ha ha ha

[_subgenius]

Not much else really sums up Obama's grasp of the process or his respect for the Constitution.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32516-b ... itutional/

Be sure to follow link at bottom of article titled:
White House: President Disagrees with Federal Court Ruling That He Can’t Decide When Senate is in Recess

it was so absurd a title i thought it was a story from the Onion.

[_Kevin Graham]

Are you really this dumb? This is hardly an "Obama thing.":

When Obama filled the vacancies on Jan. 4, 2012, Congress was on an extended holiday break. But GOP lawmakers gaveled in for a few minutes every three days just to prevent Obama from making recess appointments. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions – some lasting less than a minute – were a sham.

The court rejected that argument, but went even further, finding that under the Constitution, a recess occurs only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of Congress, not just any informal break when lawmakers leave town. It also held that presidents can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the labor board would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.

"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."

Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid.

The Justice Department hinted that the administration would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which was rendered by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. "We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the statement said.

Dumbass...

[_ldsfaqs]

Here we go again, the actual dumbo's calling the other side dumbo.
Classic liberal behavior of being "feed" information rather than finding things out for themselves (hence Kevins quoting of the Huffing & Puffing). Kevin, "truth" doesn't exist at any liberal tomb!

Kevin..... The "problem" was not "simply" recess appointments, the problem was that Obama created an IMAGINARY RECESS when they WERE NOT actually in recess, so he could appoint who he wanted without the checks and balances.

No President had ever done this before. It was a blatant unconstitutional power grab.
And it wasn't the only time he did it either....

[_Kevin Graham]

The first paragraph refutes your nonsense, but it is hardly surprising how things go over your head so quickly.

[_subgenius]

The first paragraph refutes your nonsense, but it is hardly surprising how things go over your head so quickly.

you need to re-read.....whereas you had hardly cinched the position of a** , you are quickly cementing your position as the dumbest a** of all.

The judges note that there were no intrasession “recess” appointments made until 1867 (and maybe not even that one was an intrasession appointment), and a total of only three (including that one) over the ensuing 80 years. From the opinion: “we conclude that the infrequency of intrasession recess appointments during the first 150 years of the Republic suggests an assumed absence of [the] power” to make such appointments.”

Maybe Carney didn’t get the court’s memo.

An interpretation of “the Recess” that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law. The intersession interpretation of “the Recess” is the only one faithful to the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.

[_ldsfaqs]

The first paragraph refutes your nonsense, but it is hardly surprising how things go over your head so quickly.

You need to pay attention to what things actually mean before you judge, thus it is you who's head the paragraph went over.

Republicans were simply trying to keep Obama within the rules, because he liked to break them, and they knew he was trying to break them, which he in fact did. Appointments have every right to be reviewed, save when exceptions/emergency's occur. Obama's actions didn't fit that definition. And like said above, intra-session breaks aren't technically official recesses.

[_Quasimodo]

The first paragraph refutes your nonsense, but it is hardly surprising how things go over your head so quickly.

You need to pay attention to what things actually mean before you judge, thus it is you who's head the paragraph went over.

Republicans were simply trying to keep Obama within the rules, because he liked to break them, and they knew he was trying to break them, which he in fact did. Appointments have every right to be reviewed, save when exceptions/emergency's occur. Obama's actions didn't fit that definition. And like said above, intra-session breaks aren't technically official recesses.

After recent appointments, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments.

[_Kevin Graham]

I guess we will see how this plays out, but as it is, we just saw a few Republican judges legislate from the bench. From politico:

"All three judges who ruled on the case were Republican appointees. Sentelle was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and is considered the court’s most strident conservative. Judge Karen Henderson, another conservative, was appointed to the appeals court by President George H.W. Bush. The third judge on the panel, Thomas Griffith, was appointed by President George W. Bush and is considered more moderate....."

Lawyers on both sides of the recess-appointment issue said they expect the administration to quickly abandon the claim that the ruling has little significance and to argue that the ruling presents an issue so far-reaching that the decision should be stayed or immediately taken up by the Supreme Court or both.

“Potentially everything the CFPB has done and everything the NLRB has done is now retroactively invalid,” Millhiser said. “We have two agencies where everything they do is in question.”

What the Supreme Court will do is less clear, but arguments for a literal reading of the Constitution resonate with many of the court’s conservatives and sometimes with enough of them to carry the day.

“I’m very surprised by this opinion and fairly optimistic it’s going to get reversed,” Millhiser said.”This whole opinion is an indictment of the originalist project……You’re looking at assumptions that have been in place for 100 or 200 years. The nation has functioned just fine during that period.”

Spahr, who mainly represents employers, said she was “pretty shocked” by the opinion but thinks the way Sentelle crafted it gives it a good chance of being endorsed by the Supreme Court.

“If any Supreme Court is going to uphold this decision, it’s this Supreme Court, which is pretty darn conservative,” she said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/o ... z2J9hdFSYA

[_Kevin Graham]

Fox News Misrepresents Radical Court Decision That Undermines Decades Of Executive Action As Only A Victory Over President Obama

In their rush to frame a federal appellate court opinion as a personal rebuke of President Obama, Fox News host Megyn Kelly and frequent guest Jay Sekulow misrepresented the truly radical and unprecedented nature of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on presidential recess appointments. Although Kelly and Sekulow erroneously reported that the opinion only affects Obama's recess appointment of members to the National Labor Relations Board, it actually casts doubt on hundreds of presidential appointments and subsequent actions since the 1940s.

On the January 25 edition of America Live, Kelly repeatedly reported that the DC Circuit "clipped President Obama's wings" by holding the Republican-controlled Senate was actually in session when Obama made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to long-standing presidential powers. The NLRB is, of course, a frequent bogeyman for both right-wing media and corporate interests because of its perceived favorability to unions. Kelly and Sekulow, who filed an amicus brief in the case as Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, claimed the decision's holding depended on the fact that the Senate was technically in session because of a new parliamentary trick that gavels the Senate into "pro forma session" even though no business is conducted. This is inaccurate.

The DC Circuit opinion was the result of a company's challenge to an adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Sekulow, the company argued that the NLRB's decision that it had failed to abide by a collective bargaining agreement was in fact void, because three members of the Board allegedly had not been appointed pursuant to the president's recess appointments power. That is, although the Constitution allows the president to make appointments to executive bodies while the Senate is in intrasession recess, because the Senate was in "pro forma session," the NLRB appointments were improper. The DC Circuit did not accept this argument.

Instead, the DC Circuit took the radical and unprecedented step of declaring that the real problem wasn't that Obama made the appointments while a Senate was pretending to be in session, but that the appointments happened during an intrasession recess as opposed to an intersession recess. Not only was this not what Kelly and Sekulow reported, but the ramifications of this decision go far beyond Obama's appointments to the NLRB. Presidential appointments during intrasession recesses have occurred frequently since at least the 1940s. For example, former President George W. Bush made 141 intrasession appointments during his presidency. According to the DC Circuit, however, those are as invalid as are Obama's three appointments to the NLRB.

As the DC Circuit admitted, this decision is in direct conflict with the 11th Circuit. Due to this circuit split and clear deviation from established government practice and law concerning presidential powers, the Supreme Court is certain to review the case.

However, the fact that it invalidates executive action taken by intrasession appointees is far more unsettling. Despite Kelly and Sekulow's satisfaction that the DC Circuit has temporarily called into question NLRB decisions made during Obama's presidency, they completely miss the bigger picture. This decision calls into question executive decisions taken by not only all 141 intrasession appointees of the past president, but agency actions taken by such appointees stretching back to World War II. The real story was once again a grim reminder of how important the DC Circuit is and that its current conservative makeup has far-reaching consequences.

Unlike Fox News, other conservative media actually read the opinion closely and correctly reported it. On the popular conservative libertarian blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, former Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel and assistant to the Solicitor General John P. Elwood analyzed the opinion:

A panel of the DC Circuit (Sentelle, Henderson, Griffith) today held that President Obama's recent recess appointments were invalid.

This is a very important and very broad holding-indeed, much broader than when it appeared that this case would be resolved on the President's ability to make recess appointments when the Senate was conducting "pro forma" sessions.

The main thrust of the court's opinion is that the recess appointment power extends only to intersession recesses-recesses between sessions of Congress-and not to intrasession recesses. Intrasession recess appointments have been made fairly commonly since WWII, and have been particularly common since the Reagan Administration. UN Ambassador John Bolton and Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. are two of the more high-profile intrasession recess appointments in recent years. The D.C. Circuit's holding is in acknowledged conflict with an Eleventh Circuit opinion from 2004. Intrasession appointments may be even more common than intersession appointments, so this is an important ruling as a practical matter.

[_ldsfaqs]

After recent appointments, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments.

Again, recess appointments wasn't the main point.

Second, yes, Obama's just created "Czar's" who are accountable to know-one save him, rather than fill many appointed positions during recess. As well, he's vastly expanded Goverment positions and jobs into liberal control, in just one dept alone "Transportation" one person made above $150K before Obama, after Obama 1,000 people make over that much. The same has occurred with other Depts. Many new positions, many more making more pay.