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.
Ouch, this will bite them in the ass. It's pretty funny actually. Just another do as I say not as I do.. ����Good God, this year is going to be hilarious to watch.
Yeah sure. Good work. Even more hilarious watching extremists posting gotcha, and then oops...
Obama is not trying to pass a recess appointment. Do you guys even read the your own 'gotcha posts' linked articles???
Although the vote occurred in an election year, there is no indication that this vote was about election year appointments specifically. Eisenhower had used the recess appointment power to make previous appointments to the Supreme Court, and Democrats objected to further use of the recess appointment power. No President has used the recess appointment power to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court since then.
You better re-read what your link actually says...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucFan
You mean this part?
“Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”
Yeah, big different than actually passing a resolution to actually block.
All can do is point out that the article doesn't back what the title of this thread says. I can't make you comprehend it, too.
Yeah sure. Good work. Even more hilarious watching extremists posting gotcha, and then oops...
Obama is not trying to pass a recess appointment. Do you guys even read the your own 'gotcha posts' linked articles???
Although the vote occurred in an election year, there is no indication that this vote was about election year appointments specifically. Eisenhower had used the recess appointment power to make previous appointments to the Supreme Court, and Democrats objected to further use of the recess appointment power. No President has used the recess appointment power to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court since then.
Ouch, this will bite them in the ass. It's pretty funny actually. Just another do as I say not as I do.. ����
Good God, this year is going to be hilarious to watch. The rich get Richer and their poor and working class voters get the royal shaft.
At least the antics of both parties are coming to the surface.. Voters seem to be finally fed up. We will see.
It appears that you don't know what a recess appointment is. Not surprising as most Americans talk big but know nothing about how our government actually works.
A recess appointment is, like it suggests, an appointment made while the Senate is in recess. These are temporary pending Senate approval upon Senate's return to session.
However, I am sorry to report to you that Obama has already stated that he will not be doing a recess appointment on this. He is going to do his job while the Senate is in session by sending them a nomination, and then the Senate can do its job by vetting the candidate and voting yes or no on approval.
See how simple this is if people just follow the Constitution and stop with the political monkeying?
It appears that you don't know what a recess appointment is. Not surprising as most Americans talk big but know nothing about how our government actually works.
A recess appointment is, like it suggests, an appointment made while the Senate is in recess. These are temporary pending Senate approval upon Senate's return to session.
However, I am sorry to report to you that Obama has already stated that he will not be doing a recess appointment on this. He is going to do his job while the Senate is in session by sending them a nomination, and then the Senate can do its job by vetting the candidate and voting yes or no on approval.
See how simple this is if people just follow the Constitution and stop with the political monkeying?
"and then the Senate can do its job by vetting the candidate and voting yes or no on approval."
And the Senate can take AS LONG A IT WANTS.
It took a dem controlled Senate 16 months to vote in committee for Estrada.
And that was for a lower court appointment.
For a Supreme Court appointment it makes sense that it could take longer.
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.
