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.
The Senate was gaming the system. They had one member on site, going in each day to open the session, then close the session. I dont like it, but unfortunately it is the rules of the game. Yet another example of the phony way of doing business in Washington.
No I dont know who, but I am guessing it was a republican senator, seeing as the prez is a dem.
Why don't you ask ole' harry reid since he seems to constantly change the rules of the Senate and it is ALWAYS to give the dems the edge.
As I recall, the NLRB was unable to do any business until (at least some) of its vacancies were filled. They didn't have enough for a quorum, if memory serves. Obama's illegal appointments filled the quorum, and the NLRB proceeded to make a number of rulings, decisions etc.
Now that those appointments have been found illegal, do the decisions made by the NLRB during that period, get rescinded?
That's what I heard, all of those thousand plus decisions have been rendered void.
Why don't you ask ole' harry reid since he seems to constantly change the rules of the Senate and it is ALWAYS to give the dems the edge.
Actually what Reid did was the correct way to handle the problem if you saw it as a problem. Congress can set it's own rules, the president can't.
If there is a problem getting nominee's confirmed because the bar has been set too high the solution is for the Senate to lower the bar. You can disagree with that but it's the correct and proper way to address things. In large part it's why the court ruled as it did. There was a solution to what was perceived as the problem.
I expected this ruling, but suspect it is going to be bad for our country due to our poor government representatives who act like children.
Historically presidents have always done this. That does not make it constitutional however. But overall no one really cared a ton as everyone knew it allowed our government to function, and placed a check on a minority from derailing government.
Now however...now...oh my.
Reid kicked this off, the idea of "not being in recess" while no one was present. In order to enforce an agreement with Bush I think? Either way it was a bad precedent to set. It really brought this up as a way to really hold appointments and the functioning of our government hostage.
In the end I think the senate is going to have to exercise the nuclear option to make appointments on a majority vote, and to end discussion on a majority.
Probably a good thing, but watch folks go insane about that.
"Historically presidents have always done this..." I am going to have to challenge you on this statement.
REMEMBER we are talking about making recess appointments while Congress is STILL in session according to the rules of Congress.
Maybe if we are lucky Reid will get voted out and we will have a more cooperative senate. The way they vote is not the problem. We all know who the two troublemakers are. Send them packing and then our government can get going again. The Democratic Party would be better off without either of them. Remember "We need to vote for it so we can see what is in it." Has there ever been a more stupid statement made in history? Well maybe "What difference does it make?" Everything one does matters in some way.
It is good to keep voting at a two-thirds level. Without that too much trash can be accomplished.
"Maybe if we are lucky Reid will get voted out..' I believe he was just re-elected.
Our only solution is to get the repubs in control taking the leadership AWAY from him.
Actually what Reid did was the correct way to handle the problem if you saw it as a problem. Congress can set it's own rules, the president can't.
If there is a problem getting nominee's confirmed because the bar has been set too high the solution is for the Senate to lower the bar. You can disagree with that but it's the correct and proper way to address things. In large part it's why the court ruled as it did. There was a solution to what was perceived as the problem.
"the solution is for the Senate to lower the bar." Why would we want less qualified people?
Yes, but unfortunately, the Congress has no backbone to deal with Liar Obama.
"the Congress has no backbone to deal with Liar Obama." The repubs are powerless to do much if the dem controlled Senate wasn't participate.
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.
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.
