It's Bush's Fault!

[UncleBeer 244]

When in doubt, post colorful artwork. Your chart looks more like the fourth of July than a definitive argument.

Let me guess: you can't read pictures?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Let me guess: you can't read pictures?

Let me guess, 3rd graders use colors to express their feelings.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

that's gonna get taken down.

OMG I did not even see that Honest

I am going to self report

that's gonna get taken down.

I still had time to edit

You quoted. edit if you can ?

[GandD 5,966]

OMG I did not even see that Honest

I am going to self report

I still had time to edit

You quoted. edit if you can ?

Sorry. Too late.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Inappropriate image has been removed

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Let me guess, 3rd graders use colors to express their feelings.

Go easy on him, he's sensitive.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Inappropriate image has been removed

Thanks Kathryn and thanks G and D for pointing it out.

Edited September 6, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[GandD 5,966]

Thanks Kathryn and thanks G and D for pointing it out.

Sorry man, I tried to edit it. Ftr, I also didn't notice it on my first reply. I went back and saw it and added the edit. I was laughing so hard at the image.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Sorry man, I tried to edit it. Ftr, I also didn't notice it on my first reply. I went back and saw it and added the edit. I was laughing so hard at the image.

If you did not notice it, oddly that makes me feel better

[rlogan 2,036]

I dunno, the war of 1812 was a pretty horrible strategic fail. We ended up with a burned capital.

The War of 1812 isn't even remotely the idiocy of Bush's completely fabricated war of aggression against Iraq.

Britain was impressing (kidnapping) American sailors into war service for the British Navy against our ally France. France was pivotal in the War of Independence against Britain and still our staunch ally. Forcing our people into war with France was an act of war against us.

They were supporting Indians at War against the US on the frontier with guns, ammunition, tomahawks, scalping knives - not to mention food and supplies so that they could focus on killing us . Another act of war. Britain also imposed trade restrictions against us - again because of their war against France and our position as their ally.

Compare that to what Iraq was doing, which is essentially nothing by comparison to these outright Acts of War on multiple fronts. If what you mean is the most devastating war, then clearly the Civil War is the all time winner. But "Strategic Disaster" means measuring the stated objectives of the war with the results.

Bush's objectives were false to begin with - a total fabrication about WMD's threatening the US. It was horrifying to me hearing them wave their hands about "Regime Change", as if it were some ordinary political event and not a war that is going to kill a million people. What we were doing was delusional and the results have been a disaster of unprecedented scale. We created millions of refugees.

For God's sake! There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we destroyed their country! For three trillion dollars, five thousand troops, all the horrific injuries, all the dead Iraqis, higher oil and gasoline prices - what did we get? We got ISIS.

Thank you, President Slacker. I despise Obama, don't get me wrong. But blaming him for Iraq is out of the question. He owns Libya, and look how the results are almost exactly the same.

Edited September 6, 2014 by rlogan

[UncleBeer 244]

Let me guess, 3rd graders use colors to express their feelings.

What's it to you if I happen to post a chart containing (gasp) colors, and what exactly drives you to insult instead of discussing the topic at hand?

[Dan and Judy 614]

You should read a newspaper now and then. A flowchart of how the preznit has consistently sidestepped Congress.

Well, I don't mind waiting in line so much, as long as everyone else is waiting in line. But they're not. O'bama has seen to that with DACA. Thanks, King Putz.

Wouldn't it be grand if the "most transparent administration . . . evaaaah" could produce subpoenaed documents in less than a year? Or when they finally admit that emails in question do exist, and haven't been lost in a hard drive crash, but gosh, searching those backups would just be "too onerous"? Surely this should be possible for a genius constitutional scholar who has dedicated his administration to "the rule of law"; surely?

I understand some people naturally long for a 'nanny state' run by their 'betters' who will grab the reins and make all those tough choices for them. I'm not one of them. Are you?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-day-presidential-recess-appointments

[UncleBeer 244]

Haha; good one. Of course the Supreme Court is of the opinion that if a preznit wishes to make a "recess appointment" (for instance packing the NLRB with his acolytes), Congress should probably actually be in recess. Otherwise it's an unconstitutional power grab (which seems to be O'bama's forte).

You're welcome.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-day-presidential-recess-appointments

[Karee 4,190]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-day-presidential-recess-appointments

While recess appointments are a common thing, Obama seems to be doing something entirely new by making appointments while congress is not in recess. Obama has simply claimed that congress is in recess, when technically it is not. The appeals courts and the supreme court have ruled unanimously in both cases this is illegal.

Congressional action preventing recess appointments

Sometimes, especially when both houses of Congress are controlled by a different party than that of the President and since both Houses must consent to adjourn, the Senate or House leadership will seek to block any potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, blocking a longer adjournment that would allow recess appointments to be made.^[14] For example, during the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions.^[15][16] Prior to this, there had been speculation that James Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as Surgeon General of the United States.^[17]

Over what would have traditionally been the 2011–12 winter recess of the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives did not assent to recess, specifically to block Richard Cordray's appointment as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.^[18] As therefore required by the Constitution, both the House and Senate held pro forma sessions.^[19] Regardless, on January 4, 2012, President Obama claimed authority to appoint Richard Cordray and others under the Recess Appointments Clause. White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler asserted that the appointments were valid, because the pro forma sessions were designed to, "through form, render a constitutional power of the executive obsolete", and that the Senate was for all intents and purposes recessed.^[20] Republicans in the Senate disputed the appointments, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stating that Obama had "arrogantly circumvented the American people" with the appointments. It was expected that there would be a legal challenge to the appointments.^[21] The first such challenge was announced in April 2012, disputing a National Labor Relations Board ruling made following the Obama appointments.^[22][23]

On January 6, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, claiming that "[t]he convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments".^[24][25] However, this was widely disputed.^[26][27] On January 25, 2013, in the first circuit case to rule on the validity of the January 4, 2012, appointments, Chief Judge David Sentelle, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, wrote "an interpretation of “the Recess” that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law."^[28] On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court validated this practice in a 9–0 ruling of using pro forma sessions to block the president from using the recess appointment authority.

Justice Breyer also wrote in Noel Canning that the President could force a recess if he had enough congressional support: "The Constitution also gives the President (if he has enough allies in Congress) a way to force a recess. Art. II, §3 ('n Case of Disagreement between [the Houses], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, [the President] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper'). Moreover, the President and Senators engage with each other in many different ways [*28] and have a variety of methods of encouraging each other to accept their points of view. Regardless, the Recess Appointments Clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. It simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the Senate is away during a recess."^[29]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment#Congressional_action_preventing_recess_appointments

It's one thing to make recess appointments. It's quite another to simply claim congress is in recess when it isn't, and then make unilateral appointments. Thankfully the courts have seen the difference.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Haha; good one. Of course the Supreme Court is of the opinion that if a preznit wishes to make a "recess appointment" (for instance packing the NLRB with his acolytes), Congress should probably actually be in recess. Otherwise it's an unconstitutional power grab (which seems to be O'bama's forte).

You're welcome.

2) Why were Obama's recess appointments controversial?

"GIMMICKS DO NOT OVERRIDE THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY"

During the Bush Administration, Democrats blocked many of Bush's preferred nominees, and he responded by appointing them during recesses. The annoyed Democrats then invented a new tactic — even when nearly all senators had left town, they would refuse to let the Senate recess at all. Instead, they'd hold "pro forma" sessions to keep the chamber technically active, so Bush couldn't use his recess appointment power. Turnabout was fair play — once President Obama had been elected and the Republicans took the House, the GOP effectively prevented the Senate from ever recessing, by requiring constant pro forma sessions (the House must consent for the Senate to go into a lengthy recess). This prevented Obama from appointing some nominees the GOP had blocked — including three appointees to the National Labor Relations Board, and the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Finally, in January 2012, an increasingly frustrated Obama took action. He declared that, regardless of the pro forma sessions, he considered the Senate to actually be in recess — and therefore that could appoint those four nominees unilaterally. "Gimmicks do not override the President's constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer wrote.But conservatives called these actions blatantly unconstitutional, and even some liberals agreed. Soon enough, a lawsuit was filed calling an NLRB decision illegitimate because it was handed down by those nominees.

3) Why did the case become much broader?

A DC Circuit panel heard the suit about Obama's NLRB nominees — but, as Charlie Savage of the New York Times wrote, it "blew past that issue and called into question nearly two centuries of recess appointments by presidents of both parties." So the Supreme Court decided to tackle two broader questions:

1. What is a Senate recess, anyway? The Senate typically has one session each year. It takes several short breaks in the middle of each session, and another break in between a just-finished session and a new one.Though the Senate typically refers to both breaks as recesses, three DC Circuit justices ruled the Constitution's framers only intended to give the president recess appointment power in between sessions — not during shorter breaks in the middle of a session.
2. Which vacancies can be filled with a recess appointment? The Constitution says that the president can fill "all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate." Does that mean only vacancies that newly open during a recess — not preexisting vacancies? This reading goes against decades of historical practice — but two DC Circuit justices agreed that it was the correct one.

So a narrow case where many observers agreed Obama had stretched his powers too far in one instance, became a much broader case with the potential to newly and dramatically limit presidential recess appointment power overall.

4) What did the Court decide?

In the end, the Supreme Court was unanimous that Obama's contested appointments were unconstitutional. "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer. But five justices — the four liberals, and Justice Anthony Kennedy — decided to reject those broader challenges to the president's recess appointment power, and affirm recent historical practice as constitutional. "The Constitution empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess," Breyer wrote, "of sufficient length."

Yet four conservative justices — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Sam Alito — wrote that they would have gone much further, and sided with both of the above critiques. Scalia's writes that it's "clear from the Constitution's text and structure" that recess appointments were only meant to be used to fill vacancies that just open up between two formal sessions of Congress. In his view, the hundreds of recent recess appointments filling preexisting vacancies in the middle of a Congressional session were all unconstitutional. "The majority casts aside the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text in deference to late-arising historical practices that are ambiguous at best," he wrote. Breyer responded that "Justice Scalia would render illegitimate thousands of recess appointments reaching all the way back to the founding era," and that he himself was "hesitant to disturb" centuries of history.

5) What are the practical consequences of the ruling?

There won't be too many near-term consequences from this decision. The controversial NLRB nominees have all since left the board, and though the decisions they issued there may now be invalid, their replacements have since been confirmed by the Senate. And Richard Cordray of the CFPB was confirmed by the Senate last year, so he's in the clear.

Overall, the president's recess power remains mostly intact — but it's less important than ever. With the recent filibuster rules change, Obama can get more of his nominees through the chamber without Republican support. Historically, the recess appointment power has been important during periods of divided government. But the GOP is still requiring pro forma sessions to block official recesses (unless the president promises not to appoint any nominees). So while recess appointments may still be possible, they're looking increasingly like a thing of the past.

• 5624TWEET
• SHARE

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5843366/recess-appointments-supreme-court

Edited September 6, 2014 by Dan and Judy