Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on January 25, 2013, 08:24:20 AM
-
Hey, you voted for it (you know who you are). This may open up a s**t storm of unconstitutional and illegal going's on. He's a fraud.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_RECESS_APPOINTMENTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-25-10-49-05
By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press
Politics Video
Buy AP Photo Reprints
Interactives
Christmas at the White House through the years
New Orleans Obama will see 4 years after Hurricane Katrina
Obama, Cabinet travels lead mostly to blue states
Presidential postcards: Chief executives on vacation
The 2009 U.S.-Russia summit
Barack Obama: The AP interview
Foodie in Chief: Mapping Obama's Eats
First ladies of fashion: Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy
Obama's family and WWII
First 100 days: Revisiting the issues that shaped Obama's campaign
First 100 days: Day-by-day interactive calendar
First 100 days: Michelle Obama's style
Obama's West Wing
Latest News
Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional
Obama picks foreign policy aide as chief of staff
Obama picks former prosecutor to head SEC
Obama to visit Las Vegas next week
White House says Obama supports women in combat
Photo Slideshow
Obama picks up Nobel Peace prize
Interactive
Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address
Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address
Panorama of the State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.
The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.
The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.
Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic - as Democrats have in the past as well - to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power. GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.
On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.
Obama also appointed Cordray on the same day.
The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.
---
-
WOW good to see someone taking this prick to task.
-
Wow, earth shattering news. Definitly worth getting your thong in a knot over.
-
Hey, you voted for it (you know who you are). This may open up a s**t storm of unconstitutional and illegal going's on. He's a fraud.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_RECESS_APPOINTMENTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-25-10-49-05
By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press
Politics Video
Buy AP Photo Reprints
Interactives
Christmas at the White House through the years
New Orleans Obama will see 4 years after Hurricane Katrina
Obama, Cabinet travels lead mostly to blue states
Presidential postcards: Chief executives on vacation
The 2009 U.S.-Russia summit
Barack Obama: The AP interview
Foodie in Chief: Mapping Obama's Eats
First ladies of fashion: Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy
Obama's family and WWII
First 100 days: Revisiting the issues that shaped Obama's campaign
First 100 days: Day-by-day interactive calendar
First 100 days: Michelle Obama's style
Obama's West Wing
Latest News
Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional
Obama picks foreign policy aide as chief of staff
Obama picks former prosecutor to head SEC
Obama to visit Las Vegas next week
White House says Obama supports women in combat
Photo Slideshow
Obama picks up Nobel Peace prize
Interactive
Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address
Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address
Panorama of the State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.
The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.
The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.
Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma" sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic - as Democrats have in the past as well - to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power. GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.
On Jan. 4, 2012, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.
Obama also appointed Cordray on the same day.
The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.
---
cool story bro
-
The courts are finally coming down on Obama.
About time....
-
cool story bro
Yep, this is your boy. No surprise.
-
nothing to see here, move along, this will amount to nothing as usual. next time run someone capable of winning so we don't have to witness all this crying
-
nothing to see here, move along, this will amount to nothing as usual. next time run someone capable of winning so we don't have to witness all this crying
That's it monkey....repeat the MSNBC talking points.
Don't worry about the Constitution.
-
:D :D :Dskippy skippy skippy why so angry, first you vote for a loser in the pres election,your team, the steelers amount to nothing, now this,count to ten and think of yourself in a happy place :D :D :D :D :D
-
Didn't vote for Romney.
Ouch on the Steelers....we'll be back. In the meantime, we can pass time counting all our Superbowl rings.
-
:D :D :Dskippy skippy skippy why so angry, first you vote for a loser in the pres election,your team, the steelers amount to nothing, now this,count to ten and think of yourself in a happy place :D :D :D :D :D
He won not because if policies numbnuts, he won because stupid ass people and fraud votes. We didn't help either but not turning out like we should have.
-
He won not because if policies numbnuts, he won because stupid ass people and fraud votes. We didn't help either but not turning out like we should have.
can you show us the fraud votes, crotch
-
Obama is not an american and does not give a fuck about the USC
-
He won not because if policies numbnuts, he won because stupid ass people and fraud votes. We didn't help either but not turning out like we should have.
Definitely. The Republicans have always been known as the 'smart party' for intellectuals right? ::). The party for the believers of Sky Gods.
You got this thing with 'liberals' in your brain and you've attached that to the Democrats. I doubt you could even broadly define the term. Lemme guess, pinko's and commies that hates guns right?
-
Recess appointments have been blissfully sailing along for 150 years, and, now, when the legislative branch starts playing games with it, the executive branch pays the price.
Great job Party of No! Except here are a few facts.
1. Republicans refuse to consider his nominations for almost any job. Hundreds of judgeships remain vacant because they simply won't even look at the nominations. Typical of their outrageous obstructionism.
2. At the time of the "recess appointments," Congress was neither in session or in town!
3. Typical of of their obstructionism, before they left town, they passed a resolution saying that, even though no one was in D.C.. they were still in session.
4. The Court, in this ruling, says that they were.
5. Most importantly, they are wrong, and their wrong-headed decision will be overturned. Count on it.
-
can you show us the fraud votes, crotch
LOL!!! Here comes the spin.
Meanwhile, in the land of the La-La Party. Fresh from their stunning success in voter suppression... Republicunts have a Constitutional amendment proposed to determine Presidential victor to be candidate who gets the most territory, not votes. ::)
-
LOL!!! Here comes the spin.
Meanwhile, in the land of the La-La Party. Fresh from their stunning success in voter suppression... Republicunts have a Constitutional amendment proposed to determine Presidential victor to be candidate who gets the most territory, not votes. ::)
No way, really? I'd have to do some reading on that. Suppose it makes sense from their point of view as dickheads are spread quite far and wide and over large areas.
-
Definitely. The Republicans have always been known as the 'smart party' for intellectuals right? ::). The party for the believers of Sky Gods.
You got this thing with 'liberals' in your brain and you've attached that to the Democrats. I doubt you could even broadly define the term. Lemme guess, pinko's and commies that hates guns right?
Tell you what. Why don't you tell me what makes dems so much more intellectual than repubs. There is a distinct difference between a democrat and a left wing liberal wack job which seems to be taking over this country.
-
Recess appointments have been blissfully sailing along for 150 years, and, now, when the legislative branch starts playing games with it, the executive branch pays the price.
Great job Party of No! Except here are a few facts.
1. Republicans refuse to consider his nominations for almost any job. Hundreds of judgeships remain vacant because they simply won't even look at the nominations. Typical of their outrageous obstructionism.
2. At the time of the "recess appointments," Congress was neither in session or in town!
3. Typical of of their obstructionism, before they left town, they passed a resolution saying that, even though no one was in D.C.. they were still in session.
4. The Court, in this ruling, says that they were.
5. Most importantly, they are wrong, and their wrong-headed decision will be overturned. Count on it.
So I guess you know more than the ruling judges of the US Court of Appeals? Take a look at his not just these "appointees" but the others. All of them either have ties to or are apart or subscribe to communism, this isn't CT, this is fact. Just because they are educated doesn't mean they are qualified for teir particular job. Most if not all are not qualified. He "appointed" his buddies. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a reason why this person (Obama, I refuse to call him "President") is questioned in EVERY act he does.
-
So I guess you know more than the ruling judges of the US Court of Appeals? Take a look at his not just these "appointees" but the others. All of them either have ties to or are apart or subscribe to communism, this isn't CT, this is fact. Just because they are educated doesn't mean they are qualified for teir particular job. Most if not all are not qualified. He "appointed" his buddies. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a reason why this person (Obama, I refuse to call him "President") is questioned in EVERY act he does.
Your lack of common sense is the direct reason for posts such as these.
I guess that will be the GOPs next excuse. They refuse to call him "President". Funny how despite getting an ass whipping in the last election the GOP thinks they can tell the POTUS who he can and can't appoint.
-
Your lack of common sense is the direct reason for posts such as these.
I guess that will be the GOPs next excuse. They refuse to call him "President". Funny how despite getting an ass whipping in the last election the GOP thinks they can tell the POTUS who he can and can't appoint.
The Senate was not in recess - and - O-SHITHEAD does not get to say when recess is or not.
Hope that helps
-
Your lack of common sense is the direct reason for posts such as these.
I guess that will be the GOPs next excuse. They refuse to call him "President". Funny how despite getting an ass whipping in the last election the GOP thinks they can tell the POTUS who he can and can't appoint.
There are certain rules even the Obama (or a President) must follow. Just because you're president does not mean in anyway, shape or form you are above the law and can make shit up as he goes along. As I'm talking to my brother-in-law, he had informed me that if this stands, this is an impeachable offence among other things. Speaking of commonsense, it's the lack of commonsense the reason why this country is in dire straights. Obama knows but chooses to take this country on fiscally disastrous path as well as his foreign policies. Tell me one thing he has done that has one iota of commonsense? Not just him, but his cohorts as well.
-
There are certain rules even the Obama (or a President) must follow. Just because you're president does not mean in anyway, shape or form you are above the law and can make shit up as he goes along. As I'm talking to my brother-in-law, he had informed me that if this stands, this is an impeachable offence among other things. Speaking of commonsense, it's the lack of commonsense the reason why this country is in dire straights. Obama knows but chooses to take this country on fiscally disastrous path as well as his foreign policies. Tell me one thing he has done that has one iota of commonsense? Not just him, but his cohorts as well.
You always seem to be "talking to" someone. Which generally means you are full of shit about what you are saying. Remember your so-and-so "on the Hill" saying that Obama was destined to lose the election? Yeah. Same thing here.
Again, a typical post of yours that if it contained a molecule of common sense would not have appeared on the board. "Impeachable"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.
-
You always seem to be "talking to" someone. Which generally means you are full of shit about what you are saying. Remember your so-and-so "on the Hill" saying that Obama was destined to lose the election? Yeah. Same thing here.
Again, a typical post of yours that if it contained a molecule of common sense would not have appeared on the board. "Impeachable"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.
Answer my question. Yes, I am always "talking to someone" I never said he was destined to lose and it's 100% impeachable if it's not overturned. Now, again...ANSWER MY QUESTION.
-
Answer my question. Yes, I am always "talking to someone" I never said he was destined to lose and it's 100% impeachable if it's not overturned. Now, again...ANSWER MY QUESTION.
Really? What did your on the Hill source say again? Please post a link to that statement. So I can ridicule it. Again.
What was your question again?
-
The Senate was not in recess - and - O-SHITHEAD does not get to say when recess is or not.
Hope that helps
Guess you missed #2, #3, #4, #5 from above. Not surprising. So tell me, if they were not even in town, how could they not be in recess? Enlighten us with the GOP delusions.
-
Really? What did your on the Hill source say again? Please post a link to that statement. So I can ridicule it. Again.
What was your question again?
You want me to post a link from my brother in law?? The question was, give one example of a commonsense policy that Obama or the left have enacted or proposed. Example, 5, 7 or 10 bullets? Spending more than we take in and keep borrowing? What the Fuck is an assault rifle? 50000 people killed in auto accidents, should we take away the cars? Dude, I can go on all night with this idiocy.
-
You want me to post a link from my brother in law?? The question was, give one example of a commonsense policy that Obama or the left have enacted or proposed. Example, 5, 7 or 10 bullets? Spending more than we take in and keep borrowing? What the Fuck is an assault rifle? 50000 people killed in auto accidents, should we take away the cars? Dude, I can go on all night with this idiocy.
I am sure you can go on all night with idiocy since that cranium of yours has an unlimited supply.
Yeah, post a link from your brother in law. Then post a link from your reply on here about your so and so on the hill saying Obama was losing.
Let's start the day off with a laugh. Instead of wandering from appointments to guns to cars and any other bullshit that pops into your head.
-
The Senate was not in recess - and - O-SHITHEAD does not get to say when recess is or not.
Hope that helps
Agreed. I don't think the SCOTUS will allow Obama to decide when the Congress is in session and when it's not. But, I think they may give more leeway than just the end of year thing as well...just from a timing perspective that's a lot of nominees all at once.
-
Someone needs to photoshop Joe's head on this redneck's body...
-
Someone needs to photoshop Joe's head on this redneck's body...
LOL!!
-
Twitter
RSS Feed
Second appeals court invalidates Obama's NLRB recess appointments
87
278
By TAL KOPAN |
5/16/13 12:10 PM EDT
A second appeals court has joined the D.C. Circuit in ruling that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, concluding that some board actions taken in the wake of those appointments were also invalid.
The issue has far-reaching implications for both the NLRB and other boards, including Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been a frequent target of conservatives and whose director was a recess appointment.
The 2-1 decision Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (posted here) found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions. The reasoning mirrors that in a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court in January.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama tries to stop the bleeding)
The 3rd Circuit case centered on decisions the NLRB made on the authority of three members including Craig Becker, who was appointed by the president on March 27, 2010, while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks.
The case was brought by a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitation center whose nurses were allowed to form a union by one such NLRB decision. The facility, New Vista, contended that the board’s decision was invalid because it did not have enough members active when the decision was issued because the naming of Becker to the board was not a valid recess appointment.
The NLRB must have three members participate in a decision for it to be valid, and the court found that because Becker was not appointed during a break between sessions of Congress, he was not a valid member of the board and thus invalidated the NLRB’s orders.
The opinion, written by Judge D. Brooks Smith, said the recess clause of the Constitution should be read not just to give the president executive power, but also to preserve the “advice and consent” role of the Senate.
In his dissent, Judge Joseph. A Greenaway Jr. said the majority’s reading of the clause was needlessly narrow and ignored the Founding Fathers' intent to give the president the ability to act when the Senate is not available to “advise and consent.”
The administration late last month petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling on the issue.
The decision comes the same day that the Senate Help Subcommittee held a hearing on five nominations to the NLRB. Sen. Tom Harkin said they nominations would be moved next Wednesday.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/second-appeals-court-invalidates-obamas-nlrb-recess-164150.html
bbbaaaddaaaabbbooommmmm
-
And Barry gets hammered again.
So, that's 2 appeals left? Back to the 3rd circuit and up to the SCOTUS?
No way he wins at the SCOTUS, provided they bother to accept.
-
cool story bro
Do you still think it is a mute point?
-
Wow, earth shattering news. Definitly worth getting your thong in a knot over.
This indifferent attitude is what has contributed to enabling an unqualified buffoon to violate the constitution in so many levels and has resulted in the recent scandals.
-
Twitter
RSS Feed
Second appeals court invalidates Obama's NLRB recess appointments
87
278
By TAL KOPAN |
5/16/13 12:10 PM EDT
A second appeals court has joined the D.C. Circuit in ruling that President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, concluding that some board actions taken in the wake of those appointments were also invalid.
The issue has far-reaching implications for both the NLRB and other boards, including Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been a frequent target of conservatives and whose director was a recess appointment.
The 2-1 decision Thursday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (posted here) found that the presidential recess appointment power is limited to breaks between sessions of Congress, not breaks within sessions or other adjournments during which the Senate might meet in pro forma sessions. The reasoning mirrors that in a ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court in January.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama tries to stop the bleeding)
The 3rd Circuit case centered on decisions the NLRB made on the authority of three members including Craig Becker, who was appointed by the president on March 27, 2010, while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks.
The case was brought by a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitation center whose nurses were allowed to form a union by one such NLRB decision. The facility, New Vista, contended that the board’s decision was invalid because it did not have enough members active when the decision was issued because the naming of Becker to the board was not a valid recess appointment.
The NLRB must have three members participate in a decision for it to be valid, and the court found that because Becker was not appointed during a break between sessions of Congress, he was not a valid member of the board and thus invalidated the NLRB’s orders.
The opinion, written by Judge D. Brooks Smith, said the recess clause of the Constitution should be read not just to give the president executive power, but also to preserve the “advice and consent” role of the Senate.
In his dissent, Judge Joseph. A Greenaway Jr. said the majority’s reading of the clause was needlessly narrow and ignored the Founding Fathers' intent to give the president the ability to act when the Senate is not available to “advise and consent.”
The administration late last month petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling on the issue.
The decision comes the same day that the Senate Help Subcommittee held a hearing on five nominations to the NLRB. Sen. Tom Harkin said they nominations would be moved next Wednesday.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/second-appeals-court-invalidates-obamas-nlrb-recess-164150.html
bbbaaaddaaaabbbooommmmm
I know Lurker likes to quote himself. Will save him a little trouble. :)
Recess appointments have been blissfully sailing along for 150 years, and, now, when the legislative branch starts playing games with it, the executive branch pays the price.
Great job Party of No! Except here are a few facts.
1. Republicans refuse to consider his nominations for almost any job. Hundreds of judgeships remain vacant because they simply won't even look at the nominations. Typical of their outrageous obstructionism.
2. At the time of the "recess appointments," Congress was neither in session or in town!
3. Typical of of their obstructionism, before they left town, they passed a resolution saying that, even though no one was in D.C.. they were still in session.
4. The Court, in this ruling, says that they were.
5. Most importantly, they are wrong, and their wrong-headed decision will be overturned. Count on it.
-
nothing to see here, move along, this will amount to nothing as usual. next time run someone capable of winning so we don't have to witness all this crying
Third federal appeals court invalidates Obama NLRB recess appointment
Associated Press ^ | 7/17/13 | Staff
Posted on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 6:12:18 PM by Nachum
RICHMOND, Va. – A third federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Obama´s recess appointments of three National Labor Relations Board members was unconstitutional. A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined federal appeals courts in the District of Columbia and Philadelphia in ruling that the Senate wasn´t really in recess when Obama filled the vacancies during an extended holiday break in January 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the D.C. case. However, the legal dispute may have been resolved politically. Obama on Tuesday nominated two new NLRB appointees to replace those
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Third federal appeals court invalidates Obama NLRB recess appointment
Associated Press ^ | 7/17/13 | Staff
Posted on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 6:12:18 PM by Nachum
RICHMOND, Va. – A third federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Obama´s recess appointments of three National Labor Relations Board members was unconstitutional. A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined federal appeals courts in the District of Columbia and Philadelphia in ruling that the Senate wasn´t really in recess when Obama filled the vacancies during an extended holiday break in January 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the D.C. case. However, the legal dispute may have been resolved politically. Obama on Tuesday nominated two new NLRB appointees to replace those
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In order to accept Obama's argument, you have to basically accept that the Executive can dictate when the Congress is or is not in session. I just can't see that happening at any level.
-
In order to accept Obama's argument, you have to basically accept that the Executive can dictate when the Congress is or is not in session. I just can't see that happening at any level.
I don't either, though, as a tangential point I'd argue the practice of Congressional leadership (from both sides of the aisle) of just claiming they're on temporary recess is fucked up, even if technically constitutional (since the House and the Senate each make up their own rules).
The political process has been subverted to score points in the 24 hour news cycle and whip the electorate into a frenzy. These sort of political games make me sick.
I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't mind eliminating the ridiculous provision that gives Senators from the State in which a Judge will be serving de-facto veto power, and requiring that the Senate take up any nominations in a timely fashion (45 days?) and if they don't the nomination is implicitly approved.
-
I don't either, though, as a tangential point I'd argue the practice of Congressional leadership (from both sides of the aisle) of just claiming they're on temporary recess is fucked up, even if technically constitutional (since the House and the Senate each make up their own rules).
The political process has been subverted to score points in the 24 hour news cycle and whip the electorate into a frenzy. These sort of political games make me sick.
I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't mind eliminating the ridiculous provision that gives Senators from the State in which a Judge will be serving de-facto veto power, and requiring that the Senate take up any nominations in a timely fashion (45 days?) and if they don't the nomination is implicitly approved.
Agreed. I don't think it's for the news so much as a power issue.
If the Congress doesn't want the President having the power to put his people into leadership positions, then they should pass a law setting up some process (civil service or whatever 'merit' system they want), and then timely approve what political nominations they leave for the President to decide.
Right now, Obama is filling a ton of important positions with political buddies as do all Presidents. Sometimes, that's disastrous as in the case of Michael Brown who was running FEMA when hurricane Katrina hit. He was a lawyer with very little experience in disaster management and got the top spot by being in with Bush.
I'd imagine Barry would veto any type of legislation, so pushing it through seems highly unlikely.
-
And, Barry takes a tumble. :)