Harry Reid and President Obama are at it again!

We seriously need to take America back. Can you imagine what George Washington would say?

Maybe those guys in the Senate will say something this time. At least make the case, even if Reid tries to block them, make the Dems take a side for the election!

Carol,

Just out of curiosity, who has America now? Is it no longer your nation? Are the office holders not people we elected? If you take America will I no longer be an American?

Golly, let me see? Nope. These people are not people I elected. Did you, Larry?

i say, put a windmill over Washingtons grave - he is certianly spinning fast enough, thereby creating enough wind, to power 3/4 of the nation!

thanks or sharing

Refusing to confirm or deny on Presidential appointments is the action of a bully. It is the action of a coward (and most bullies are cowards). This has been a Republican tactic for the last three years.

I approve of the President appointing people to the various offices under his authority. If Congress will not even consider them, he should proceed without Congress. He is assuming responsibility. He will be held responsible for the actions (or lack of action) by those appointments. He cannot share any blame with Congress.

If Congress will not even consider them, he should proceed without Congress.

Only in a Constitutional manner, I hope?

How can he do it any other way? He has to be authorized by Congress to spend the money. The jobs being filled must also be authorized by Congress.

If the President does something unconstitutional, that should be grounds for impeachment. Of course, I cannot recall any case of unconstitutional actions by a President being used for impeachment but it should be.

How can he do it any other way?

By making recess appointments when Congress is not in recess.

Matthew,

I believe that is Constitutional.

Did you read the article? Even Harry Reid knows it's not. He used it to block SUPREME CT appointees for over a year!

Harry Reid even admits the appointees are not popular. He's pulling a stunt.

Char,

I read the article. Reid is quoted as saying that the recess appointments are constitutional.

Carol,

Not popular with whom?

You've got to be kidding, Larry. Making a recess appointment when Congress is not in recess is Constitutional? Maybe it would take a Republican doing that in order for you to oppose such actions.

Matthew,

If I recall the case correctly from a couple of months ago, there were no Senators there (with a couple of exceptions) since they were all home for the holidays and the Senate conducted no business. It was a sham session who's only intent was to prevent the President from making recess appointments. Therefore, I conclude that it was constitutional.

Your opinion may be different.

Perhaps one day the Supreme Court will rule on the issue.

no larry,

a bully, after someone he wants appointed is rejected, waits till he can CLAIM there is a recess, and appoint them anyway (coldray ring a bell?).

even tho they were not in recess ...................

and yes, it was the senate, lead by ried, a democrat, that left them in session, so bo could NOT appoint anyone ............. so how was that a republiocan ploy???

did harry suddenly become a republ;ican evben tho he is majority (democrat) leader in the senate?????

Harry Reid says non-recess recess appointments are Constitutional so they must be Constitutional. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Del,

The Senate has had every opportunity to turn down these appointments. They are choosing to just sit on them and prevent these offices from being occupied and the business of the nation from being done. That is the action of a bully.

These appointments have NOT been rejected.

It was a sham session who's only intent was to prevent the President from making recess appointments. Therefore, I conclude that it was constitutional.

There are many ways to respond to a Congress that one believes is behaving poorly; but expanding Presidential power beyond what the Constitution says should not be one of them. Congress said it was in session, like it or not, sham or not.

BTW, you realize this power will be passed on to Presidents you don't like?

Matthew,
The recess appointment has been used by many Presidents. It is in the Constitution.

What makes you think that Presidents let the Constitution limit their actions? I have been trying to get people to realize that the law and the Constitution are ignored by government at all levels with great frequency. The Constitution does not protect us. Neither does the law.

BTW, were you asleep in the previous Administration or something? What part of "abuse of government powers" did you miss? Because they seemed to touch all the bases on that one.

Larry, What made this so reprehensible was that it was used to approve appointments that were NOT acceptable to Congress. The power to approve was given to prevent exactly what this President is doing, placing cronies in key positions to selectively enforce the law for political gain. If the Congress rejects people for these reasons, and then the President goes around them when Congress is in Session, according to the law, how can you defend that?? If the appointees are rejected by Congress, that should stand, NO LAW says differently or is meant to allow what he has done! It is unlawful.

Char,

If they were not acceptable, why did Congress refuse to reject them? Why did they refuse to vote on them? The idea was not to reject those individuals, it was to prevent the government offices from being able to work.

You may have been told that government is incompetent? This is one of the reasons why. There are some people in Congress who want government to fail to serve the public.

From a Washinton Post Article:


In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.

Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

By a vote of 53 to 45, Senate Democrats were unable to close off debate to allow the confirmation to proceed; 60 votes were needed to end a filibuster and proceed. 


The Senate would not confirm him! The President ignored their action and unlawfully appointed him anyway. listen to Matthew, How will you feel when this is an executioner? A military dictator? It is unlawful, and ignores our Representation!

Char,

Did you miss reading the sentence in your quote as follows:

"Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."

Note that they would not even consider the nomination. That is not rejecting the candidate. That is preventing the post from being filled since only one candidate at a time can be put forward for a post. It has nothing to do with the candidate nominated.

You will note that only the Republicans, a minority in the Senate, objected to the post being filled. It was a use of the power of filibuster.

The right to reject him was theirs! You either believe in the rule of law or dictators, which is it? Don't forget, the law will protect you from what others want, too!

Char,

They did not reject any of these nominees. Can't you get that straight? They refused to vote on these folks. They would not give approval and they would not reject. They did neither. They just refused to do their Constitutionally required job of Advice and Consent. They were on strike against the American People.

Now do you understand?

From WIKI
From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.[10] However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.[11]
With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.
This is how lawful legislators Govern.

Now do YOU understand???? Wow Larry, I can't believe you were a teacher. refusing even a vote is not rejection? Harry Reid will NOT put them to an up or down vote.

Char,

It was a refusal to do their Constitutionally required job then as well.

You see, I find ALL the major parties to ignore the Constitution when it is convenient to do so. I have commented many times that the law and the Constitution do not protect us from abuses of government.

Char,

Please re-read my comment above in which I explain that the Republicans were trying to keep the office from being filled. They were not rejecting the nominee, they were trying to reject the office.

Also, you might note that a refusal to vote is not a rejection of the candidate, it's a rejection of the election. Surely you can understand the difference between those two. You are a college graduate, aren't you?

By the way, in this particular case, it's the Republicans who will not put them to an up or down vote. The candidates would be approved by a vote of the Democrat dominated Senate.

Larry,

1. Recess appointments are Constitutional. That is not the question. Recess appointments when Congress is not in recess is the dispute.
2. I realize Constitutions don't limit governments. People are supposed to do the limiting. You and many others don't think it is important to limit the government's power here to the Constitution. Thus it is rendered meaningless once again.
3. I've said nothing about the previous administration. Of course they were awful.

You are arguing the Republicans are not doing their job. That's fine. But please don't resort to violating the Constitution to get around them. That 'cure' is certainly worse than the disease.

The Candidate was rejected by rejecting the vote. It is a lawful method!

Matthew,

I think it's vital to limit government's power. The problem is that it can't be done. Even when ordinary people try their hardest to limit that power, it still goes beyond all reasonable bounds. History is filled with examples.

It seems to me that money is the source of the government's power and that it is the motivation for the corruption of government and the abuse of its power.

As you say, recess appointments are Constitutional. So what violation of the Constitution are you referring to?

Recess appointments when Congress is not in recess. There's no provision for that in the Constitution.

So, Matthew, the question is whether the Senate can be in session when only one or two senators are present and the rest have gone home for Christmas holiday and when the Senate conducts no business. I suspect it will take a Supreme Court decision on the matter.

Yes, that is the question. The Senate has conducted business in the pro-forma sessions.

Actually, didn't they pass an extension then, which was electronically signed into law? (or something like that?)

My memory of the events is that the Senators were all home for Christmas.

And yet there was business being done! I guess it was in reconciliation conference, between the houses, and Obama signed it into law from Hawaii, as I recall. If legislation was enacted, how were they not in session? Provable legislation in the official record. I will look it up if you seriously dispute it.

How does the Senate conduct business with no Senators? Senators must be present to vote. Without votes no bills can be passed. You cannot enact legislation without legislators.

Char, I seriously believe that no meaningful "work" was done during the time period of the Christmas break appointments.

larry,
i believe there has been no meanful productive or helpful work done in either house for about 100 years!

now as to cordray - obama wanted him vetted and appointed, they refused to even consider him - is that not a rejection?

if i ask someone to hire a person, and they refuse to even consider it, i would pretty much say it is a rejection.

if i ask a girl on a date, and she refuses to even consider it ........ pretty much going to feel as tho she rejected me, how about you?

and while you want to blame it on the republicans - the senate is controlled by democrats - his own party - and reid was the one that designated them as still in session - again his own party.

or is harry reid actually a clsoet, double-secret republican sent it as a double agent spy?

Del,

That is not a rejection of the nominee, that is a rejection of the post. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

If Congress passes a law creating a position in government or authorizing the creation of such a position and then refuses to allow that position to be filled, that is not a rejection of the nominee. To reject the nominee, the Senate would have to act.

The Republicans threaten filibuster to prevent the vote. (That's made clear in the link provided by the post.)

how could the republicans threaten a filibuster in the SENATE larry?

it is democrat controlled - obviously ried was in a cover his own mode - it was HE that declared the senate still in session, it was HE that did not put the vote on the floor, it is HE that controls the senate! ... and then he blames the minority party for blocking what it can not block??????????????????

come on larry - you are much smarter that that.

it takes a a 3/5ths majority (60/40 or better) to have a filibuster - and the gop does not have that - they dont even have a majority !(51/49)


to say the repubs threatened a filibuster in the seante today, is like saying you or i threatened to embargo iran!

look at the source larry ...............

The Republicans block everything Obama tries to do. An example is the Affordable Health Care Act, which is also called Obama Care. We need this; we voted for it in 2008, but we don't have affordable health care because of Republicabn obstruction.

In states like Wisconsin and Michigan who were dumb enough to vote for Republican governors, we get attempts to end collective bargaining.

Obama is the only thing standing between us and totalitarianism. How did this happen in Nazi Germany Watch. It is happening here.

OMG! Mary Ann.
Do you know that as part of Obama's cuts to the military, he is cutting health care?

mary ann,
yes we need A health care act - but the one we got, is more expensive, more restrictive to people, and will deliver less care.

that particular act, was designed to destroy all private health insurance companies, so nothing will be left but the public "option".

then the control is complete.

yes, it is the same as what happened in germany - bush had us heading there at about 500 mph and obama has it heading that way at warp speed.

Obama is the only thing standing between us and totalitarianism.

This sounds like the Obama school of politics all right - accuse the other side of wanting what you want to mask what you are doing. I have never read anything so preposterous in my life!

Sad to say, in the current structure of American national government, only Congressional Republicans (and only some of them) and five Supreme Court justices are standing in the way of Obama and totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism? You think there's something democratic about a government-run health care system? Surely,you jest!

Norman, The government run health bare system is going to the supreme ct. Maybe it will hold the line!

Thanks for posting to Point Taken. Have a great night!

Republican obstructionism during the Clinton and Obama years were the worse we have ever seen:

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers


Yet, for some reason this bullying has always gone without criticism.

Recess appointments are like pocket vetoes. They're included in the Constitution. Teddy Roosevelt once made sixty recess appointments in less than thirty seconds between an adjournment and the start of a new session. The interesting question about Obama's recess appointments is whether or not congress was legally in session or not. I'd like to see a Supreme Court ruling. There are good arguments on both sides.

"The interesting question about Obama's recess appointments is whether or not congress was legally in session or not. "

yes it is nip - but i am not sure it will ever be addressed.

the other great question is, was cordray already DENIED an appointment by congress, and bo simply waited and appointed him in spite of that rejection?

It had already been calculated that those two would not pass muster in Congress.
It is already pending in the Washington Judicial system as a watch group took it to court.