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.
Pro Forma sessions with that contain no Senate business (what is going on here and now) versus recesses that are only three days between sessions that contain ACTUAL REAL WORK. (Perfectly acceptable that the President is not allowed to do this)
I believe Congress and its separate bodies make the rules, not posters on anonymous forums.
Democrats had used a similar process to try to thwart Mr. Bush's recess appointments late in his term when they controlled both the House and the Senate. Prodded by West Virginia's Robert C. Byrd, who has since died, Majority Leader Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma session. Some advisers urged Mr. Bush to ignore the Senate and make recess appointments anyway, but he declined. Now Mr. Reid is supporting Mr. Obama's decision to make an end run around a Senate practice that he pioneered.
The writers are Washington attorneys. From 2005 to 2009, Bradbury headed the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, and Elwood served as deputy assistant attorney general. Although Bradbury was nominated as assistant attorney general in 2005, his nomination was never voted on by the full Senate. Individual senators put holds on the nomination, and Senate leaders instituted pro forma sessions to prevent a recess appointment.
Pro Forma sessions with that contain no Senate business (what is going on here ) versus recesses that are only three days between sessions that contain ACTUAL WORK.
Perfectly reasonable that the Pres in not allowed to appoint during 3 day recesses between "real" sessions of Congress.
How did Harry Reid pull it off for a full year..2007-2008 ? Bush could make no recess appointments due to pro forma sessions.
No. The Constitution, for which this president has no respect. You like this sort of thing? Just remember that what goes around comes around.
That doesn't matter, we're talking Republicans here. Does anybody in their right mind seriously think that they wouldn't do it just because the last Democratic President didn't do it? With Republicans what goes around comes around and also what doesn't go around comes around so that doesn't matter
If it's legal, and if it should have been done, are two different things. Bush appointing Bolton via recess appointment shouldn't have been done because Bolton is a clown of a man. It was, however, legal. It's also perfectly legal for me to spout racist gibberish, just as it is for me to say racism is bad, but one of those is a good thing and one is not. Something being legal is not the end of the analysis.
The system is clearly broken with regard to appointments and has been for, apparently, over 100 years. If Congress has a problem with a candidate, they should deny the appointment and cite why. If they can't do that, they have no business cockblocking the process simply because they don't want to make the hard choices.
I meant that Congress will do nothing to stop him or undo what he's done about the appointments.
I'm still waiting on Congress to do something about Libya. All they got was a memo.."FYI, I'm going to bomb Libya tomorrow and don't need your approval."
That's because Obama views himself as King Barack "Milhous" Obama, and he needs no stinking congressional approval, if it interferes with his political agenda. Oh sure, he'll take their approval if he can get it, but if not... pffffft... then he thinks he can just bypass congress and do it on his own.
If Obama does not like a specific law he can craft a signing statement to exempt his administration, or simply tell his DoJ not to enforce it, or hand out waivers like to his political and corporate cronies, or seemingly deny them to people who will not pay to play.
Pro Forma sessions with that contain no Senate business (what is going on here ) versus recesses that are only three days between sessions that contain ACTUAL WORK.
Perfectly reasonable that the Pres in not allowed to appoint during 3 day recesses between "real" sessions of Congress.
But you were OK with it when Dirty Harry pulled the same thing? Curious.
But you were OK with it when Dirty Harry pulled the same thing? Curious.
I am trying to figure out what some of you think is the downside to this appointment? Make some RW Repubs mad? I think he accomplished that when he got elected. Then could it be the Congressional Repubs will not support his legislative desires? I think he accomplished that when he got elected too. Is it legal and winds up in Court? That could happen and the SC could find against him. Naw, even if they did that, that would just show Americans that not only does he have to fight Repubs, he also has to fight SC to get things done that the American people want so much. Naw, I don't see much downside.
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.
Naw, even if they did that, that would just show Americans that not only does he have to fight Repubs, he also has to fight SC to get things done that the American people want so much. Naw, I don't see much downside. 
