quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I think you misunderstand, that is pure speculation on your part.   That is what the wrangling is about, the intent of the senate pro-forma sessions forced by the house (mind you) not the senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/175449-house-forces-pro-forma-sessions-in-august-to-avoid-obama-recess-appointments and so on every recess since.

This is strictly win win for democrats, the high handedness of nutsackers will be revealed and discussed for weeks after this opinion, Obama wins, and if he loses, he wins.

So, the judgement is either won or won, and either way the nutsackers will have one more example of obstructionism to contend with in the upcoming elections, cuz this dont make no never mind to Obama.

Jesus, you guys should learn some politics, when you are on a political board.

The legal question should be centered on the intent of the Senate.  If the intent was to recess, but it was technically held up by the house.....(and according to you McConnell must have went down there as the opposition to say it was, (maybe thats what he had to pay for his 3 billion in pork))...and in these cases is an expert witness.......hmmm, and it is rather fuzzy around the edges of senate rules............and the constitution, and I don't believe there is other caselaw for precedent on this issue from the supreme court, looks like for precedent they may have to turn to such common law ideas of tradition and history, and they have 600 and some odd cases for precedent....

Its a real nutsqueezer which way this goes.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yeah, I'm afraid factually its no such thing.

The democrats did exactly the same thing, first.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): ‘An end run around the Senate and the Constitution.’ “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

REID: ‘They are mischievous.’ “Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7558, 7/28/08)

· DURBIN: ‘Could easily be unconstitutional.’ “I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6253, 6/9/05)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Recess appointments an ‘abuse [of] the power of the presidency.’ “‘It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,’ Kerry said in a statement …” (“Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post, 4/5/07)


SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Recess appointments ‘the wrong thing to do.’



So, for all your hyperbole about how evil the republicans are - its pretty easy to point the finger directly back.
This will not make a significant impact - except negatively for the president. It is far too easy to point to President O'Stupid's hypocrisy.

The only difference here, is up to now, presidents - such as bush- actually honored the senate not adjourning.
Obama decided to make a blatant power grab.

And don't forget - the Third Court of Appeals has already ruled the appointments unconstitutional.
For Obama to win he has to come up with a 5-4 decision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I think you misunderstand, that is pure speculation on your part.   That is what the wrangling is about, the intent of the senate pro-forma sessions forced by the house (mind you) not the senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/175449-house-forces-pro-forma-sessions-in-august-to-avoid-obama-recess-appointments and so on every recess since.

This is strictly win win for democrats, the high handedness of nutsackers will be revealed and discussed for weeks after this opinion, Obama wins, and if he loses, he wins.

So, the judgement is either won or won, and either way the nutsackers will have one more example of obstructionism to contend with in the upcoming elections, cuz this dont make no never mind to Obama.

Jesus, you guys should learn some politics, when you are on a political board.

The legal question should be centered on the intent of the Senate.  If the intent was to recess, but it was technically held up by the house.....(and according to you McConnell must have went down there as the opposition to say it was, (maybe thats what he had to pay for his 3 billion in pork))...and in these cases is an expert witness.......hmmm, and it is rather fuzzy around the edges of senate rules............and the constitution, and I don't believe there is other caselaw for precedent on this issue from the supreme court, looks like for precedent they may have to turn to such common law ideas of tradition and history, and they have 600 and some odd cases for precedent....

Its a real nutsqueezer which way this goes.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That is not true at all.  You have stated no fact.

For example, Congress often holds business sessions only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so that legislators can visit their constituents over a long weekend that includes a work day. At such times, Congress has not adjourned but is, instead, recessed. Congress also recesses the week of a federal holiday. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 stipulated a 30-day recess each August, except in time of war. During a recess, a President can execute a pocket-veto or make recess appointments.

the three-day thing is up in the air.  It is why they held proformas.   As I say, up in the air, no slam dunk here, it gets to be intent of the senate. Course I am not a briefcase, but it is a very educated opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The supreme court won't rule 9-0 against Obamas unconstitutional recess appointments?

Now the real question is what will they say (if anything) about the hundreds of NLRB decisions made illegally.
My bet: they will invalidate them all.

Here's hoping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quoting:

the term "the Recess," as used in the Recess Appointments Clause, refers to the legislative break that the Senate takes between its "Sessions." In other words, the term "the Recess" means the intersession period of time between an adjournment sine die and the start of the Senate's next session.

And up till 1921 there were no intrasession recess appointments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hes already halved that, sayin obama wins on a 5-4.  So he has realized his usual social and political faux pas this time, at any rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quoting:

the term "the Recess," as used in the Recess Appointments Clause, refers to the legislative break that the Senate takes between its "Sessions." In other words, the term "the Recess" means the intersession period of time between an adjournment sine die and the start of the Senate's next session.

And up till 1921 there were no intrasession recess appointments.

LOLOLOL, what miserably crafted bit of horseshit is this?