E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA federal appeals court on Wednesday takes up the issue of a president's power to make appointments when the Senate is out of town, one that has divided Congress and the White House for decades.
Last January, President Barack Obama infuriated Senate Republicans by naming Richard Cordray to be director of the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and putting three new members on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
NBC's Pete Williams reports on whether Supreme Court justices will enter the battle over same-sex marriage.
"It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward," House Speaker John Boehner said at the time. "I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate."
Now the issue is squarely before the courts. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., is taking up a challenge to the appointments, hearing a lawsuit brought by a Pacific Northwest soft drink bottler who lost a union dispute before the NLRB.
The company claims that the president had no power to appoint the new NLRB members and that the subsequent action by the board therefore lacked legitimacy. Similar challenges are pending in federal courts around the nation, brought with the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.
At the core of the dispute is a provision of Article II of the Constitution, setting out the president's duties and authorities. They include "the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."
During the nation's first century, Congress was in session less than half a year. Recess appointment power allowed the president to keep the government functioning by filling important jobs when the Senate was not around to confirm nominations.
In modern times, presidents of both parties have used the power to make appointments during much shorter congressional recesses in the summer and around holidays.
But during the George H.W. Bush administration, Democrats came up with the idea of pro forma sessions, in which the body was gaveled to order then immediately adjourned for another few days. They claimed that the Senate remained in session and that recess appointments could not be made. Senate Republicans have since continued the pro forma practice.
"Such short intra-session breaks are not recesses," the bottling company argues in court papers. "Otherwise, every weekend, night or lunch break would be a 'recess' too."
What's more, the company argues, the Senate, not the president, is the proper judge of whether it is in recess, and it agreed by unanimous consent to remain in session from mid-December to mid-January. During that period, on Dec. 23, the Senate passed an extension to the payroll tax cut, the company notes.
Senate Republicans have filed their own friend-of-court brief. They argue that by declaring the Senate incapable of performing its functions during the pro-forma sessions, "the president usurped the Senate's control of its own procedures. And by appointing officers without the Senate's consent, he took away its right to review and reject his nominations."
But the Obama Justice Department argues that the pro forma procedures, each lasting less than a minute, are a sham and do not mean the Senate was actually in session. "It could not provide advice or consent on presidential nominations during that 20-day period," government lawyers argue.
In agreeing to its holiday break, Justice Department lawyers note, the Senate "provided by order that 'no business' would be conducted."
The government lawyers say there's nothing mysterious about the meaning of the word recess -- "a break by the Senate from its usual business, such as periods in which the Framers anticipated that senators would return to their respective states."
"The pro forma sessions were not designed to permit the Senate to do business, but rather to ensure that no business was done," the Justice Department says.
President Obama invoked the recess appointment power 32 times during his first term to fill vacancies in full-time government positions, though he has not made any such appointments since last January's controversy. President Clinton made 95 recess appointments during his administration; President George W. Bush used the power 99 times.
If, as seems likely, the issue gets to the Supreme Court, the justices could settle a passionate debate over a presidential power used hundreds of times, stirring controversy since the beginning.
Leave a Comment:
Well Democrats, if the history is correct, as you sow so shall you reap. Idiocy comes in both red and blue.
you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coming to town.
He sees you when you're building.
he wants what you all make.
he'll tell the 47 per cent.
that being rich is a mistake.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
...
Obama Claus is coming to town.
he’ll tell you to be thankful.
to bow down and give thanks.
or he’ll send you to a FEMA camp.
to get your thinking “straight”.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coming to town.
he'll give you a free cell phone.
say Obamacare is great.
he'll tell you being a success.
is something you should hate.
oh you better not work.
you better not try.
you better not earn.
I'm telling you why.
Obama Claus is coooming tooo tooown!
.. all presidents have had this recess appointment power, why is it different now? I have to ask that question to the Republicans.
mike-2598123 - the really sad thing is, you probably spent a lot of time on your stupid, nonsensical drivel. What a waste of time you'll never get back! What utter stupidity! How totally Republican!
Pigotry ... quoting from the article above ...
But during the George H.W. Bush administration, Democrats came up with the idea of pro forma sessions, in which the body was gaveled to order then immediately adjourned for another few days. They claimed that the Senate remained in session and that recess appointments could not be made. Senate Republicans have since continued the pro forma practice.
It would appear that the Democrats created the mosquito and now it is biting them.
Hey Seeking, what's up? I am dreaming of a NC pulled pork sandwich.
pro forma? You can't tell if the Senate is in recess?
Use common sense!!!
If the chamber is empty, it's Christmas, it's recess...even if the chamber is full of ghosts of dead senators.
Hi Pigotry...
I think the answer to your question lies in this quote from the article:
This has been something both parties have used for quite a while to stop recess appointments. I believe that President Obama is the first president to test the legitimacy of "pro forma" sessions by making a recess appointment. (I'm not 100% sure so if I'm wrong someone can feel free to correct me).
Hopefully the court can provide some guidelines and consistency for both sides to follow. :-)
(Edited to add: Curses...BCWC beat me to it. LOL)
well, what those Democrats did during Bush is irrelevant, what's important is why the endangered elephANTs want to further endanger themselves with this idiocy. Then the elephANTs will join the rest of the ANT population, becoming even smaller in Congress in 2014. Such GOP lunacy does help the Democrats, though.
Grimey,
I had looked into this several days ago ... The Democrats used this trick many times to block Bush`s judicial appointments.
Pro Forma sessions are really recesses that have been disguised because somebody (or bodies) are there over the holidays to conduct standard business, but no business can be brought to the floor since there is no quorum. Basically, it's a session of the Senate that no Senators are present for, but the floor is theoretically open. Kind of like at night, when the Senate goes to bed (mostly) and there aren't enough to conduct floor business, but there is still an open session.
I'd say the Senate needs to be updated. Reinstate the rule that a filibuster must be conducted by one person, who must be continually speak (even if it's just reading the phone book) for as long as they wish to postpone the vote/take up the floor (or as long as they can speak). Destroy this nonsense pro forma crap by concluding that without a quorum (excepting specifics, like nighttime), the Senate is not in session. If these guys really want to obstruct (either Dems or Reps), make them work for it. No more of this backhanded "I filibuster" then walking out and going to lunch. No more of this "We're in session, now everyone go home" crap. That's not parliamentary procedure.]
Of course, the Senate is the only body that can amend its own rules (unless we make a Constitutional Amendment, and then you still need Senate approval). So, likelihood of this changing in the near future? I'd say 1/infinite (non-zero, but mathematically equivalent).
Seeking,
Mikey copied and pasted a chain email without proper attribution, claiming it is as his own...
What is that called again?
PS: Mikey - KNOCK OFF SPAMMING YOUR PLAGIARIZED COMMENT!
Hey Feisty there is a new "Progressive Power Production Episode" of "Darh Rove." AKA. Karl Rove. The GOP/Teabegger master of "Mental Madness and Misinformation." It is posted on this mornings Programming Notes. Give it a read, and let me know what you think. Go ahead and post it on Facebook.
BCWC - Oh I'd LOVE one!!!!! Won't be getting back to NC for awhile but I CAN dream!
Feisty - AH HA! I should have known he couldn't come up with it himself!
Sending you an e-mail now. Not a good week. :-(
pro forma - Latin phrase translates as "for form" but better translates as "as a matter of form"
The Constitution states quite clearly that neither the chamber of Congress may be in recess for more than 3 days without the formal consent of the other. To avoid obtaining consent, you hold a pro forma session. No Senators need attend but the Senate (or House) can say they are still "in session".
The Democrats set up the sham, then the Republicans used it and now a Democrat in the White House decides he doesn't like the rule. Tough. It is not his decision to make.
Once again Democrats use a gimmick to get their way but scream bloody murder when Republicans use the same tactics.
Same to be said with the filibuster. It's a great tool for the minority when the Republicans are in control but an antiquated burden when the Democrats have control.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.
Recess appointments are a relic of the 1790's; when it took several months for Congress and Senate to travel from their homes to Philadelphia and then later Washington. Congress would be out of session for as long as 9 months, many stayed for their entire 2 year term, so as not to have the long journey back and forth(that is why congress has a 2 year term, many stayed away from their homes for 2 years, never to seek office again;)
the question before the court is, was the Congress in recess or just not in session; it appears from the Congressional record that they never recessed only did not conduct full voting business(since every morning Congress came into session and one or two would give a short speech, and not call for any vote, on any agenda, heck of a legal question.
Gary and Q22 -
Firstly, if the Repubs had come up with the idea first, then would that make it any better when they started whining and moaning about how the evil Dems were corrupting their totally pure and wonderful concept of pro forma sessions? It's a tool, and the thing about the tools (heh) in office is that our political system only rewards the short-sighted. If they can grab a tool that would be useful now, very little thought seems to be given about how it will be used in the future. Like, for instance, trying to give the President a line-item veto.
As far as the filibuster is involved, that exactly proves my point above. The minority party has been "going nuclear" now for a while, and the majority party declares the filibuster antiquated and in need of removal. Then we switch parties, and the new majority party whines about obstruction while the new minority party plays soldier, "sticking to their guns" as it were.
This whole thing could be settled easily. By actual adults. Our political system does not produce adults, right now. It produces children, like Boehner, McConnell, Bachmann, Cantor, Reid, etc.
What fails to mention in his little song is the real mooches are the red state folks that voted for Willard Romney. Remember, we Progressive are the ones that pay the bills and the 47% who support Willard are the moochers.
Because the President is the smarter than the them and they the republicans don't want the smart Black Guy giving the orders.
It was a stupid idea when the Democrats came up with it, it's a stupid idea now. They need to stop this stupid game they're playing.
But i guess they're just trying to live up to their name. What's the opposite of progress? Congress.
Q22
Hypocrisy also comes with another name ... Republican. The sword is double edged.
Show up for work and you won't have to Btch.
Why are you guys so obsessed with race? Really - go back to the Civil War when your side was fighting to keep blacks as slaves, then your needed to keep blacks segregated, now, we have a our first black president and, while the right just sees a liberal president, all you see is a black man.
Get over your race fixation!
The Court will rule that the Senate has the exclusive right, pursuant to the Constitution, to determine when it is or is not in session. The Executive branch has no authority to make or interpret Senate rules. The appointments are not legitimate. Besides, shouldn't the president want to get approval of the Senate for his appointments, seen as that is the way the voice of the people is heard, through their elected representative? Why is Mr. Obama (and, yes, past presidents as well)watering down/eliminating the checks and balances set up by the Constitution? Power hungry much?
Now he wants unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling. Another power grab attempt that runs directly contrary to the Constitution.
What comes around goes around. Democrats should think long and hard before they start a precedent they won't like when it is not their turn to use it. The way Democrats rammed through ObamaCare will come back to haunt them, and won't it be nice to hear the liberals screaming when that happens. All this proves is that ideology and not what is in the best interest of the country drives Congress, or they would sit down and work together instead of spending their time finding ways to scam the system.
Exactly. They better think about this before they change the filibuster rules. They won't be in the majority forever.
Actually the Court is more likely to rule that "Pro Forma" Senate sessions are not really sessions, but, in fact recesses, since these "pro forma" sessions prohibit the Senate from doing any business, especially if these 'pro forma" sessions are at least 3 days long. Such a ruling validates Presidential Appointments as ascertained in article 2 of the constitution.
ProgForward,
I left mt review over there for you!
Still LMAO!
The porcelain throne is a nice touch! lol
The difference between when the dems did it and the repubs did it, is the repubs did it after the appointment was made and ended it seconds later... making it a little more obvious.
I am glad this is getting looked at, congress shouldn't be able to do such a simple legal maneuver to circumvention the presidential power bestowed upon him by Article 2 section 2 of the US constitution. They should actually be in session if they want to stop a appointment.
Plus it is not like they can not undo the recess appointment by making a congressional one, Republicans just didn't want the consumer protection agency to get off the ground so they filibusterer-ed all appointments that came to a vote.
"Our primary objective is to deny this president a second term."
When dealing with this mentality, you do what you have to do to get the job done.
Republican/Libertarians are just "sore losers". They, simply, cannot condone someone else using the "Powers Granted to Them".
If the Republicans would actually have confirmation hearings and confirm nominees instead of consigning them to conservative limbo for months and years, the President wouldn't have to use recess appointments. If they want to have a say in who gets confirmed, they should vote on the confirmations! Another example of congress creating a crisis around the result of their own actions rather than recognizing or addressing the cause.
TO: blackcatwhitecat who wrote:
I understand this "trick" worked when Bush was in office, in favor of Democrats and against Republicans, but that's probably because Republicans were so distracted by all that oil in Iraq that this one got by them.
I have to say, President Obama being a former Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard University has an edge over Republicans who are simply trying to say, "They did it, so why can't we?"
Exactly!
TO: Q22 who wrote:
Ha! If Republicans continue to side with an ever-shrinking minority of RWNJs, the Democrat Party is set to at least double in size before the next Presidential election in 2016, maybe even before the next mid-term election depending how much Republicans continue to embarass themselves by refusing the cooperate with the wishes of 98% of Americans.
If Congress was doing the job we pay them to do, then there would be very little discussion about any vetted nominee (yes, all nominees are vetted before being sent to the Senate for approval.) The Senate, per the Constitution, is only given ADVISE AND CONSENT on presidential appointments, that means that it should be strictly an up/down vote with no single individual being able to block a nomination from even reaching the floor. Presidents in this day and age would not have to exercise that Article/Section of the Constitution if the Senate did their jobs properly.
Dear Speaker John Boehner and Tea Party members..... If you would get off your as_es and get something done for the country then there would not be a problem..... Instead your just BURNING our $$$$$ doing nothing..... Speaker Boehner it is time to either MAN UP to the Tea Party or allow yourself to be replaced with someone who has the guts to stand up to the Tea Party (domestic terrorist is the best classification for them).....
Irregardless of whether this practice is right or not one has to ask why Mr. Obama is waiting until December to make appointments. The only thing section 2 allows is for that which is necessary to running the country. I'm pretty sure the Labor board can wait until Congress reconvenes as it is not necessary to running the country. Obama has continually abused and widdled away at the constitution so did Bush. Lest we forget it is congresses job to legislate. Obama can demand until he's blue in the face but his agenda is not law he is bound by law to enforce the laws passed by congress anything less is a act of treason.
Nobody has mentioned that recess appointments are not permanent, they only last until the sitting Congress is dissolved after an election. All those recess appointments will be vacant on Jan 1 unless they have been filled in the regular way since.
If the legislative branch doesn't want the President to make appointments while they're out of session they should stay in session. It's an abomination that in today's 24/7 world the entire legislative branch of our government goes on vaction, ever. In fact, if they were forced to stay in constant session, maybe they'd finally be able to accomplish something.
The House and Senate worked about 1/3 of this year. Ostensibly because it was an election year. Eric Cator released next years schedule. Again, about 1/3 of the year of work for FULL-TIME pay of $174,000 plus A-1 benefits. The Republicans spend more time in court than they do on working on the people's business.
These idiots can do the job we pay them to do while they're In session, so whats the difference? The president can use these out of session events to appoint pretty much whomsoever he wishes.
Lets face it if he (any president) had the balls, he could use an executive order to remove term limits, hell become president for life.
phil,
No he cannot. It is called the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. You should take civics class over.
Of course, had Senate Republicans not insisted on filibustering at every turn imaginable we wouldn't have had this controversy as there would have been an actual vote and a confirmation.
Well...the GOP is on its self-destruction path, again. You can't fix stuPIG.
Let's see if I have this right---the Democrats come up with a scam to stop the Republicans. The Republicans don't think to challenge it. Now when they try the same scam, the Democrats call them out on it. What was stopping the Republicans during the Bush administration?
If I am reading the article correctly, it is the Republicans who are challenging President Obama's right to use this tactic.. A tactic both parties have used in the past.
"President Obama invoked the recess appointment power 32 times during his first term to fill vacancies in full-time government positions, though he has not made any such appointments since last January's controversy. President Clinton made 95 recess appointments during his administration; President George W. Bush used the power 99 times."
During President Obama's first term, Republicans filibustered his nominations only 7 times. In 2003 alone, Democrats filibustered 14 of President Bush's nominations and another 4 in 2004 and 2 in 2005. Republican 7 vs. Democrats 20. Considering the FACTS, it looks as though the Democrats are the party that blocks confirmation votes!
Actually Brad you are not entirely reading the article correctly. The case was not brought by Republicans but by a "Pacific Northwest soft drink bottler who lost a union dispute before the NLRB." Yes the Republican Senators filed a Friend of the Court brief, but the challenge is not whether recess appointments are legal, but whether a President can make recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess. The numbers that you cited are only the recess appointments to full time positions. Clinton made 139 total recess appointments and Bush made 171.
Lets get some things straight, when Democrats use the filibuster it is good for the country. When Republicans use the filibuster they are being obstructionists. When the Democrats scammed the system by pretending to be in session, it was for the good of the country. When Republicans learn from Democrats and implore the same tactics they are being obstructionists. Anyone see a pattern emerging? Democrats good, Republicans bad. Supporting Obama good, opposing Obama racist. Compromise means giving Obama what he wants. Working together means giving Obama what he wants. Balanced approach means giving Obama what he wants. So being responsible must simply mean giving Obama whatever he wants, and not doing anything Democrats don't like. Are we all starting to understand liberals a little bit better now?
Change the filibuster rule to reflect current needs. The next majority can change the rules again if they like.
Democrats get mad when a republican president does it, and republicans get mad when a democrat president does it. How about this? DONT TAKE SO MANY RECESSES! Presidents cant sneak em through if you're still there.
Thank you Dantos!! Too many recesses!! How do they work for only 3 months and get paid for working the whole year!!!
AMEN! Plus benefits.....geez....imagine if the electorate got smart and paid the Congress by the hours they sat in their seats...talk about the 47% 'ers.....
The company claims that the president had no power to appoint the new NLRB members and that the subsequent action by the board therefore lacked legitimacy.
==================
Yes...and we'd also like to add that he gave an apple to his 3rd grade teacher in exchange for a better grade and we contend that his life would have turned out completely different had he not been allowed to schmooze.
I love how this has been reported as happening for "decades", but those who dislike it don't speak about it in historical terms as a chasm between 2 branches of Gov., but act as though President Obama has somehow ushered in some new era.
And again, if the underlying argument is that the President has no authority to appoint when the Senate is in recess, why wouldn't ALL rulings or impact ANY recess appointment ever had be up for grabs? Why just the NLRB?
Because that is the only one being contested by a company who felt the affects of said appointment. I for one would contest that whole consumer financial protection bureau. Just another czar with a staff to support.
That's really the point...this is not just some dispute, not so much about a law, but rather some perceived slight because of the law by a company here or there.
This is [allegedly] about the President of the United States doing something they don't have a 'right' to do and doing so for decades.
If these folks were as 'principled' as we hear they are every day of the year, this would seem like a much broader argument than the NLRB.
I was under the impression that recess appointments could only be made if there was some kind of emergency that required the post be filled. Like not having a FEMA director when a disaster strikes.
so the masters of system abuse now crying about the system. mr. bush was the master of the recess appointment and now the boner crys foul? amazing. The blocking of all progress by the party of no requires that the president use all resources to keep the system moving. he wants to avoid this in the future...try being a cooperative party in the saving and recovery of America rather than a party drone.
Bush 99 times , all goes well, for Obama it is all grief and pain , no wonder the country tossing around the GOP's in their foolish obstructionis ways . It will never work , Obama won the election, deal with it and GOP's better work with him. You will never win another election before 20years .
What, you don't think the Dems squawked when Bush used it?
The Dems started it, now dislike it when the Repubs use it! What total hypocrisy!
There is no story here at all America! This is just another GOP/Tea Begger strategy of 'obstructionism." This is in line with their 2009 "Blood Oath." That they all took at the Caucus Steakhouse Restaurant in Washington D.C. This is not shocking at all America! The GOP/Teabeggers are in lock step with their orders given by "Mickey Mouse Mitch McConnell" back in 2009. The only mystery here America. Is the fact that the GOP/RNC believe that no one knows what they are really stlill doing. Really?
No, Roe V Wade stands. No, corporations are not a person. No, we are not going to give millionaires a 20% tax cut. No, we are not going to keep minorities from voting. No, we are not going to teach creationism in schools. No, you are not going to leave the union.
Just take some pills and take a Soma holiday tea nuts. When you wake up, go look for a job.
.
I was ROTFLMAO when I saw this:
"...brought with the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups." (My emphasis)
Come on NBC news! Are you the only ones that don't know that the US CofC is a REPUBICAN [sic on purpose] INTEREST group! The spend almost all of their money on far right-wing issues and candidates! They might as well be an arm of Faux News! hahahaha!
Do you mean because most business owners are Republican or some other nonsence?
JB, and that is one reason many businesses are telling their local chambers that they do NOT want any of their dues going to the national organization. There are many Democratic business owners who belong to their local chambers for developing business within their local community, but do NOT support any of the decisions or actions of the US Chamber of Commerce. Even major corporations are starting to remove their support of the USCofC for the same reasons.
I want to get this straight................ the Democrats started the practice of pro forma sessions to block a Republican president, it is ok. And as I recall, the Republican president honored their "pro forma" session.
But now if the Repbulicans do it against Obama it isn't ok? More of the "we don't have to pay attention to the constitution, we will just do what we want"?
This my fellow Democrats is part of the reason I voted Republican, Democrat, and an Independent in this year's election.
I am ashamed of how Democrats are acting and the me first mentality that permeates the entire party today. I refuse to be a member of a party that operates with nothing but hypocrisy. I will change to an Independent on Monday.
You can't have it both ways and you will certainly not like it Obama's way, but keep your eyes open, more is coming down the pike.
Just this week it was announced by the Associated Press that the insurance companies that individuals take are subject to a 3.5% Administration fee courtesy of Obamacare.
"It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward," House Speaker John Boehner said at the time. But Boner forgot to add "we have absolutely NO problem with this when there is a Republican president in the White House however."
And yes, the article said the fee is being built into the price of the medical insurance that these unsuspecting consumers will buy.
Really interesting case...hard to figure out how the "Supremes" will vote. My humble opinion is they will "punt" and send it back for legislative action (even though that's not likely to happen anytime soon).
If the "venerable ones" vote to strike down President Obama's recess appointments it will essentially tie the hands of the executive branch when dealing with an opposition controlled congress (lower case on purpose). But, if the justices (again, lower case on purpose) allow the appointments to stand, it will change the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in favor of the President.
Okay, let's say (for argument's sake) that "punting" isn't an option...then if I have to bet...I say the court (note lowercase again), will vote to let the appointments stand...just because that's the way they've been doing it...habits are hard to break.
Maybe if Congress actually worked for a change this would be a non issue.
How many average Americans take month long vacations 4-5 times a year?
The actual wording of article in question is "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." If the Court rules on that instead of the common practice they would side with Alexander Hamilton. The section is meant to allow a President to fill a vacancy that happens while the Senate is in recess, not to fill vacancies that occur before the Senate went into recess.
Many Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have overstepped their authority and used the practice. Now the Court can rule.
@near the sea,"The actual wording of article in question is "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
Why doesn't this mean that the President shall have the power to fill the vacancies left by the SENATOR's recess? It seems therefore that as critical questions regarding the operation of the country should,if necessary,require the operation of the Senate,then the President has the power to fill the Senator's vacancies? Is that a logical suggestion?
So now they are against recess appointment??? Hey righties one name for you....BOLTON.
Now go sit down.
I'd do recess appointments on all of the held appointments from the last 4 years during Christmas recess if I was POTUS. (There are HUNDREDS!!!including TSA and FAA if I remember correctly) If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the appointment in this case...all the appointments would be good!
RIGHT! it is suddenly a real Problem now that President Obama who has been BLOCKED ON EVERYTHING for he last 4 years by Republican OBSTRUCTION that it has to go to Court.
I hope he throws the Kitchen Sink, the House and the Cars at GOP/TEA since they plan to FILIBUSTER EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE HE Nominates, Unless Harry Reid is successuful in Changing the Rules.
Democrats cry OBSTRUCTION now, but Democrats created the practice to obstruct a Republican President.
How fitting.
The founders where pretty smart about this one , not only did it provide a way to fill seats when necessary in the absence of congress, it provided a motivator for congress to actually get the work done while in session or risk not getting what they want when they were lax in their tasks.
Seems like congress has been very lax in getting the confirmations done so there are a lot of vacencies that need pretty desperately to be filled
Congress should perhaps get the job done instead of whining about it being done for them.
Again, this all boils down to the BLACK man in office using something that I believe his predeccesor used during his time in office. So what are they going to do when the next old white man takes the office, change it back? The GOP is pathetic.
So far President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. For the other recent Presidents George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243.
So, why was it okay for other Presidents, and not okay for President Obama, who has had the fewest recess appointments?
How can a body of government never be in recess but yet get so little done. Their work schedule is already a joke compared to the work hours of most of America, and then they gavel the body into session, and then manage to not accomplish anything. That's like a business being open, but no body is manning the store and there are no products or services being offered.