NLRB Appts Ruled Unconstitutional

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Furthermore, does that mean we get to go back and look at the constitutionality of all the decisions made by the illegally appointed posts under Reagan?[/quote]

I don’t understand your focus on Reagan here, unless it is simiply a case of “but your guys did it, so why can’t mine” school yard game. (Assuming Reagan’s appointees fall under the same circumstance as Bam’s.)

When it comes down to it, you can find power grabs in every administration starting with Jefferson. Well, Adams too I guess.

Thing is, some people see this as an “ahhh ha, my side won.” Which is insane, because there is no “winning and losing” here. It is the future and framework we leave our kids. (Well these days more like how big of a mess we leave our kids.)

So, in short, I have no idea why you care about Reagan so much, unless you are assuming that every conservative thinking individual agrees with everything Reagan did. In the end, it doesn’t appear that Reagan’s appointees were challenged so it is largely irrelevant. Just because a good thing for America happened under Obama’s rule, doesn’t mean that it is a ruling simiply to hurt Bam. Just means that he happened to be the one with his hand in the cookie jar when the lights clicked on. Ignoring it now, because Reagan may or may not have done it is the worst kind of partisian hackery. [/quote]

Personally speaking, I don’t give a shit if Obaama did it and I don’t give a shit that Reagan did it. From my point of view, they had good reason to do it whether it was to combat childish obstructionist politics or whatever.

My biggest problem, like with most threads that I comment on in this garbage forum, is that most people here jump at every possible opportunity to shit all over Bam while COMPLETELY ignoring that what he is doing is 1) constitutionally allowed and 2) has a metric shitton of precedence behind it.

I can’t for the life of me think what it is that is so different about Obama than these other President’s that makes the people in here forget about history and precedence…hrmmmmm…

42

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The Recess Appointments Clause does not allow recess appointments for “short intra-session adjournments.” Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution prohibits one house of Congress from ajourning for more than three days without the consent of the other. The House did not consent to a Senate recess or adjournment of longer than three days. The Senate was still in session when Obama made his appointments.

[/quote]

I agree. Bam probably should have just adjourned Congress then made his appointments, as he is allowed to do under Article II, Section 3, Clause 3. That would have been hilarious.

Unintended consequences are unintended.

43

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
How did Reagan “abuse the shit” out of the appointments clause? Were any of his appointments made without the advise and consent of Congress while it was still in session?

[/quote]

Why yes, they were actually!!! They were made during “intrasession” recesses of the Senate and not “intersession” recesses (aka THE Recess in between sessions). According to the judiciary:

I have not been able to calculate the exact number of “intrasession” appointments made by previous Presidents (if you have, can you point me to it?), but we do know that it’s been standard practice since at least 1921, when Harding’s attorney general determined that a President may make appointments whenever “there is a real and genuine recess making it impossible for him to receive the advice and consent of the Senate.”

It is quite a stretch to say that the Senate is not in “a real and genuine recess” because of intermittent meetings–designed only to block appointments–which involve a couple of aides and a Senator and last a few minutes.

But that hardly matters because two of the three judges on the panel ruled that all intrasession appointments are ipso facto unconstitutional. This would negate many of Bush’s 171 recess appointments.

44

You’re an idiot and you’ve completely ignored what I have explained to you. Reagan didn’t make recess appointments while Congress was still in session. There is NO precedent whatsover prior to WWII and only three such occurences since then.

45

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Personally speaking, I don’t give a shit if Obaama did it and I don’t give a shit that Reagan did it. [/quote]

I would imagine if this were true you wouldn’t spend so much time commenting on it.

Fair enough, maybe they did.

You say this a lot, here and other parts of the site… Yet keep coming back, and less and less cordial each time. hrmmmmmm…

Quite like the metric ton of shit that Bush/Romney/any republican gets any time his or her name is brought up on any left leaning website/forum/facebook page.

It is really the same thing, just pointing in a different direction.

As goes American politics since Adams. Not sure why this is surprising.

Speaking of forgetting history and precedence… Assuming you aren’t making the go-to lefty talking point of “racist” here, you seem to be lacking persepctive when it comes to partisian commentary.

46

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

There are 3 case studies that disagree with you. THANKS ANYWAY.

(and boy was I right or what when I said nobody would bother to read them LOL)[/quote]

Those aren’t “case studies”, Einstein - in any event, the DC Circuit opinion deals with both Evans and Woodley…but let me guess, you didn’t actually read the DC Circuit opinion to see how your “case studies” were treated, did you?

So, in fact, while gassing off about people not reading your “case studies”, you haven’t read the opinion itself, because if you have, you’d have known it dealt with and addressed the “case studies” you presented?

Laugh. Out. Loud. Indeed.

47

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

…while COMPLETELY ignoring that what he is doing is 1) constitutionally allowed and 2) has a metric shitton of precedence behind it.[/quote]

You have no idea if this is true or not, so why actually say it and then we can expose how little you actually know about it?

48

[quote]
Sexmachine wrote:

There is NO precedent whatsover prior to WWII and only three such occurences since then.[/quote]

LOL…dude you do realize that you are [hilariously] directly contradicting what you quoted just one page ago, right? Here let me refresh your memory:

[quote]

SexMachine wrote:

'The judges observed that no president from George Washington through Abraham Lincoln ever attempted to make an “intrasession” appointment (that is, an appointment when Congress was in session) without the advice and consent of the Senate, as Obama attempted to do. From the end of the Civil War through the end of World War II, only three such appointments were attempted.[/quote]

What you meant to say was that there were no instances until the civil war, only 3 instances from Civil War till WWI (as the people who actually know the history actually stated, and you quoted). With nothing said about current precedent, which I actually pointed out is close to 500.

That is the problem with not understanding the issues yourself and instead just relying on quotes to make the points for you–you sometimes tend to misremember what the facts actually are, then fuck them up in an attempt to regurgitate them (but I’m the idiot lol).

I really hope you PWI guys are reading what this guy is blabbering out and don’t consider him your torch-bearer.

Moving on:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’re an idiot and you’ve completely ignored what I have explained to you. [/quote]

Has it escaped you entirely that the OP was pertaining to THE recess between SESSIONS of Congress and not intra-session recesses? And aside from that, they determined that only vacancies that arise DURING the recess are able to be filled?

This is why I asked what you plan to do about the unconstitutionally appointed positions over the past 40 years (actually dating back to WWII if you want to get technical though most of the appointees have occurred since the Reagan administration).

[quote]
Sexmachine wrote:

Reagan didn’t make recess appointments while Congress was still in session[/quote]

You may or may not be right (I suspect the latter given your track history) but it has been exceedingly difficult to perform google-fu to chop through all the recent headlines of NLB-gate and optimistically hopeful conservative commentaries to that end, but I’ve found at least one article citing that Reagan used intrasession appointments 36 times:

He cites the Congressional Research Service. When I have a little more time and inclination, I will probably go pull out the exact cases for you.

49

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

There are 3 case studies that disagree with you. THANKS ANYWAY.

(and boy was I right or what when I said nobody would bother to read them LOL)[/quote]

Those aren’t “case studies”, Einstein - in any event, the DC Circuit opinion deals with both Evans and Woodley…but let me guess, you didn’t actually read the DC Circuit opinion to see how your “case studies” were treated, did you?

So, in fact, while gassing off about people not reading your “case studies”, you haven’t read the opinion itself, because if you have, you’d have known it dealt with and addressed the “case studies” you presented?

Laugh. Out. Loud. Indeed.[/quote]

Those cases directly state that a President has power to make intra-session appointments. The most recent case discussed by Judge Sentelle, and the point of the OP, determined that intra-session appointments are NOT constitutional and must address only vacancies that arise during the recess.

Why is this so hard for you people to grasp? How exactly are the cases (or case studies lol) I posted not relevant to that?

50

Forgive Lord Mensa, he is only protecting he who signs his checks.

The government worker who can do no wrong, never get fired no matter how inept he is, his only safe haven from the private sector where people actually work for a living.

How is Bam these days Nathan ? Have a Beer Summit recently ? Any progress on those shovel-ready jobs ?

I do want to thank you though, because Bam did coerce a vote from our Fresno Congressman for a yes-vote for his healthcare law in exchange for our bullshit High Speed Train that has been voted the worst bait-and switch Public Works Project in US History.

Who could argue with starting initial construction in an area which will hold 3% of the ridership, but hey, that’s what it costs to whore out another yes-vote.

51

Here comes Maximus with his low information talking points railing against government workers and trying to move the conversation about his much-loathed state of California (which he can never find the wherewithal to move from). Stuck at his station in life and nothing to do but bitch about it.

Always great to hear your opinion Maxi.

52

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote] VTBalla34 wrote:

is that most people here jump at every possible opportunity to shit all over Bam while COMPLETELY ignoring that what he is doing is 1) constitutionally allowed and 2) has a metric shitton of precedence behind it.[/quote]

Quite like the metric ton of shit that Bush/Romney/any republican gets any time his or her name is brought up on any left leaning website/forum/facebook page.

It is really the same thing, just pointing in a different direction.

[/quote]

You’re goddamn right it is! And if somebody pointed out to me how hypocritical and factually inaccurate I was, I sure as hell wouldn’t turn it into a 3 page ordeal trying to justify my position. It’s not me saying one guy is good and one guy is bad here (please tell me where I did that). I thought it was pretty clear from my actual words that I was pointing out three things:

-There are pre-existing legal opinion that do not agree with the current one
-The current opinion (not case study as I inaccurately called it earlier…see I learned something today) radically alters the recess appointment process, and potentially negates potentially hundreds of appointments (be them intrasession or those that were made when the vacancy did not arise during the recess)
-Nobody here wants to talk about all the other Presidents’ unconstitutional appointments, only Obama’s (Maxi wants to talk about trains lol)

Maybe I didn’t adequately convey that. If not, I apologize.

53

Admit it, you’re just happy you got your Obama phone aren’t you ?

54

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Personally speaking, I don’t give a shit if Obaama did it and I don’t give a shit that Reagan did it. From my point of view, they had good reason to do it whether it was to combat childish obstructionist politics or whatever.

My biggest problem, like with most threads that I comment on in this garbage forum, is that most people here jump at every possible opportunity to shit all over Bam while COMPLETELY ignoring that what he is doing is 1) constitutionally allowed and 2) has a metric shitton of precedence behind it.

I can’t for the life of me think what it is that is so different about Obama than these other President’s that makes the people in here forget about history and precedence…hrmmmmm…
[/quote]

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

With nothing said about current precedent, which I actually pointed out is close to 500.

[/quote]

I don’t know how many more times I can explain it to you. Don’t you understand? The “precedent” you mention is the number of recess appointments made. Not the number of unconstitutional recess appointments made while Congress is still in session. What don’t you understand about that?

I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Congress started on January 3 and Obama made his appointments the following day.

So Clinton made more intrasession appointments than Reagan? So why do you keep going on about Reagan with no mention of Clinton?

55

[quote]
SexMachine wrote:

I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. [/quote]

Well if that ain’t the understatement of the year

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t know how many more times I can explain it to you. Don’t you understand? The “precedent” you mention is the number of recess appointments made. Not the number of unconstitutional recess appointments made while Congress is still in session. What don’t you understand about that?[/quote]

Well aside from the fact that you apparently think that number is THREE in the HISTORY of the United States (lol), the other thing you are missing is that the MAJORITY of those appointments (even ones made in between formal sessions of Congress) are STILL unconstitutional according to the most recent finding.

Here you are harping on “unconstitutional recess appointments made while Congress is still in session” while COMPLETELY ignoring the second finding of the DC Appeals Court opinion that the VACANCY HAS TO ARISE DURING THE RECESS.

You are failing to realize (or refusing to admit) that this opinion impacts the MAJORITY of the 500 or so recess appointments made in the past 40 years. You somehow after 3 pages have still not been able to bridge the gap in your mind from intra-session (including pro-forma) and inter-session appointments and their relation to WHEN those vacancies occurred.

I suspect this is due to the articles highlighting how Congress gaveled in and out (aka held pro-forma sessions) in order to keep Obama from making those appointments, but that is irrelevant fluff because THEY DIDNT HAVE TO (for two reasons…can you guess what those two reasons are now?). This is the problem when you read things verbatim, try to quote them, but don’t actually understand what it is you are reading.

Bottom line: 500 recess appointments have been made in the past 40 years (not 3 total in 200 years LOL), some during formal recess of Congress (inter-session), some during intra-session (with or without pro forma meetings) recess, and MOST filling vacancies that did not arise DURING that recess. The constitutionality of ALL those appointments except ones made during formal sessions of Congress AND which arose during that same recess, are in question. If you want to argue past that, you’ve got issues.

56

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So Clinton made more intrasession appointments than Reagan? So why do you keep going on about Reagan with no mention of Clinton?[/quote]

How adorable that you’ve moved on from “Reagan didn’t make any intrasession appointments” (lol) to “well he made less than Clinton and you’re not bagging on Clinton waaaahhhhhhhhhh”. Keep moving them goalposts Lucy.

The funny thing is I don’t give a shit about HOW MANY appointments they made during intra-session, inter-session, or when the vacancy arose. It is a shrewd move in response to bullshit obstructionism by crybaby pusssies. And this radical recent opinion is the only one that has determined that practice is NOT constitutional, so its going to be funny as shit to listen to crybabies do what they do best when it gets overturned by the SCOTUS.

57

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Keep moving them goalposts Lucy.
[/quote]

No offense, and this will be my only post on the matter, but you harping on logical fallacy of others when you commit them (ad hominem appears to be your favorite) consistantly since your first post in this forum after the election is tiresome, and frankly beneith you.

But much of your behavior and attitude around here is beneith you…

58

*beneath

Long night last night

59

[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Keep moving them goalposts Lucy.[/quote]<<< But much of your behavior and attitude around here is beneath you…[/quote]It is a grievous thing indeed to witness an intelligent man defending positions above which his present character will not allow him to rise.

60

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
*beneath

Long night last night[/quote]

Beneath ?

This slapdick does not deserve to wash my sweaty gym laundry.