added so you could sneak someone in AGAINST the advice and consent of the Senate. Someone that you damned well know they are disposed against.

It was there because in the age before phones, fax and email, you might not be able to get enough people in a room to help you decide that in a reasonable amount of time.

At this point, if the senate says not only no, but HELL no...and went on vacation for 6 months...(I wish they would) you are completely violating the spirit of the rule to put somebody in that they EXPLICITLY said they were withholding their advice and consent from.

The President exists to either rubber stamp or veto, not rule.

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

With twelve 9-0 decisions going against Obama, I'd say with that much "re-buffing" there's no need for turd polish to shine him up for dinner.

You keep telling me how my alleged hate keeps me from reality. I think the opposite is and has been the case with you Obama supporters. Seems to me our side has been right from day one about this incompetent fool.

Oh, and this case he was rejected at all levels, but kept on bringing his bullshit before the courts. Three or more time in the face with a judicial wet mop out to convince most folks.

Here is Scalia's contribution to your "unanimous opinion"

The Solicitor General has identified 22 such appointments made by Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Franklin Roosevelt be*tween 1921 and 1944.... Intra-session recess appointments experienced a brief heyday after World War II, with President Truman mak*ing about 150 such appointments to civilian positions and several thousand to military posts from 1945 through 1950.... President Eisen*hower made only 43 intra-session recess appointments ... after which the practice sank back into relative obscurity. Presidents Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Ford made none, while Nixon made just 7.... The practice rose again in the last decades of the 20th century: President Carter made 17 intra-session recess appointments, Reagan 72, George H. W. Bush 37, Clinton 53, and George W. Bush 135.... When the Solicitor General filed his brief, President Obama had made 26.... Even excluding Truman's military appointments, roughly 90 percent of all the intra-session recess appointments in our history have been made since 1945.

Looks like Bush had a lot of Constitution hating going on.

He's got this somewhere in there too.

The majority practically bends over backwards to ensure that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the president’s arsenal,” Justice Scalia said from the bench.

That Supreme Court entrails reading sure is easy-peasy, isn't Vette?

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

I don't pretend to be able to read the tea leaves on the SCOTUS, especially after Roberts barfed on the Constitution in Obamacare case, but having said that, Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar with vast knowledge of the constitution, he above all should know when to fold em'. Unless of course his intention is to violate the Constitution and does not intend to obey a court ruling. No?

Like Boehner's plan to sue the President. At first glance it sounded good, until you realize it just a gimmick, because Obama has never shown any respect for the law. So why would he obey the ruling of a federal judge?

So you think all those Presidents Scalia shook his finger at just woke up and said, "Let's violate the Constitution today!"?

That they didn't have smart Constitutional scholars advising them?

I'm trying to remember when SCOTUS last interpreted that clause.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The fact is like so many other things nobody was completely sure.

 

[Que]

The fact is like so many other things nobody was completely sure.

Everyone was sure.

The administration was completely sure they could arbitrarilly declare the Senate not in session

...while the Senate was completely sure that their being available to say, we are TOO in session negated the administrations argument.

At this point with staffers and phones, the Senate is NEVER "not in session." Any exigent circumstances for immediate action can be accommodated in less than a day.

It is absurd that this is some olly-olly in free rule in a capture the flag game.
"You weren't looking so I defied your advice and your consent! Neener Neener."

Even KAGAN couldn't agree with that.

 

[cjh]

Everyone was sure.

The administration was completely sure they could arbitrarilly declare the Senate not in session

...while the Senate was completely sure that their being available to say, we are TOO in session negated the administrations argument.

At this point with staffers and phones, the Senate is NEVER "not in session." Any exigent circumstances for immediate action can be accommodated in less than a day.

It is absurd that this is some olly-olly in free rule in a capture the flag game.
"You weren't looking so I defied your advice and your consent! Neener Neener."

Even KAGAN couldn't agree with that.

Everybody was sure Obamacare was unconstitutional, too.

And according to some of the justices, his sin was waiting only 3 days and not 10.

And according to Scalia, what he did was not materially different from what most presidents in the 20th century did.

 

[Sean Renaud]

As has been pointed out above clearly nobody saw fit to call Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush on it. If you want to say since the invention of the phone it goes further back if you want to say since email became common Bush II doesn't get a bye.

Nope. Most people thought this was at least technically in bounds if underhanded. But they were wrong. You won I lost. That fucking simple.

 

[jeninflorida]

Fixed your post.

you are a little cunt

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

As has been pointed out above clearly nobody saw fit to call Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush on it. If you want to say since the invention of the phone it goes further back if you want to say since email became common Bush II doesn't get a bye.

Nope. Most people thought this was at least technically in bounds if underhanded. But they were wrong. You won I lost. That fucking simple.

You lost, you approved of appointing against the explicit stated advice and non-consent of the Senate?

On those occasions in the past the Senate was out of session, and those appointments were off the radar. I consider those to be underhanded as well...but you can't over-ride the senates stated objection while they are objecting.

 

[Que]

Everybody was sure Obamacare was unconstitutional, too.

And according to some of the justices, his sin was waiting only 3 days and not 10.

And according to Scalia, what he did was not materially different from what most presidents in the 20th century did.

Not everyone...this was always going to be a 3-4 decision...shoulda been a 2-4 decision because Kagan should have recused herself.

 

[cjh]

Not everyone...this was always going to be a 3-4 decision...shoulda been a 2-4 decision because Kagan should have recused herself.

My memory may be poor, but I'm pretty certain the Chief Justice caught most everyone unaware.

 

[Que]

My memory may be poor, but I'm pretty certain the Chief Justice caught most everyone unaware.

Wasn't THAT a shocker.

Actually more than fair point...if Kagen had not been there I could see Roberts being even MORE committed to his (what?) non-interventionist stand...

In a way I should like the decision, in the vein of not legislating from the bench. Struck me as odd though to make an argument that I didn't see as having been made. ~shrug~

So in a hypothetical 3-3 what happens? I have no idea...

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Wasn't THAT a shocker.

Actually more than fair point...if Kagen had not been there I could see Roberts being even MORE committed to his (what?) non-interventionist stand...

In a way I should like the decision, in the vein of not legislating from the bench. Struck me as odd though to make an argument that I didn't see as having been made. ~shrug~

So in a hypothetical 3-3 what happens? I have no idea...

Lower decision stands.

Totally unsatisfying way to resolve a constitutional dispute.