E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Justice Department concluded in a Jan. 6 memo to the White House counsel that the Senate's "pro forma" sessions don't actually interrupt a congressional recess.
Because they don't, the president was entitled to exercise his constitutional power to make recess appointments, the department concluded.
President Obama used that authority last week to name Richard Cordray director of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He also made additional recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
"The Senate could remove the basis for the president's exercise of his recess appointment authority by remaining continuously in session and being available to receive and act on nominations, but it cannot do so by providing for pro forma sessions at which no business is to be conducted," says a memo from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.
The memo was released today in response to calls for a fuller explanation of the legal basis on which the White House acted.
The question, the Justice Department says, is a practical one: During these pro forma sessions, is the Senate actually able to provide advice and consent to nominations? Obviously not, the memo says, which makes them a "recess" in name only, and not in substance.
Even so, it says, "the question is a novel one, and the substantial arguments on each side create some litigation risk for such appointments."
Leave a Comment:
I'll leave this to the exploding heads soon to enter ...
Looks to me like the Democrats are ready to roll up their sleeves & get to work;
Either they are in session or they are not...
Jim Moran...lol.......That dude is a joke. His rants fall on deaf ears. Everyone knows before he even step to the mike; he is coming with a liberal rant.....they should play the Lone Ranger theme song everytime he speaks.
So very typical of you ITM - you cannot refute the facts so attack the messenger!
*yawn*
Next...?
That didn't take long...
Hope you brought your rain coat! ☺
kinda like you did last night with that voter fraud thing
Every party complains about recess appointments. Non-issue. Suck it up, get over it.
LMAO....OMG....way too rich. One could only hope they actually worked.
Libs rolling up their sleeves. To do what? Cash their checks?
Good one girly_bits! Keep 'em coming
ITM ... keep Gioachino Rossini out of it.
Agree 100%
feisty 1.3 - talk about calling the kettle black??
you, the self proclaimed maven of this site that regularly resorts to name calling with your offensive avatar have the audacity to say that about someone's post???
amazing.
Ruh-Roh.....you may have awoken the sleeping dog....I mean dragon.....she don't take kindly to that kinda stuff. Only SHE can be nasty around here mister.
It's in the rules. You DID read the rules, right? First post and spineless attacks are in sole possesion of Crusty. Now go back into your corner before she smacks you with a rolled-up newspaper.
Please, for the love of God, play nice or she'll be mean to all of us.
Feisty
Article 1 Section 5 Clause 4. Look it up. I'm surprised that the DOJ didn't mention it in their memo.
michael -- playing nice means nothing with her, she needs no excuse to let loose with her venomous comments.
she seems to live each day just to see how many people she can insult. i wonder what the record is? double-digits? triple-digits?
Why didn't Obama just submit the name months ago?
Madison- he did
James,
You would be well served to re-read your comment history...
Then get back to me with your phony holier-than-thou attitude!
You're right - on this we can agree!
Republicans have low self esteem and it manifests itself as anger.
It's going to be very entertaining watching individuals and businesses challenge the validity of many actions taken by, or on behalf of, these "recess" appointees in the federal courts. I can see hundreds of lawsuits winding their way through the courts with one or two eventually going up to the SC. Barry relied on his incompetent moron AG, Eric Holder, for this opinion. I just hope that dunce Holder is around to have to defend all these lawsuits.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I still haven't figured out why the truth has a tendency to do that to them!
Although, Forrest might be onto something...
Thanks! ☺
I'll even sign it for ya! lol
This a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. Don't like it tough. He should have taken the opportunity to load up on all the remaining appointments that have been stonewalled by TeaPubs as well.
Madison From NY??? DU-uh...
"Where are all the jobs the Tea-ReTards promised, their focus was on the 1%"
Ask Mr. Obama "where are all the jobs" since he has a "laser beam" on job creation since the Spring of 2009. Now, just who is the retard ?
The DOJ speaks empty words. He should have been FIRED weeks ago because of Fast and Furious. But wait a minute, can't fire someone who watches your backside and has to support all of your Court cases. Maybe Mrs. Obama will weigh in.
LOL.....you folks kill me. Feisty the Redhead is really a Blonde convert. Wait, that explains her rants.
Democrats suck. They play the "pro-forma" game to stop Bush but Republicans are breaking the rules when they do it. The elections can't come soon enough. All you First read libs are going to be the ones with your heads exploding. The American people are tired of the games and will they will finish the shellacking that started in 2010.
LEAN FORWARD libs, you are about to fall over though.
Patriotic - You must have been asleep last week when all the talk was on the good news about Obama's jobs report.
1/20/2013 - the end of an error
funny that its ok when harry reid holds pro-forma sessions and prevents bush from doing recess appointments. but when republicans prevent obama from doing it and he goes and does it anyway nulling precident, its ok.
are you all serious?
Fiesty is irrelevent. Ignore her.
Didn't Obama say he would come up with a new idea every week on creating jobs in this country. That lasted what...2 minutes.
Weird?
Yet, BB finds me 'relevant' enough to take the time to comment... lol
You might want to think about taking your own unsolicited advice in the future!
JH? YOU do not speak for the "AMERICAN PEOPLE"! Hell, you don't even speak for a majority of American People. You have an opinion and you are entitled, but don't even pretend that you have majority backing. You don't.
There is precious little difference today between Democrats and Republicans. What I see is a game of political one-ups-manship and precious few of our elected officials are doing anything that is in the best interests of our country.
President Obama will be re-elected in November 2012, and I would not be a bit surprised to see many of the ultra-conservatives lose their seat as well.
What we NEED right now....is for Congress and the Senate to take actions that are in the best interests of ALL of the American people, and not just in lining the pockets of the wealthiest donors to their re-election campaign funds.
EVERYONE has promised jobs...neither side has delivered. Both Obama and the tea party have said that when they were elected there would be jobs. Neither side has done right by anyone.
but it was ok for georgie to do it? I think not. Actually, there must be a good reason presidents of both parties are allowed to do this - perhaps our founding fathers knew there would be obstruction from oposing parties? Anyway, if it is good for one it is good for all - which is something the wingnuts absolutely hate regardless of what the issue is.
@union baby
georgie didn't do recess appointments in pro-forma sessions
nice try though
Slodon, reread your constitution. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4 refers to vacancies in the House of Representatives and how those vacancies are to be filled. It does NOT refer to administration appointments to departments or agencies. Only the Senate has "advise and consent" powers on presidential nominations. The Senate has been sitting on this appointment for what, nine/ten months now?
JT, you like so many others continue to make the same mistake. It is NOT Congress and the Senate, it is the House and Senate, both of which make up Congress. It really is a misnomer to call Representatives (members of the House) "Congressman/woman" instead of Representative, since Senators are also members of Congress and should also be called by Congressman/woman if you are not going to be using their proper title.
Thank you atp. I stand corrected.
JT
You also have an opinion and you are welcome to it. It just so happens that I believe you and the rest of the American people that think Obama will be re-elected are brain dead. If you think he has performed well for the country then you are in the minority. He job performance has been dismal at best. He has failed us and you just don't see it. The First Read liberal crowd is such a miniscule minority that I come here to comment just to get people like you riled up.
President Obama has been interested in only one thing - growing the progressive/liberal agenda of soaking the rich and dividing the American public. We currently have a Republican majority in the House and things have been getting slightly better since the change. The slight job growth is not because of Obama, it is because American businesses like the fact that the libs aren't in total control anymore. Now all we need is to continue the shellacking and get back to business in America.
1/20/2013 - the end of an ERROR (one huge error)
The 'libs" were NEVER in total control, since the Dems are a melting pot of ideas and they never all agree with any one approach, unlike the GOP that set one goal and stuck to it...."make sure this president is a one term president, no matter what we have to do to meet that goal". The Dems would have had to have a constant super-majority of 70% in both houses to have had total control. Since the Blue Dog Dems (the same as a RiNO) often went against their own party, there was never a real majority in either house prior to the 2010 elections.
"The Justice Department concluded in a Jan. 6 memo..."
Were they really going to say they disagreed after Obama had already made the appointments?
This is the same "justice" Dept that is suing Americans in order to pander to foreign criminals for political purposes... it is a sad joke.
union -- Here is a pretty good description, nothing really to do with obstruction:
It has been argued that as the clause was originally understood, it was expected that if the Senate was in session when an office became vacant, the president would make a standard advice-and-consent appointment at that time.
The argument further maintains that recess appointments were only to be made during intersession recesses, which during the early days of the country lasted between six and nine months, and were therefore required to prevent important offices from remaining unfilled for long periods.
The current interpretation allows appointments to be made during recesses too brief to justify bypassing the Senate.
I don't like recess appointments.
They are a sign that our government is broken.
Bush did this as a habit, Obama does it because of the obstruction by the Tea Party anti-patriots.
The so-called "conservatives" are losing.
For evidence, look at the wierd posts by people like Michael1969.
If all they can offer is satire, then the "conservatives" are in big trouble.
Michael, your avatar is something I expected from an illiterate inbred racist.
Does it make you happy to show ugly images on an international blog?
Do you think you are helping the "conservative" cause?
I think, you are actually showing the worst part of America. The reason we are hated by so many countries.
feisty 1.16 -- wow!! I guess i should feel honored that you took the time to go read my comment history which would be the only way you could honestly make this comment --
You would be well served to re-read your comment history...
Then get back to me with your phony holier-than-thou attitude
no holier than thou in my post, just my opinion. relax, take a breath
I've never seen Feisty hurl unwarranted crap at any poster. What I have seen her do rather eloquently is hold up the fan to blow the sh$t back to the corner from whence it was hurled. Keep it up Feisty - their are some nasty name hurlers on these boards that deserve to be covered in their own excrement.
.
Is there any wonder that 'Little Holder' would rule in favor of Barry? They're two pees from the same pod.
Pro-forma rules seems only to hold true for the Dems and no one else. Hypocrity here perhaps?
And the Crispy One has never been seen throwing the nasties to anyone RedDevPS? You need to read her reviews and come back with a different conclusion. She is the queen of excrement is you are now aware. Amazing how she obtains confidential email info from the moderators of NewsVine.
Figures this ruling would put Teapublican panties in a bunch!
Whatever chicken$h*t reasoning they try to come up with, the bottom line is this was a bogus move just like when a Congress of EITHER party pulls some stunt to pass a controversial bill like doing it in the middle of the night !! I'm tired of "leaders" of BOTH parties thinking they're above the rules and that we have to suck it up. Another strike against voting for President Obama in my book !!
@ ReddevPS Feist and eloquent? I spit my coffee out on that one. Surely you jest. Perhaps you should look up the definition and look at some of her posts.
Right or wrong, the justice department works for the President. So what is new?
Thanks RedDev!
The right wing bullies sure like to dish it out - getting it handed back to them... eh... not so much! ;o)
The jack of all trades & master of none couldn't resist chiming in... lol
I hate to muddy the waters with fact, but every Prez makes recess appts. Go look the numbers up -Reagan made 243, Bush made 171 and Obama has made 29. So what's the problem with Obama making his? I can guess.
Just remember this ruling work BOTH WAYS, when the Republican's control the White House (next year), we better not hear any whining when the republican's use this tactic.
Although I do find it odd that the "Pro Forma" sessions were adequate for the Democrats to block Bush's recess appointment and now are magically not. Hypocrisy is a word that comes to mind
Because Bush was not smart enough to realize the proforma sessions were bogus. If he had challenged them he would have beaten them as well.
Uh.... No Feisty that would be you. You don't carry on a conversation as much as you drop your load of mean girls name calling and insults and run when challenged for an actual response or dialogue. I see you had no responding comments on the great state of Illinois financial woes from yesterday. I also see you still haven't learned how to work that Ignore thingy.
I wonder why you don't follow your own suggestion?
Sorry sweetie - I have (5) people on the 'Ignore thingy', unfortunately for you, you didn't qualify! ;o)
You & your 'expertise' on anything & everything is far too entertaining to ignore!
I find internet know-it-alls, like yourself, fascinating...
ksw62118, post 1.47 - Spit my coffee out ??????? I thought you were a tea guy ????? Only Dems & Independents drink Coffee, you are breaking the rules.
The Justice Department are lawyers not judges. Their opinion will be discussed by judges and when they are found wrong, as they were yesterday when the US Supreme Court spanked them on Religion, they will be put in their place. The courts will decide whether or not Congress is in session or not.
It's tragic this administration gets away with expending so much tax treasure suing the citizens of this country. When has the Supreme Court upheld this bully administration so far? At what cost do we put up with this?
...
Antitrust -
I just love it when the left says that they never had enough of a majority to get things done. The nasty republicans blocked all the good that our President tried to do. TOTAL BS. The way I see it is, if that were true, how did Bush do so many bad things for the country? Were there a bunch of spineless whiney dems in Congress that hid under their beds and just let Bush do what he wanted? Every time Bush wanted to cut a little out of entitlement programs he was labeled as wanting to kill Americans with his cuts. Then the libs scream about him spending too much. I can't wait for the shellacking to continue.
............................"I think Romney is a fugitive" ???????????? ..............."Is Mitt a Citizen" ??????????
anti-trust
RE READ MY POST!! I said Article ONE(1) SECTION FIVE(5) CLAUSE FOUR(4).
Here let me help you out.
Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Now since the House did not give it's consent for the Senate to adjour for more then THREE(3) DAYS,the Senate is STILL IN SESSION.
Stop the Presses! Stop the Presses!
Prez O's employees, the appointees that are directly under his supervision in the
Executive Branch of Government, agree with their ultimate superviser--Prez O!
Hey, we look at it this way - we only have a few more months to put up with this inept, unqualified fool as president, so let him have his piddly recess appointments, as moronic as they may be, and let's just work to make sure the fool is voted OUT in November to show him we're done putting up with this socialist crap of his.
RMJ, Winterland, Ky #1.31,
People, meet reality ! We are destined to have significant unemployment for the foreseeable future, except for work off the books. Our politicians, regardless of party affiliation, have failed to prevent this problem. To them, more people means more tax revenue.
Please look our rate of population growth here in the US.
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspopulation.htm
Don't forget about technological advances that have significantly reduced the size of workforces necessary to produce most products. So much for our illustrious government leaders, anticipating this. To them more people, more tax revenue for them to frivolously spend.
Unqualified my A##. You sound like a racist who can't stand the fact that a black man is president. I'm working to ensure that not only is he reelected this year, I want the two term limit on the number of times he can be elected to be repealed. Obama makes the best GOP candidate unqualified, stupid, and heartless, kraussk.
31 seconds does not create a session Slodon. I am of the opinion it was WRONG for the Democrats to set the precedent the GOP is following. Recess appointments date back to George Washingtons term. Lest you forget, Bush made 170 recess appointments, and you are ranting about 32 recess appointments.
Yet Bush never appointed anyone during pro' forma' seessions. His DOJ advised him to continue but he respected the Congress.
BTW: Everyone that dislikes Obama is not a damn racist. I'm black and I don't particularly care for his policies nor his vision. I guess I'm a damn bigot too.
I don't know whether the appointments are legal or not, but Obama owns the Justice Department and has shown he doesn't care about what is legal or not and has taxpayers footing the bill every step of the way.
So, when he is gone and a republican is back in power, no one favoring Obama on this should complain when things happen the opposite of the way they think it should.
Of course that won't happen, will it Feisty?
I wish he could just have these obstructionists fired for dereliction of duty, and have done with it. Why, when we are so worried about spending our tax dollars on projects that don't work, are we still funding congress? Make it a volunteer organization, since they come and go as they please anyway.
Just one small problem... The Senate was NOT IN RECESS!
Having the Department of Justice offer an opinion, after the fact, is pretty bogus, especially an opinion that is counter to one provided in 2010, and one that runs counter to 200+ years of precedent. Due to the Separation of Powers, it's not up to the Justice Department to determine what the Congressional Rules are, it's up to the Congress to state when they are in recess and when they are not.
You'd think a President who was an instructor in the US Constitution at Harvard University would know better.
Also;
That's exactly the reason we have three seperate but equal branches of Governement, to prevent having a nut like Obama run this country into the ground. There are checks and balances to control incompentant boobs like the "accidental President" that we got in 2008.
.
@Patriotic Who said I was a Republican or a guy. Making a lot of assumptions there. I hate tea and Feisty's just rude.
Fisty, I've not seen any posts from you that is not just a slam, ie. "Repubs are dumb"....obviously, you make up in fluff what you lack in substance...much like Obama!!!!! And BTW, I didn't mispell the first word!!!!
Somebody clue Barbie Doll in that the nominees names have been put up for months prior to the recess appointment, it's just the repubs have been refusing to act on them because it's not what they want.
Justice Department, ROFLMAO. The same justice department that is sueing states and allowing Illegals to invade our country, what a Hoot. The tables will turn in 2012, and the next congressional elections will seal Obama's fate should he be re-elected. The party of freebies is going down.
Some will say, this whole "fake session" to avoid recess appointments was the brain child of Reid. I say, it was BS than, and it's BS now. Anyone who knows anything about our current financial system understands the absolute necessity we have for this department. Those politicians standing in the way of the very reasonable selection of Cordray as the head, are doing so, not simply because they are obstructionists (and we all know they are), but also because they are in the pockets of Wall St. The completely unregulated, uber-complicated, casino, where the too big to fail banks use our money to gamble and make billions, and than use our money to bail themselves out when they make bad bets, is scared poopless that their rigged system of heads I win, tails you lose, might have a wrench or two thrown into it by the CFB. Ergo, they're gonna pull every string on our bought politicians to try to, at least, delay this as long as possible. And yes, by politicians I mean BOTH sides.
How about the House and Senate do a roll call vote each day to see who is actually showing up for work?
I read an article on another web site that said the Mr Harry Reid is the person that started the pro forma sessions a couple of years ago. Two wrongs do not make a right. Both parties need to stop the B.S.
Gee,
Let's ask the get-away driver if the bank robber did anything wrong.
hahahahaha
This whole administation is a LAUGHINGSTOCK!
All the thieves got together, and they all agree that they are not thieves.
Obama using the Constitution as a door mat will keep many lawyers employed for many years. With all the bs Obama's DOJ is putting out, and all the bs those lawyers will have to slog through, those must be some of the "shovel ready" jobs Obama talked about.
Gee, I wonder where all the jobs are that Boehner promised we'd have when he became speaker of the house.I guess the only way to get anything done in Washington is to do it yourself, Mr. President...
In all my years I have never seen a more do-nothing congress. No wonder the president has to do things the way he does. At least he's getting something done and the economy (Although slowly) is coming in the right direction...
Terry-CA: You are aware of the fact that anything the House passes has to also pass the Senate and then be signed by the president, right? The House has passed a number of bills (including a budget!) that Harry Reid and his fellow democrats in the Senate refuse to even bring up for debate. It seems that the only chamber doing nothing is the Senate. I agree, those in the majority of that house should be sent packing.
Another good move by the president to trap republicans at their own game, they either accept his appointment or they spend precious remaining time filing lawsuits which will bring their approval numbers down to ever record breaking lows, because the electorate is only interested in one thing, which they promised and did not deliver, they would be wise to make an honest attempt to fulfill their promise of jobs. But they will likely they fall into the trap of fighting legal battles to prevent the American people from having a consumer protection agency, they already lost their ass on this one, by not confirming Warren who is now going to take a senate seat from them, now Obama has given them a second chance to shoot themselves in the other foot on the same issue.
JAS1, did you see yesterday where the SCOTUS unanimously rejected the EEOC in their defense of a fired Lutheran Minister?
Seems the Administration supported the minister in her "wrongful termination" lawsuit.
Except the First amendment of the Constitution said otherwise.
Looks like the White House got their "Interpretation" of the Constitution wrong again.
And Obama is a Constitutional scholar?
2012 will be a good year for the Constitution. Not so good for those who keep trying to work around it.
@ Forrest gump
funny that its ok when harry reid holds pro-forma sessions and prevents bush from doing recess appointments. but when republicans prevent obama from doing it and he goes and does it anyway nulling precident, its ok.
are you all serious?
IF warren is elected, oh man, our country is straight doomed. there is no one that is more dangerous than her with a senate seat.
Terry-ca - haven't you seen the December numbers for unemployment? 200,000 jobs were added. You aren't referring to those jobs, are you? If those aren't jobs, then what are they? I wish liberals like you would stop whining... you never serve cheese.
The SC did indeed reject Obama's EEOC claim of wrongful termination of the Minister.
Of course you'll never see that story here, or with the MSM. Too busy talking about Michelle joining Twitter.
Well then we may doomed because it is looking like she very well may be elected to the senate, and if she is you can thank republicans because they blocked her nomination for the CPA position, which prompted her run.
Naah, she'll be one of a hundred, and in the minority to boot. Just another loon, just another screecher. We survived Al Franken (Dumba**-MN), we would survive Warren.
But the Liberals will just love her and hero worship her. So they'll have that going for them.
forrest -- if she is elected she will join the senate minority and will likely participate in the same activity that the republicans are accused of doing with her appointment.
do you think that president romney's appointments will all be welcomed for the advise and consent with which the senate is chartered without out democrat obstructionism?
@JAS1 and WCA - Wow just because the EEOC is a govt agency and Obama appointed members of the commission, you believe ANY SUBSEQUENT ACTION by a Fed Agency to be personally directed by Obama himself via Blackberry?
Get the Eff out of here and again.... STOP REACHING for ish to complain about.
As far as the SCOTUS case is concerned, it seems the "ministerial exception" needed to be clarified as it has never been prior.
Unanimous decision there Top Ten. Overturning the activist judges in the 6th Circuit Court ofAppeals.
The White house came out in strong support of the EEOC on this one, so yeah, they linked themselves to it.
Yah, I wonder what would have happened in any of the dozen or so Bill's the House sent to the Democratically controlled Senate were passed, let alone debated.
Also, what ever happened to Odumbo's claim that he's going to "focus like a laser beam" on the economy. Guess he's run out of power for that laser.
.
Couldn't find a windmill that generated enough electricity to power that laserbeam! And the solar panel guys that he tried to prop up went bankrupt!!!! The TeaParty promised they'd FIGHT for jobs...no guarantee they'll win when the other 2 seats - the Senate and the WH - are controlled by idiots. How many House-passed bills has Harry Reid even allowed debate on? Very few...maybe 1 or 2. Do Nothing Senate is the better description.
I'm going to assume FR got this backwards, not the Justice Department. They are "sessions" in name only, not in substance.
Give FR a break it's hard to keep up, defend, and spin for the most inept and arrogant administration in modern times.
Rob-Ma: Much less with the idiotic, obstructionist, do-nothing House Teapublicans.
Obama is out of ideas, out of excuses, and just about out of time!
Rob-Ma: So do you have any actual relevant observations and input to provide, or just this kind of stuff?
and yours was relevant?
The tea party makes up 19% of congress. Surely, Obama can out maneuverand outwit such a small fraction of congress?? He is the President after all with the bully-pulpit.
Rob in ma-3189632??? out of time??? in your dreams, li'l one, in your dreams. LOLOLOL!
Rob-Ma: If you need to see more substantive comments of mine, you're welcome to go to my Vine page. I've watched your remarks long enough to see the pattern toward random, negative nonsense devoid of any factual content or other meaningful value.
Here's something substantive, factual, and positive.
Gallop Poll "who is the BEST President EVER?"
1. Ronald Reagan 2. Abe Lincoln
Hmm...must have been polling a "special" group...to put Ronnie over Lincoln...
Rob?
re: your post 47.1... I am sorry, I didn't realize George "W" Bush was still in office? His Administration was " the most inept and arrogant administration in modern times." You can pretend all you want. You can try to re-write history all you want, but in the end....your boy "W" wins that prize.
re: your post 47.8. You do realize that Ronald Regan would not even qualify as a Republican based on the most right leaning fringe requirements. Ronnie "RAISED" taxes, remember? Today's Republican party would have called him a RINO and dismissed him just as easily.
In truth, the REAL power behind Ronnie was Nancy and she was an extraordinary person.
Again, based on current Conservative's "purity" tests today....Ronnie wouldn't even qualify.
Interesting that you claim him as your hero now.
Viktor - and the left provides concise, accurate portrals of the right? They are void of nonsense? They never stoop to namecalling, or demeaning the rightwing posters?
Wait!! Your post 3.7 is exactly what I'm talking about. In your mind, the left is always right and the right is always wrong.
Sheryn-Lou - You are correct... Obama still has one year left to continue his damage to this country, raise our debt by trillions and completely ignore the deficit. Am I dreaming? I sure wish I was.
Ike was the ONLY 20th century GOP president (except maybe for Teddy) that should be in than ranking.....definitely not Ronnie boy. I guess those that were surveyed don't really know their American history.....oops, our schools barely teach that any more, right? And what they do teach is full of lies. We really should have listened to Ike when he warned us to "beware of the military/industrial complex."
<sarcasm> OMG, Brian....I think HELL just froze over. I actually agree with one of your posts! </sarcasm>
As American citizens, we should be able to come together and speak with ONE VOICE... have open and honest discussions, solve problems and move the country FORWARD.
I think, it's easier to gripe and bi#%h about other's points of view. But in the end, we all want what is best for our country.
I have to give credit to Carl Rove and Newt Gingrich. They took demonization or non-conservatives to a whole new level. They defined specific words to use when referring to non-conservatives, and they were MASTERFUL at it. And it's biting Newt in the butt today!
Brian B: Suggest you re-read 3.7 since you're so concerned about Rob-Ma. If you read carefully you'll see I refer interested parties to my Vine, where you can read my comments to your heart's delight. Some, like Rob-Ma's, are quick gotchas; but unlike Rob-Ma, the majority of what I post here attempts to provide meaningful content.
Further, in your mind, I'm sure you're willing to allow the left to be correct, yes? *I* am willing to allow the right to be correct and the left to be incorrect, as the situation warrants.
Brian? Thank GOD! That didn't last but about 4 minutes. On your post 3.12
"Obama still has one year left to continue his damage to this country, raise our debt by trillions and completely ignore the deficit. Am I dreaming?"
Yes, you are dreaming! You know GD well where the debt came from! You KNOW our President didn't raise out debt by trillions.
WHY, WHY WHY....do you continue to post that distortion?
It would not have mattered who won the election in 2008. Either Senator McCain or President Obama. The mess handed over from "W" would be the same!
We cannot fight two wars and create a new Prescription Drug program "off the books", and not have a negative impact on the economy or the debt.
You KNOW where and when the problem started!
JT - distortion? How is it distorted that when Obama took office we had $10 Trillion in debt and now Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling another trillion? By the end of his term we will be in debt $17 trillion. A little quick subtraction and you will find that in 4 years, the debt has gone up $7 trillion. How is that distorted? Now if you want to toss in unfunded wars, deduct $800 billion and you will still come up with $6.2 trillion. Explain to me how this is controlling costs and seeking out the country's welfare? This is the same Obama that believes tossing money at every problem, shall I say stimulus, actually makes improvements.
Now if you won't admit that Obama has done this, you can stay in your distortion.
I'm not sure what mess you are alluding to coming out of the Bush administration. If you want to obfuscate the issues, then you won't take into consideration the inedpt congress that was voted in 06 when the problems in the housing and banking industries started... but there again you are so ready to blame Bush for problems in those industries... At the same time you completely ignore the problems that Obama has brought into this country... What can I say, you look at our situation in the light of blaming anyone not of your ideological belief.
So you think....the two wars and the Prescription Drug program (Medicare Part D) should have stayed OFF the books (hidden)? What is your answer then? More tax cuts for billionaires? Go shopping? Further de-regulation? Demonize everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view?
I have not been happy with some of the choices our President has had to make. But I will point out that noone...NOONE could be successful with the kind of opposition he has faced since taking office. When the President is FOR an idea..and instantly the Conservatives are opposed, no matter what the cost? And you lay the blame with our President?
And you accuse ME of obsfucation? T'is to laugh!
Rob the most arrogant administration was G.W.B.s Fiesty is not attacking G.W.B. though I'm sure she was when G.W.B. was in office.
This is only a memo from the Justice Dept. It will be litigated in essence due to the fact the Justice Dept. do not set the rules of the Senate.
I personally would like to see it go to court just so this type of ish can be hashed out. The Democrats started this whole fiasco in an attempt to hurt Bush but as usual things always come back around.
Obama will not be the POTUS forever. The next Republican in office should go out of control with recess appointments and then we will see if the Democrats will remain quiet.
Why not do the peoples work and quit the games of putting nominees on hold or not allowing them to get to the floor for an up or down vote because of personal or political gain?
Even so, it says, "the question is a novel one, and the substantial arguments on each side create some litigation risk for such appointments."
Dennis I agree. It is so hard to get things done. Why couldn't the Senate and House simply vote up or down? Why does everything have to be filibuster proof?
The problem I see is that this in session vs. pro forma session is legalize to allow less to get done.
A word of caution, however, if Obama's move holds, as soon as a GOP president is in office it means they can appoint a recess appointment during pro forma session. There would be no way to stop a future GOP POTUS from appointing a (shudder) Cheney to the UN or to the state department.
Dennis:
Because representatives are people too. Everyone is not going to like all in Congress. They come from all parts of the country and represent many different groups of people. Neither you nor I know what each and every representative is being mandated to do by THEIR VOTING constituents. I know what we told our rep to do when he got to D.C. So far he has done everything he was voted in to do.
Everyone hates Congress but love their own. I'm speaking of the people that actually vote, not just the complainers.
... and therein lies the problem. EVERY F*cking politician is trying to one-up or hurt the other party instead of doing what is right and good for the country. This is why we have the government we deserve... we have the politicians we elected. Until we elect people who aren't into the payback game, our political process will continue to swirl down the toilet.
But any Presidential recess appointment is only valid for one-half of a Congressional session (1 year max) and if not confirmed by the end of the half session he/she must step down.
The people's work my arse, already to many liberal hacks in "jobs", "positions" or "appointments" that they are unqualified or incapable of.
So ITM, how loud do you scream when Democrats pull the same stunt?
ITM,
I am talking about the Senate rule that allows one Senator to put an indefinate "secret hold" on any nominee with no reason needed. This has been used to try to get the President to change his stance on an issue or agree to an amendment that puts a project in that Senators home State.
Is this the way our Government should be run?
Dennis,
How are you today, good I hope. In response to your post above (4.1), if I remember right it was Senator Reid (democrat) that came up with the pro forma sessions to stop recess appointments by President Bush, and he bragged about it. Now he says Obama did the right thing so I guess that makes Reid and Obama hypocrites (Obama was in the Senate at the time). It also shows that Bush had more respect for the democratic controlled Senate than Obama does.
Dennis, I agree with your post at 4.8, but that is the way it has been done for years. Remember the Senate can make it's own rules. Remember when the democrats screamed like hell when the republicans were talking about using the so called "nuclear option" on appointments by Bush, meaning no filibustering.
Greg, you'll remember this line:
"Heckuva job, Brownie!!!"
Guess your opinion needs to expand to include appointees outside of the liberal arena, no?
Sarge,
I never, ever said I agreed with the pro forma concept ... I don't.
Just more tricks to avoid their respocsibilites.
Sure there would. They could stay in actual session, rather than pretend session. If it's important enough to block it's important enough to put off a vacation for.
You're correct...the Senate does set its own rules. Lost in your uproar over the action the President has taken is the historical reference to Report 58-4389 which was issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In this report, the committee defined a "Recess of the Senate" as...
"The Justice Department concluded in a Jan. 6 memo..."
Were they really going to say they disagreed after Obama had already made the appointments?
This is the same "justice" Dept that is suing Americans in order to pander to foreign criminals for political purposes... it is a sad joke.
Much has been made about how Bush honored the pro forma sessions and 'the tyrant' Obama didn't - as though Bush played by the Marcus of Queensbury rules. Have you folks all forgotten the expansion of executive power under Bush? Let's compare apples to apples:
After 9/11, Bush proclaimed a national emergency and told congress he needed to act unhindered by political games. The Democrats agreed, and gave him everything he asked for. Rather than thanking Dems for putting the country first, Bush responded by attempting to permanently codify his new powers. After a number of years, with the emergency in the rear view mirror, Democrats began to reassert the oversight powers of congress.
After the crash of the American economy, Bush again declared an emergency, and again Democrats stepped up to allow legislation that they never would have except under such dire circumstances - for instance government bailouts of financial institutions.
But when a Democrat became president, even with the economy in freefall, Republicans decided that the emergency they left for him was really a political opportunity. Far from following the Democrats example and giving him the room to act, they stood in united opposition to him, cynically calculating that by stopping him, the pain of a collapsing economy would help them regain executive power in the next election. Using every technicality, including the threat of fillibuster for ANY legislation proposed by Democrats, they effectively shut the government down at a time when we desperately need it up and working.
Republicans forced this move by Obama, by trying to hold the American People hostage to their short term political goals. The cries of their minions that this is unfair is as disingenuous and cynical as their leadership's message to Americans: put us back in power, or we will find every technicality we can to make sure you suffer. As an American, I do not think it wise to negotiate with those who would take hostages - much better to find other ways to defeat them. I am very happy that Obama has finally decided to fight technicality with technicality, and if he continues, I think he will win reelection.
Yeah...the President gets to ignore the Constitution because Eric Holder says he can. Who could possibly argue with a logical explanation like that?
.
Like the gun running to Mexico, thats a-ok too :D
daryl,
Actually, the Reps are just re-using a process Reid and Obama (both in the Senate at the time) came up with to block Bush recess appointments. So, who's the idiot trying to rewrite the constitution here? Really, I only see one option, no matter which process you support.
How did the President ignore the Constitution? Specifically, it appears that he followed it just like every previous President has:
"Article II, Section 2, Clause 3: The President shall have the Power to fill up all the Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
In addition, President Obama's selection received 53 votes in the Senate before he was forced to make a recess appointment. A majority that, as usual, was defeated by a McConnell filibuster threat. Surely we all agree that Constitutional authority is going to defeat a "pro forma" rule of the Senate? If you're still uncertain, watch the video. They literally meet on the record for 30 seconds every three days. It was a joke.
cloth ho - No president has ever made "recess" appointments during a 3 day break, ever. Three days has never been a recess, that is how. Do you understand now?
Certainly not John Yoo.
Did anyone expect anything different from the Department of Justice? Of course they will side with the Administration. If I remember right the Obama White House claimed that they relied on the advise of White House counsel and did not ask DOJ. Further, I believe there were a couple of bills passed by congress while they were in pro forma recess, so there was business conducted.
The democrats better realize that come Jan 21, 2013, the Senate will probably be controlled by the Republicans, and remember the Senate can make it's own rules by a majority vote.
Since the pro forma sessions was started by the Democrats, and Bush chose to honor them shows that President Bush had a lot more respect for the Democratic controlled Senate than President Obama does.
These appointments were a political ploy by the President to try and aid his bid for reelection. It had nothing to do in helping the economy, create jobs, or any substantial benefit.
sfcret: Seems to me the Bush Administration relied on its own DOJ to permit waterboarding etc.? How different are these two scenarios?
And with the Republicans' stated goal from the beginning to eject Obama after one term, who is lacking regard for whom? As ye sow....
"The Justice Department concluded in a Jan. 6 memo..."
Were they really going to say they disagreed after Obama had already made the appointments?
This is the same "justice" Dept that is suing Americans in order to pander to foreign criminals for political purposes... it is a sad joke.
Sure. I remember John Ashcroft refusing to answer questions (as contitutionally required) regarding legislation congress had passed and was up for review. Even though the issue did not relate to National Security (the sole exception to the constitutional requirement), Ashcroft argued a new technicality he had invented: that 'in a time of war', public support of the Commander-in-Chief was de facto a matter of National Security. In other words, any information which could hurt Bush POLITICALLY effectively voided the constitutional requirement of congressional oversight! Only positive information was thus required to be provided to congress.
That equals about as much respect as Ribbentrop showed to the French.
When the gauntlet slams down in the Senate, they are in session. I don't buy this "pro forma" stuff.
did you buy it 5 years ago when the democrat leader of the senate started the idea? or is it just now that republicans are using his strategy that you don't buy?
I am intellectually honest so I don't care what party is in the White House. Congress is lazy and corrupt.
Wakeupnow, You slept during social studies.
Bill,
Actually that would have been American Government and I had several disagreements with my liberal professor who proclaimed "There will never be a third party President".
Off Topic -
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Jan. 11 to uphold the “ministerial exception” that allows religious organizations to hire and fire ministers without interference from the government.
Any opinions on this?
What does the "exception" exempt? Civil Rights laws on hiring?
thetotas
I had an opinion on this. It was regarding the Americans with Disability act and a teacher that was not given back her job because of her disability. Clearly this is a civil rights violation. I don't know much about this ministerial exception, or even if the ministry has to be an EOE. Isn't the minsterial exception in there primarily for church sects that want to ensure that they don't have to allow women as priests, ministers etc.
I don't think that anyone should be able to discriminate.
Perhaps it was another ideological decision by the SCOTUS?
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that under the First Amendment churches are entitled to a "ministerial exception" and thus dismissed a wrongful termination suit against the church.
A unanimous decision, the liberal and conservative justices agreed. That is not ideology.
Have to agree...it would have been "ideological" had it gone the other way.
James - Thanks for the added information. Ok, so it was unanimous. It doesn't automatically mean it was right. If it was unaminous I guess there were following a precedent. Lets put the particular case and person out of the discussion and just talk about the principles.
The 1st amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...
How does the SCOTUS ministerial exception ruling square that it is ok to be contrary to the 14th amendment equal protection under the law? Why should a possible civil rights violation in denying a disabled person a job be ok?
Just my opinion and not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem right.
If they get their calling from God shouldn't they get their pink slip from God?
Yeah it's just 21st century Christians hard at work. You know, spreading hate, intolerance and divisiveness.
Yellowdog, the church in question claimed essentially that telling them who they have to hire does impede their free exercise of religion. I buy that for clergy, I'm not so sure about science teachers.
Yellowdog - I'm no expert either, but think you will find that past Supreme Court decisions have extended the "religious freedom" principle in the Bill of Rights, to effectively create a "wall of separation" between Church and State.
Can you find a provision in the Constitution that would specifically exempt Churches from taxation? Don't think so...yet they enjoy that privilege. On the other side, is there anything that would bar prayer in public schools? Probably not...unless that "wall of separation" exists.
The Supreme Court ruling is being reported as a big blow to Obama and his administration.
The Obama administration has consistently held a “stingy view” of what qualifies as religion under the law.
This view is exemplified in the very narrow religious exemption permitted by the Health and Human Services mandate requiring health insurance providers to cover contraception, he said.
By unanimously upholding the rights of religious groups, the court has struck a “very big blow” to the administration’s narrow definition of religion, which it described as “extreme,” “remarkable” and “untenable,” Rienzi said.
He explained that the decision could have “ripple effects” as courts continue to examine the contraception mandate and other decisions by the Obama administration dealing with the freedom of religious organizations.
Bottom of Form
This separation of church and state is difficult to follow, can you tell me why this ruling would be seen as a big blow for Obama and his administration? Does this play into the birth control/abortion issues?
The Supreme Court ruling is being reported as a big blow to Obama and his administration.
The Obama administration has consistently held a “stingy view” of what qualifies as religion under the law.
This view is exemplified in the very narrow religious exemption permitted by the Health and Human Services mandate requiring health insurance providers to cover contraception, he said.
By unanimously upholding the rights of religious groups, the court has struck a “very big blow” to the administration’s narrow definition of religion, which it described as “extreme,” “remarkable” and “untenable,” Rienzi said.
He explained that the decision could have “ripple effects” as courts continue to examine the contraception mandate and other decisions by the Obama administration dealing with the freedom of religious organizations.
Bottom of Form
This separation of church and state is difficult to follow, can anyone tell me why this ruling would be seen as a big blow for Obama and his administration? Does this play into the birth control/abortion issues?
Re-read the ruling.....it was because the plaintiff was BOTH a teacher and a MINISTER teaching both secular and religious studies and Robert's ruling very clearly stated that it was that ministerial position that required them to rule in the church's favor. If the plaintiff had only been a teacher (and not also a minister within the church), the ruling would most likely have been different. That is part of the separation of church and state.
JohnNY and stone6 - interesting points brought up by you and others. What do you know a civil discussion about religion - except from Kingofthehill.
I guess the separation of church and state wins out on this one even though it is not specifically addressed in the consitution, other than what the 1st amendment says.
Sorry for the double post!
A principle drawn from the religion clauses of the First Amendment. It allows religious groups to make employment decisions free of government intervention.
So, it reinforces the separation of church and state and is consistent with prior Supreme Court decisions, no?
LOL Holder would back Obama if he found $ 1 million in cash in the White House refrigerator
That was fresh Arugula, doll face, not cash.
arugula, oh no, is that the next thing the administration will make us buy after health insurance???
What a surprise an obama justice department supporting an obama action. Third world nation status welcome the good old U.S.A.
Attorney Generals usually uphold the President who appointed them...remember Gonzales? Or, how about John Mitchell? Didn't he go to jail over lying for Nixon?
What a surprise....Waterboarding is not torture - according to the Bush DOJ. Regardless of what the Joint Chiefs think, or regardless of the Geneva Convention. I don't think you should go there. Compare that to President Obama's right to appoint his cabinet
cathym..... Any President absolutely has the right to make recess appointments. However, when Bush was President the democrats created a sneaky way to prevent President Bush from making those recess appointments, the made sure there were a few democrats showing up just long enough to make the claim that they were not in recess. I'm pretty sure you didn' complain about that tactic when the democrats were playing fast and loose with the Constitution nor was senator obama.
President Bush refused to make those recess appointments because the democrats played their games and he decided to abide by their rules.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot president obama has chosen to talk out of the other side of his mouth and made recess appointments under the same conditions that the democrats had created.
I know cathym we only uphold the constitution when it suits our fancy.
It was a stupid game when Harry Reid did it, and a stupid game when Mitch McConnel did it. The difference was that Dubya was either a wimp or not smart enough to ask the DOJ for a legal opinion. The fact is, it was objectively a brilliant political move by President Obama. He comes out on the side of consumer protections for all Americans, and Republicans come across as trying to protect Wall Street and predatory lenders.
What are Republicans going to do, sue the President? If they do, they look even more desperate and against middle America, trying to eliminate the head of the Consumer Protection bureau. The fact is, Obama called their bluff, and there is really nothing thet can do but grumble. Obama seems to have learned (finally) how to use the court of public opinion to his advantage.
clotho -- do you suppose that the new chief of staff, you know, the former Citi executive that collected nearly a million dollar bonus after the federal bailouts while his division bet against the housing market?
i don't think that the lawsuits will come from politicians but rather come from the business that are surely to be negatively impacted by this ill-conceived bureau which has no congressional oversight.
he may have had the court of public opinion for a few days but as this appointment gets into the court of law i think he is bound to lose.
Clotho if you really knew anything it would be amazing. President Bush was told by DOJ that he should ignor the democrats ploy but he decided to play by the rules set up by the senate, that is an honorable decision not a wimp.
You will undoubtedly respond with a lot of unrelated issues about things that Bush did that you didn't like but lets try to keep on topic and only respond to this issue.
The President may just feel that it is time to settle the question of "What is a recess?" once and for all. The Supremes will probably have to decide and then, perhaps, we won't have this discussion anymore.
In my view, if the Senate can't gather a quorum within a few hours, it's a recess. It is unconscionable for a presidential appointment to languish for months, even years, without so much as a hearing. I don't care which party is responsible.
why do you think it is the President's job to tell the Senate when they are in recess? Separation of powers would strongly suggest this is just not right.
okiejoe perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the Supremes were a singing group in the sixties, perhaps you should show a little more respect and use the correct terms when refering to the Supreme Court Justices.
It is not unconscionable for Presidential appointees to languish for months or even years as you put it, again perhaps you are unaware that we have a President not a dictator and under the Constitution of the United States of America it is called 'checks and balances'. If you want to live under a dictator move to Iran, Syria, Venezuala or Cuba.
Under many other Presidents there have been other nominees that congress would not confirm and their names were withdrawn, again news for you that it how our country works.
I'll remind you of a statement that president obama made a couple of years ago, "elections have consequences" he was riding high after the 2008 election when the Senate, the House and the Presidency were in the hands of democrats well he was knocked down a peg or two after the 2010 election and now will not acknowledge that he was correct "elections do have consequences".
JonExner,
Settle down..referring to the Supreme Court as the "Supremes" is common in the legal profession, and has no connotation of disrespect, except, of course, to idealogues such as yourself who find fault with any post on here with which you don't agree.
guesswhat54 - Finding fault as you put it or providing an opposing opinion as I would put it is what this cite is all about. I guess you found fault with my position so you posted your feelings. I guess you believe it should only go one way, your way.
Just because the legal profession shows disrespect or is it just pure laziness does not make it any more correct. That's the problem of where this country is headed. We have become lazy, it is easier to say supremes rather than the supreme court or supreme court justices.
So now you can again excesize your free speech and find fault with my position and respond in kind.
Did anyone in their right mind expect that the DOJ would do anything but rubber stamp what Obama has done? Really? This is the same Eric Holder who wore out several sets of kneepads already from his trips to the Oval Office. He makes Monica Lewinski look chaste.
This is why White House chiefs of staff keep quitting. They know that once the new administration takes over a real DOJ will prosecute all of Obama's crimes currently having their investigations obstructed by Holder. The chief of staff is so senior there is no chance of "plausable deniability." That means jail time.
what crimes might those be?
failure to uphold the constitution comes to mind, he did, after all, swear an oath to do so.
You right wingers are so amusing. The Constitution specifically grants the President the power to make recess appointments and it has been done by just about every previous one, from Washington to George W. Bush. In fact, the Bush appointment of Bolton to the post of UN Ambassador was an example of that. [Made necessary, as I recall, because this nutcase was not acceptable even to the Republican controlled Senate.] And yet, you want to impeach and even prosecute Obama for doing the same thing. Wow!
The fact that the GOP Senate minority has used the legislative trick known as the filibuster to block even voting on dozens of Obama appointments is also apparently o.k. with you guys. [Please don't give me the song and dance about it being in the Constitutuon; it isn't] The reality is that this appointment was submitted moths ago and that a clear majority of senators (53) were in favor of it but were blocked by Mitch (one term for Obama) McConnell. Liberals can only hope that the Democrats pick up and follow that example if and when they are a minority in the Senate and have a Republican president. Payback is a bitch! Come to think of it, things would be better today if they had filibustered the Bush taxcuts (which needed Cheney to cast the tie-breaking vote) and the Iraq War resolution...
@Cal.... Seriously? "Liberals can only hope that the Democrats pick up and follow that example if and when they are a minority in the Senate and have a Republican president." You are so clueless that you are unaware that pro-forma sessions were created by Harry Reid and supported by then senator Obama in 2007 specifically to block Bush from making recess appointments? I don't believe you are that clueless. I believe you are a typical dishonest progressive. People like you disgust me.
I love it! Obama Lies! nice name and comment! but all demos and liberals
lie cause they are all hypocrites and big government union rich socialist
and they want Obombo to be their little corrupt dictator! chicago thug!
Good comment too Madison! his green czar with his racist communist
comments went first and then been running like scalded cats!
The intelligence of the Obama haters on here always just leaves me amazed. No facts, no discussion, no new ideas, no new thoughts. Just paste a bumper sticker on him and send him out.
Intelligence obviously has no place in the Republican party, They consider Newt a genius, Hahahaha
Goodvsevil, last administration lied, way don't YOU round them up in the name of justice.
One would think that the TeaPeople would be VERY happy with AG Holder and President Obama......
Remember, President Obama decided early on in his Presidency that 'investigating' the previous administration, Bush/Cheney, would cause harm to the nation!
Therefore, those involved in 'war crimes', 'torture', 'betraying the public trust/lying' are walking free and still being handsomely rewarded with very big checks and benefits!
Perhaps, in due time, the ICC will punish the guilty!
Why don't you just say "thank you President Bush for keeping me and my kids safe".
Well except the 4000 plus dead American sons and daughters and thousands more wounded for nothing, there were no WMD's and we were never threatened by a country with no navy and no air-force, and they did not have a damn thing to do with 9/11. You really claim he kept our kids safe, safe from what? I would like you to explain that one to me.
So says.....Rob in ma-3189632
"Why don't you just say "thank you President Bush for keeping me and my kids safe"
Will do Rob, as soon as you admit there should be an investigation of the Bush/Cheney Administration for war crimes!
Carry on and don't forget the 4500 military members sent to their death on lies ...and the 100,000 innocent Iraqui......and Billions (unfunded) spent!
Well except the 4000 plus dead American sons and daughters and thousands more wounded for nothing.
A very good friend of mine lost his son in Iraq. If you said that in front of him he punch you square in the head!
You people are nothing but trash!
If he punched me his anger would be misdirected, I did not send his son to a war with no real justification, so answer my question, what did your poor heartbroken friend's son die for, what did that kid lose his life protecting us from.
My son served and lost friends in Iraq, and NOW he knows the war should have never started. If I were your friend I would be mad at the idiots who manufactured the whole "reason" for invading Iraq. I understand how grief can color your judgement, but you can't change the truth.
This kids are the best and bravest to put their life on the line for their country, but the least their country can do is have a valid reason when asking them to do so.
Why would anyone thank him when he allowed 9/11 to happen under his watch. He was warned and failed to act.
Then forget about the guy responsible "because I have not heard much from him lately". That's okay Obama cleaned that mess up too.
@Forrest Gump.... Do you progressives ever tell the truth? The troops were pulled from Iraq on exactly the time schedule set by Bush. Obama had nothing to do with it. In fact Obama campaigned on promising to bring them home his first year in office. How did that work out?
rob..it does not stop at the white house..open your eyes and look at the way all the children in the house and senate...their all whaaaaaa whaaaaas...
all the pres. have made recess appointments..or do you see what you want to see and forget the rest....that's the problem with we the people.. short term ( like the senate is going to be shortly) memories.....obama 2012
you mean short term like what he said as a Senator in 2006 about US debt and presidential leadership?
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
drmr - "all the pres. have made recess appointments..or do you see what you want to see and forget the rest"
So why did the Democrats invent the tacvtic of "pro forma" sessions to stop presidents from making them?
P.S.
NO president has had the arrogance to do it during a standard 3 day break.
So, exactly what have they done in those "sessions"? Certainly NO WORK. If the lights are out and nobody's home, it's a recess in fact. Republicans have been making it impossible for Obama to get the country's work done by blocking more nominees than anyone in history.
http://www.americablog.com/2011/08/gop-blocking-larger-percentage-of-obama.html
If only Congress had listened to him then, we might be in much better shape now. If Bush had implemented strong economic policies to pay for the two wars and Part D, we wouldn't be in this myriad of dept.
George W Bush made 171 recess appointments. Do you find that excessive? Perhaps the Senate did, or perhaps they felt he was appointing unqualified candidates, I don't know. I believe a few of them had been under some kind of investigations prior to being appointed. I do know that even Bush did not face the unreasonable obstruction that Obama has. Obama has only made 32, and that is not because they were unqualified or under investigation, but because the Republicans must block EVERYTHING he tries to do, even if it is in the best intrest of our country.
@Charctine... It does not matter if Bush made 10,000 recess appointments. That is not the issue. The issue is the Senate was NOT in recess when Obama made these recent appointments. Obama DOES NOT have the authority to determine when the Senate is or is not in recess. According to the constitution that authority belongs to the House of Representatives. Congress does not work for nor is it subservient to the president no matter what Obama and Holder think.
Hahahaha,,,,,,,,OK, OK, The Republicans spewing idiocy have proven a MAJOR point
Thanks, President Obama for side-stepping the worthless house and filibuster-senate to provide the American people with some level of oversight from fast-talking, predatory bankers and lenders.
D- If it were not for the House, America would be in more of a mess!Thank you Republican House members for stopping the liberal Obama tax and spend juggernaut!
M Thompson, the GOP congress are 6 years to late to stop the spending!
History lesson: President Ford preceded Carter.
Daryl- Keep dreaming!
Iraq, Medicare Part D, (Bush) tax cuts for 'job creators' = $3 trillion+
Keep blaming Obama if you want- but those tax cuts didn't usher in a new wave of American prosperity- it just blew a whole in our budget for no good reason but to pacify the rich.
daryl said it- Obama's cut taxes
@D-1129384...... Do you even realize how hypocritical you are? You claim the "Bush tax cuts" brought ruination to the country but within the same short post you praise Obama for doing the exact same thing! The blatant lies and hypocrisy spewed by progressives are very good indicators of the type of people they are. Dishonest, untrustworthy and unethical sums up progressives pretty well.
Well, That's a surprise!
Where's congress MIA? Maybe forgood, we can always hope. I'm glad somebody's trying to get something done. If they'll just stay gone a little while longer maybe we could see some bipartisanship.
Obama knows what he's doing....repubs hate he's so intelligent...
Obama again in November 2012, then Hillary C for 8.
intelligent?? how do we know? certainly not from his performance as president.
where are his university transcripts? why won't he release them? what is he hiding?
not very transparent is he?
Just out of curiosity have you asked for the transcripts for George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry? I bet at any given time you were one of the 25% of likely GOP voters on the bandwagon of each one of them. It can't possible be because he's black, can it? They are all stupid and can only make it with relaxed standards and lots of help.
Just to help you out, he graduated Cum Laude from the most prestigious and hardest to get into law school on the planet. In case you don't understand the term because it does not apply to GED degrees, the phrase is Latin for "with honors". For good measure, he was voted President of the Harvard Review, a distinct high recognition, by his fellow students and not one applied to marginal students. It's o.k. however for all you right wingers to keep on believing he's stupid and so are those of us who elected him. I'm sure you'll wake up in November and realize we've done it again.
James, dude, you need to watch with your own eyes, when Obama, by himself, no teleprompter, stuck it to the entire Republican caucus.
He knew his facts, he was quick on his feet and presented arguments that could not be dismissed.
Watch the whole thing and ask yourself if you could do as well, on TV, on stage, in a room full of people who don't like you.
Roll one up, sit back, relax and enjoy our centrist President do his job:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ
James - President Obama celebrated his 50th birthday - why stop at his university grades - go back to his high school or better yet 8th grade
On a more current topic if your limited brain can follow - let's see Willard Romney's IRS Returns , my President has shown his - probably too much for you to comprehend since you're so focused on the past
Better yet James let's see your university grades!!!!
@Cal... If I am not mistaken George W. Bush's college transcripts were released. So were Sarah Palin's. If John McCain, Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry were constantly being called geniuses by their supporters I would demand to see some proof.
@Barbara..... I agree... Let's see Obama's high school and grade school records... ALL of them. His registration records as well as his grade transcripts. And sweety, James is not running for the office of president nor is he claiming to be a genius.
dmac225
When Obama releases his transcripts and they turn out to show that he received excellent grades. What will your next "Yah but" be? It does not matter what he does or did, you will not believe they were or are legit.
It's no surprise that the Justice Department sided with their boss but it was Democrats who started the pro forma process to begin with. The ironic thing is that they have just set precedence for future administrations so don't complain when we elect a Republican later this year and he starts forcing nominations through during each Senate recess. What comes around, goes around.
lukewarm, you got to know how to work it. Saber rattling isnt impressive any more.
Already did... under GW Bush 171 times. Under Reagan 240 times!
This is no big surprise........our DOJ is also suing a state for something already upheld by 2 other Supreme Court decisions.....and law in many others. How many lawsits does Holder currently have against States???? Over 30? All this while trying to avoid charges of incompetency and corruption......
The DOJ isnt going after the govenor of mississippi are they?
Lived there for 13 years.....,Barbour has the in state hounds on his ass......that was a stupid thing he did.
it's interesting that the DOJ didn't lose this memo, but lost the one about operation "Fast and Furious".
toy..that would certainly shake up dc gops..16 yrs of dem rule.. bottom line is simple.. the children need to learn to play better in the sand box.....gops and dem!
The White House makes a procedural move to invalidate the pro forma sessions.
The pro forma sessions were a procedural move by the Senate minority to block recess appointments.
Recess appointments were a procedural move by the White House to get around a Senate minority's filibuster.
The filibuster is a procedural move that was never supposed to exist in the first place.
So we're debating the constitutionality of a procedural maneuver countering a different procedural maneuver to counter the first procedural maneuver countering another procedural maneuver that has no basis in the constitution at all. And they wonder why people think Washington is broken?
Nathan, two or three senators dose not make a body for advise and consent. Are they not partying in south america on a tax payers junkett.
You mistake me. I am not commenting on who is in the right or the wrong here. I am merely observing the absurdity of the system as a whole. I'd love for a constitutional crisis to force the Supreme Court to rule that the Senate or Congress cannot use internal rules as a ploy to avoid any Constitutionally mandated duty. Clearly, recess appointments were intended to be used in times when the Senate was unable to review and confirm a nominee, not in the modern circumstance where a minority of the Senate is simply unwilling to allow a vote to occur. The obstructionist escalation of both parties has reached a point where nothing can get done.