Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your arguement holds no water. Currently the Democrats control Congress and the White House. Were your example one of a split Congress it would have merit; however, it fails.
The GOP had the House until 2006 and the Senate from 2002 to 2006
Your arguement holds no water. Currently the Democrats control Congress and the White House. Were your example one of a split Congress it would have merit; however, it fails.
Ever hear of the filibuster? Besides, unlike Republicans, Democrats hold a variety of views and don't march in lockstep with one another.
That's not what the rule allowing recess appointments says. It says that they must be approved to the post by the end of the "NEXT" congressional session. So, the appointment will be good until at least the end of 2011, 1 calendar year.
Incorrect. All recess appointments end when the session in which they were appointed comes to an end. For example, John Bolton was a recess appointee of President Bush in August 2005. He had to resign his position by the end of 2006 because that was the end of the session. Congressional sessions are two years, not one calendar year. Which is why the next session will be the 112th Session of Congress, 224 years after the first congressional session began.
All recess appointments made during the 111th Session of Congress (2009-2010), that was not subsequently approved by the Senate, comes to an end at midnight on 12/31/2010.
Every president does it. Obama is certainly entitled to do so also. One would hope that he makes good choices.
Obama is the only President to make a recess appointment just days before the end of the session. Every other President knew better and made their recess appointments at the beginning of the session.
I hope their three days on the job serves him well.
Bush made quite a few recess appointments during his 8 years in office.
Was that authority suddenly rescinded when a Democrat became President?
I'm sure SOME of the posters here on CD think so?
You betcha.....Steve
Hey, Steve, this round of skirting the Senate puts Obama at 28 and at the same time in his term, Bush was at 23. I guess Obama is ahead and will always be since Bush can't come back.
In terms of how the "war on terrorism" should have been fought, he's right. It's a lot more like figthing organized crime than a conventional ground war.
We've wasted a lot of time and money and lives fighting it the wrong way.
Didn't we have a President before Bush who wanted to fight terrorism as if it were some kind of criminal activity, only? I guess his style would have led to more 9/11s but sure might have saved a lot of money.
We are at "WAR" with religious fanatics that have no country nor uniform by which to be identified with a country. When captured they must be held until the war is over! There is absolutely NO PLACE in any of our civilian "criminal justice" system for these horrifying idiots, not even to mention the fact that our Constitution "should only" apply to our American citizens and those who are here "LEGALLY!" It doesn't cover the rest of the world and certainly never war criminals. Any citizens or legal immigrants that commit a war crime should be treated as "traitors," not civilian criminals to be handled by our civilian justice system.
I am appalled at how twisted some of our Americans have become.
Finally Obama grows some spine.
More appointees are needed for the court system to function without interruption... Do your job, Mr. President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.