Page 1 of 2
illegal appointments
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:19 pm
by GIThruster
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:26 am
by palladin9479
Unconstitutional not illegal, at least not ~yet~. This one will definitely be before the Supreme Court before all is said and done.
Largely revolved around the term "Recess" and it's relation to the Minority party in the senate holding "Pro Forma" sessions once every three days where a few people say their present then walk out the room. The Supreme Court will end up looking at both of those and making a ruling. My guess is they'll uphold the lower courts verdict on the recess appointments, but also state that "Pro Forma" don't count as being "in session" at least past a certain period of time.
In either case I personally believe that both sides were acting like children. The senate minority (regardless of party) should never refuse to vote on appointments. If you disagree with something then vote no, if you like it vote yes, don't pretend that you have "something to say" for six months.
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:20 pm
by MSimon
palladin9479 wrote:Unconstitutional not illegal, at least not ~yet~. This one will definitely be before the Supreme Court before all is said and done.
Largely revolved around the term "Recess" and it's relation to the Minority party in the senate holding "Pro Forma" sessions once every three days where a few people say their present then walk out the room. The Supreme Court will end up looking at both of those and making a ruling. My guess is they'll uphold the lower courts verdict on the recess appointments, but also state that "Pro Forma" don't count as being "in session" at least past a certain period of time.
In either case I personally believe that both sides were acting like children. The senate minority (regardless of party) should never refuse to vote on appointments. If you disagree with something then vote no, if you like it vote yes, don't pretend that you have "something to say" for six months.
You might enjoy a read of Robert's Rules Of Order.
There are lots of ways for a minority to protect its interests there.
These things if contested usually work out badly for those formerly in power because they have no way to protect their interests when the tide changes. And that makes government even more unstable.
Look up the origins of the Civil Service.
OTOH maybe the Civil Service question needs a reexamination.
Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:24 pm
by MSimon
Let me add that in 5th grade we used Robert's Rules to run class meetings. I studied it intensely and used it to totally disrupt class meetings. So much so that I (along with a couple of cohorts) was required to stay in the hall during class meetings. But our teacher was most amused. Miss Kai. I had a crush on her. Until she got married.
I was a member of my High School's debate team. Can you tell?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:19 am
by palladin9479
MSimon wrote:palladin9479 wrote:Unconstitutional not illegal, at least not ~yet~. This one will definitely be before the Supreme Court before all is said and done.
Largely revolved around the term "Recess" and it's relation to the Minority party in the senate holding "Pro Forma" sessions once every three days where a few people say their present then walk out the room. The Supreme Court will end up looking at both of those and making a ruling. My guess is they'll uphold the lower courts verdict on the recess appointments, but also state that "Pro Forma" don't count as being "in session" at least past a certain period of time.
In either case I personally believe that both sides were acting like children. The senate minority (regardless of party) should never refuse to vote on appointments. If you disagree with something then vote no, if you like it vote yes, don't pretend that you have "something to say" for six months.
You might enjoy a read of Robert's Rules Of Order.
There are lots of ways for a minority to protect its interests there.
These things if contested usually work out badly for those formerly in power because they have no way to protect their interests when the tide changes. And that makes government even more unstable.
Look up the origins of the Civil Service.
OTOH maybe the Civil Service question needs a reexamination.
If used in moderation then there is no problem. When used in excess it completely shuts down the government. The Republicans used it as an election tactic hoping to cause such severe harm to Obama's first administration that the public wouldn't elect him again.
Think about that, a political body who's job is to be a counterbalance to unchecked liberal activists instead decides it would be better to harm the country their supposed to represent then to have another black democrat elected.
It's always been my personal opinion that a middle road approach to everything, that focus's on the source of the problems instead of the symptoms, works out best. Any political ideology, like religions, taken to the extreme create nothing but authoritarian governments.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:56 am
by MSimon
If used in moderation then there is no problem. When used in excess it completely shuts down the government.
Well of course. That is what it is supposed to do. You then find out what the other guy's price is and pay it or wait until the next election.
The whole system was designed to make politics slow.
I prefer slow politics to "never let a crisis go to waste" politics.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:04 am
by MSimon
I don't believe in moderate politics. I favor radical politics.
You know - like ending pot prohibition.
What? It is now favored by about half of all Americans? Well it was pretty radical 40 years ago.
Wouldn't want things to move too fast. There are quite a few around here who couldn't handle it. Fine with me.
I was never a "go along to get along guy". It has its good points and its bad points.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:25 am
by KitemanSA
palladin9479 wrote:Any political ideology, like religions, taken to the extreme create nothing but authoritarian governments.
And what makes you believe that is not their purpose?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:40 pm
by MSimon
KitemanSA wrote:palladin9479 wrote:Any political ideology, like religions, taken to the extreme create nothing but authoritarian governments.
And what makes you believe that is not their purpose?
Well try this:
"Governments should be minimally invasive in the lives of its citizens."
Taken to its extreme government mostly leaves you alone.
And thus dominates you? Really?
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:15 am
by ScottL
MSimon wrote:KitemanSA wrote:palladin9479 wrote:Any political ideology, like religions, taken to the extreme create nothing but authoritarian governments.
And what makes you believe that is not their purpose?
Well try this:
"Governments should be minimally invasive in the lives of its citizens."
Taken to its extreme government mostly leaves you alone.
And thus dominates you? Really?
define: minimally invasive
then define: leaves you alone
then propose how an entity at extreme non-invasiveness funds or even enforces all if any of the laws or protects rights of its citizens.
Sticky business and I'm glad I'm not nor ever will be a part of it.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:00 am
by palladin9479
MSimon wrote:KitemanSA wrote:palladin9479 wrote:Any political ideology, like religions, taken to the extreme create nothing but authoritarian governments.
And what makes you believe that is not their purpose?
Well try this:
"Governments should be minimally invasive in the lives of its citizens."
Taken to its extreme government mostly leaves you alone.
And thus dominates you? Really?
Taken to the extreme there is no government and no law. Then the laws of nature / jungle take over, survival of the fittest with the biggest gun. You personally liberties are no longer guaranteed and now are subject to the local thugs fashioning themselves into the next government.
Ending the prohibition of MJ is not radical politics, its actually exactly what I believe in, moderation. We've vilified MJ via "DRUGS ARE BAD, FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" so long that it merely looks like a radical position. It's really a pragmatic one, continuing the prohibition on cannabis is more expensive then treating the social ills that would be created (though there is an argument that those ills already exist and are merely hidden).
I agree that the rules were put in place to force the two parties to work together. Unfortunately the "cost" of the minorities assistance is "death". As in "we'll go along with your plan if you kill yourself first, or die in a fire, your choice". That's when everything shuts down. The younger voters are seeing this, hence the shifting of the poles to the left.
The messed up part is that I'm an incredibly moderate centrist, for every ill I blast the conservatives for, there is another I blast the liberals for. The conservatives of the last 10 years have marched to the right so much that it's put me into liberal territory. I don't want to be a f*cking liberal so can the conservatives please drop the "moral social issues" line and get back to being
real fiscal hawks.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:32 am
by Stubby
GiT wrote:I would like to see some evidence that other Presidents have made a habit of making recess appointments. I doubt that is true. This President has avoided congressional oversight to a fatastical degree by appointing more "Czars" than allo those whoi went before him, and the main point of using Czars is they avoid the congressional approval process.
Pretending that OBama has been wronged by congress who wonb't vote on his appointments is all nonsense. He has for 4 years been deliberately avoiding the constitutional process and his appointments have been spectacularly obscene. Guys who belong in prison for tax evasion, guys who belongh in prison fopr domestic terrorism, all manner of unqualified and whacko-extremist losers. . .it's abig deal. Now he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar and stubby is saying this is what everyonbe else has done.
Lets see the evidence.
Rather than derail the other thread, GiT, I quote the first few lines of the article whose link you posted
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in filling labor board vacancies, a decision that could reshape a long-standing practice by U.S. presidents to make recess appointments. Such appointments—which bypass Senate approval to install top administration personnel—have been used by presidents for at least 90 years. But in the past two decades, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton ratcheted up use of the tactic to avert congressional obstacles. Friday's decision, if it holds, would restrain that power.
italics are mine
Let us know if your source is not enough confirmation for you.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:52 am
by Stubby
Obama Administration appointees have faced an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate.
President Obama currently has a total of 217 nominees pending before the Senate. These nominees have been pending for an average of 101 days, including 34 nominees pending for more than 6 months.
The 15 nominees President Obama intends to recess appoint have been pending for an average of 214 days or 7 months for a total of 3204 days or almost 9 years.
President Bush had made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, but he was not facing the same level of obstruction. At this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:19 pm
by MSimon
Stubby wrote:Obama Administration appointees have faced an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate.
President Obama currently has a total of 217 nominees pending before the Senate. These nominees have been pending for an average of 101 days, including 34 nominees pending for more than 6 months.
The 15 nominees President Obama intends to recess appoint have been pending for an average of 214 days or 7 months for a total of 3204 days or almost 9 years.
President Bush had made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, but he was not facing the same level of obstruction. At this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month.
Don't the Democrats control the Senate? How can Republicans obstruct other than bringing up the history of the applicants? And since when was bringing up career facts obstruction?
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:00 pm
by Diogenes
palladin9479 wrote:
The messed up part is that I'm an incredibly moderate centrist, for every ill I blast the conservatives for, there is another I blast the liberals for. The conservatives of the last 10 years have marched to the right so much that it's put me into liberal territory. I don't want to be a f*cking liberal so can the conservatives please drop the "moral social issues" line and get back to being real fiscal hawks.
And with such statements you indicate that you have not the slightest clue what is driving the financial problems of this nation.
Without a population that understands and follows a set of rules which are required for civilization, it will never be possible to solve financial problems.
Libertarians all suffer from the same lake of comprehension and deluded beliefs; That you can have a functioning society without an underpinning moral system.