NLRB Appts Ruled Unconstitutional

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

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.

[/quote]

I’m not moving the goalposts. I don’t know anything about the details of Reagan’s recess appointments. I have just researched it now and it appears he made intrasession recess appointments during an 18 day recess ending September 8, 1982, during a 23 day recess ending July 23, 1984, and during a 13 day recess ending January 21, 1985.

If Congress wants to exercise its Constitutional right to consent or not to presidential appointments they’re “cry babies?”

62

I was quoting the findings of the justices:

'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. In the judgesâ?? words, “[I]t is well established that 80 years after the ratification of the Constitution, no President [had] attempted such an appointment, and for decades thereafter, such appointments were exceedingly rare.”

I wouldn’t know how it affects recess appointments without looking at each one and how it was made.

I didn’t say ‘3 total in 200 years’ - I quoted the findings above. None between Washington and the Civil War and 3 prior to the end of WWII.

And how many were made during formal sessions of Congress and arise during that same recesss? Do you know? I certainly don’t.

63

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

If Congress wants to exercise its Constitutional right to consent or not to presidential appointments they’re “cry babies?”[/quote]

No, but it is obviously a problem that any Senator can stand up, indicate an intention to filibuster, and kill even the prospect of debate. This is exactly what has made recess appointments vital for presidents both Republican and Democratic.

The nomination process was not by any stretch of the imagination intended to allow a cluster of representatives to hamstring an entire agency which has already been created by the legislative branch by refusing to allow a chief to be appointed.

It was not intended to allow a group of petulant obstructionists to push into the distant future the Senate confirmations of the eighteen judicial nominees currently in limbo–sixteen of whom were unanimously approved by the bipartisan Judiciary Committee.

It was not intended to allow Democrats to hold G.W. Bush nominee Jeffrey Sutton from being appointed for two entire years.

In other words, it needs reform.

But Max and others acting like this is some surgical blow to Obama and his inflated ego are fooling themselves–this changes the way things are done, and not really for the better.

64

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[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…
[/quote]

You should have been around for the Bush years. Obama is treated like a saint comparatively.

I tend to agree that hypocrisy is strong in a lot of these forums.

65

[quote]
SexMachine wrote:

I didn’t say ‘3 total in 200 years’ - I quoted the findings above. None between Washington and the Civil War and 3 prior to the end of WWII.[/quote]

Well yeah, that’s what you originally QUOTED. But then a few posts later, when you actually attempted to think for yourself and not just copy/paste from google, you left us with this hilariously inaccurate gem:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I wouldn’t know how it affects recess appointments without looking at each one and how it was made.[/quote]

[quote]
And how many were made during formal sessions of Congress and arise during that same recesss? Do you know? I certainly don’t.[/quote]

You certainly don’t seem to know a lot about the topic you have been “debating” for 3 pages now.

66

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You should have been around for the Bush years. Obama is treated like a saint comparatively.

I tend to agree that hypocrisy is strong in a lot of these forums. [/quote]

Are you talking about this website, or the interwebz in general? If you are talking about T-Nation PWI bashing Bush I have some digging to do lol.

Did all of them get run off with pitch forks or something? Cause I can’t imagine the current crop of posters digging into Bush like that (some one’s I respect obviously excluded).

67

By the way, many nominees cannot legally work while they’re under consideration. So if a bunch of dicks are going to push appointments for years at a time, the good candidates are simply going to leave.

68

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Well yeah, that’s what you originally QUOTED. But then a few posts later, when you actually attempted to think for yourself and not just copy/paste from google, you left us with this hilariously inaccurate gem:

[/quote]

You found an error in my paraphrasing. Well done.

You haven’t answered my question - do you know the details about specific recess appointments by Reagan?

69

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You should have been around for the Bush years. Obama is treated like a saint comparatively.

I tend to agree that hypocrisy is strong in a lot of these forums. [/quote]

Are you talking about this website, or the interwebz in general? If you are talking about T-Nation PWI bashing Bush I have some digging to do lol.

Did all of them get run off with pitch forks or something? Cause I can’t imagine the current crop of posters digging into Bush like that (some one’s I respect obviously excluded).[/quote]

There was a larger group of regular posters, if I recall correctly, and Bush was hated on pretty hard.

Edit:

Here’s one about Bush being a war criminal

Read the OP of this one, sound familiar:

I’m sure there are many more.

70

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You found an error in my paraphrasing. Well done.

[/quote]

Well we aren’t exactly talking about a comma splice or a typo here, are we?

You were off by a factor of 160. That is 16,000%. SIXTEEN THOUSAND. Let that sink in for a minute. That is like shooting a rocket from the Sun to Earth, only to have it land on Alpha Centauri. Trying to drive from your house to Fuddruckers, only to end up in Tokyo.

That is not an “error in paraphrasing”. That my friend is representative that you have absolutely no clue how to process the info you are reading and apply it in any meaningful way. It is amazing to me that you didn’t just drop that one. There’s no way I would have wanted to keep bringing that up.

And you have the gall to call ME an idiot?

[quote]

You haven’t answered my question - do you know the details about specific recess appointments by Reagan?[/quote]

Not that it matters but the number is at least 40, and that is assuming there were NONE made where the vacancy didn’t arise during that recess. Since he is the scoreboard leader with 250 or so total recess appointments, I think its pretty safe to say that he is probably going to end up MVP.

I am nowhere near inclined to go off and compile a list for you though. But just for you to chew on, here is a list of Bush’s unconstitutional appointments (be careful trying to paraphrase them lol):

Summary: He made 171 total, 141 were during intra-session recesses (UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!). I also think logic will allow us to infer that “Of the 165 cases [where the appointee was nominated after appointment], the appointee had already been nominated in 162 of them” to mean that those 162 appointees were not appointed as a result of a vacancy that arose DURING that recess (unless the President had GREAT foresight…Iraq showed that not to be the case).

So Bush had 162 unconstitutional appointees. A staggering 95% success rate!

Scoreboard?

71

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Well we aren’t exactly talking about a comma splice or a typo here, are we?

You were off by a factor of 160. That is 16,000%. SIXTEEN THOUSAND. Let that sink in for a minute. That is like shooting a rocket from the Sun to Earth, only to have it land on Alpha Centauri. Trying to drive from your house to Fuddruckers, only to end up in Tokyo.

That is not an “error in paraphrasing”. That my friend is representative that you have absolutely no clue how to process the info you are reading and apply it in any meaningful way. It is amazing to me that you didn’t just drop that one. There’s no way I would have wanted to keep bringing that up.

And you have the gall to call ME an idiot?

[/quote]

Actually, I intended to write what I had previously quoted but made an error. You’re trying to make a mountain out of mole hill little man and it’s pathetic.

The number of what? I was asking you what you criticised me for not knowing. Tell me the specific details of those recess appointments and why they are unconstitutional. Now the count and corresponding dates of Reagan’s intrasession appointments I have already listed so we can count them as unconstitutional.

Actually your own link showed that Clinton filled more intrasesion recess appointments than Reagan remember?

Oh…so the expert lecturing the ‘cry babies’ for the last three pages doesn’t actually know the specific details of each of Reagan’s recess appointments? Beyond what I posted about them and assuming you read it.

And it was the Democrats who began the process of filibustering Bush’s recess appointments at which point he backed away from the process.

72

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Actually, I intended to write what I had previously quoted but made an error. You’re trying to make a mountain out of mole hill little man and it’s pathetic.[/quote]

You made an error and didn’t realize how fundamentally wrong your statement that only THREE recess appointments had been made EVER was? LOL this is just getting sad man.

[quote]
The number of what? [/quote]

THE NUMBER OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL RECESS APPOINTMENTS!!! My god this is a broken record at this point. How are you not able to follow ANY of this conversation?

Which is where the number 40 came from genius (it was actually high 30’s and I rounded up).

[quote]
SexMachine wrote:

Actually your own link showed that Clinton filled more intrasesion recess appointments than Reagan remember?[/quote]

Notice in the above quote I didn’t say anything about intrasession, did I? I said TOTAL RECESS APPOINTMENTS. As I tried to break down into the so-simple-a-retard-could-undersatnd-it English earlier, total recess appointments consist of: intrasession with proforma meetings, intrasession without proforma meetings, and intersession.

Clinton made a total of around 170 IIRC total recess appointments, a full 30% below the number of Reagan’s. Do you think, after showing Bush’s track record, that Clinton and Reagan would be too far off?

I’m just convinced at this point you can’t think beyond one step of what you are currently reading. I would love to play you in chess. 3 move checkmate…

[quote]

Oh…so the expert lecturing the ‘cry babies’ for the last three pages doesn’t actually know the specific details of each of Reagan’s recess appointments? Beyond what I posted about them and assuming you read it.[/quote]

I have made the claim that close to 40 of them were intrasession and the majority of them were made during a recess in which a vacancy DID NOT arise. Why is this so hard for you to swallow? Are you disputing that somehow? LOL Better run off and find a quote that might make a good sound byte which you don’t have a chance of understanding yourself.

[quote]

And it was the Democrats who began the process of filibustering Bush’s recess appointments at which point he backed away from the process.[/quote]

Edit: Yup and the deomcrats were just as big of crybabies for doing it too.

I think I am done now. I am growing tired of whack a mole.

73

I don’t get why some people always try and find out if Reagan did something that their president of choice is doing rather than defending said president on his own merits. If Reagan raped a bus full of handicapped kids it wouldn’t make me feel any better about Obama doing it. I realize that the situation being discussed is kind of trivial, but just in general, I see this kind of deflection all the time for subjects of varying severity. Never made any sense to me.

74

[quote]csulli wrote:
I don’t get why some people always try and find out if Reagan did something that their president of choice is doing rather than defending said president on his own merits. If Reagan raped a bus full of handicapped kids it wouldn’t make me feel any better about Obama doing it. I realize that the situation being discussed is kind of trivial, but just in general, I see this kind of deflection all the time for subjects of varying severity. Never made any sense to me.[/quote]

Aside from the fact that its funny as shit to see people who are swinging off the nuts of Reagan, Bush, Clinton or whoever their favorite president try to discredit the “other guy” for doing the exact same thing? Its just funny to point out how butthurt people are now but didn’t seem to be before.

People are dancing around acting this is a knock against Obama only due to him ovestepping the pro-forma sessions–probably because they get everything fed from them from Fox News, who has portrayed it in that light. The fact of the matter to anyone that lives in the real world, however, is that the radical opinion in Canning vs NLRB has implications FAR beyond Obama’s 30 or so appointments. It impacts the majority of Reagan’s 240+, Clinton’s 140 or so, Bush I’s 80, and Bush II’s 170. That is in the ballpark of 650 appointments that MAY have been unconstitutional (my guess of 500 was an extreme lowball apparently).

This was the point I made about 3 pages ago but nobody seems to want to talk about the implications of the legislative and executive decisions made as a result of those unconstitutional appointments.

75

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I don’t get why some people always try and find out if Reagan did something that their president of choice is doing rather than defending said president on his own merits. If Reagan raped a bus full of handicapped kids it wouldn’t make me feel any better about Obama doing it. I realize that the situation being discussed is kind of trivial, but just in general, I see this kind of deflection all the time for subjects of varying severity. Never made any sense to me.[/quote]

Aside from the fact that its funny as shit to see people who are swinging off the nuts of Reagan, Bush, Clinton or whoever their favorite president try to discredit the “other guy” for doing the exact same thing? Its just funny to point out how butthurt people are now but didn’t seem to be before.

People are dancing around acting this is a knock against Obama only due to him ovestepping the pro-forma sessions–probably because they get everything fed from them from Fox News, who has portrayed it in that light. The fact of the matter to anyone that lives in the real world, however, is that the radical opinion in Canning vs NLRB has implications FAR beyond Obama’s 30 or so appointments. It impacts the majority of Reagan’s 240+, Clinton’s 140 or so, Bush I’s 80, and Bush II’s 170. That is in the ballpark of 650 appointments that MAY have been unconstitutional (my guess of 500 was an extreme lowball apparently).

This was the point I made about 3 pages ago but nobody seems to want to talk about the implications of the legislative and executive decisions made as a result of those unconstitutional appointments.
[/quote]

Were any of the appointments by the previous administrations ever challenged?

CNN is reporting in this case it was a small business owner that brought the suit.

“The lawsuit was brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned Yakima, Washington bottling company, which complained the NLRB unfairly ruled in favor of Teamsters Local 760 during contract negotiations.Company executives said the board lacked a binding quorum because the recess appointments made by Obama were not legal.”

76

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

This was the point I made about 3 pages ago but nobody seems to want to talk about the implications of the legislative and executive decisions made as a result of those unconstitutional appointments.
[/quote]

So now they are Unconstitutional? 3 pages ago you were arguing they were Constitutional.

77

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

So now they are Unconstitutional? [/quote]

LOL Is this a real question? Have you not read anything written here? That is the current opinion of Canning vs NLRB. Or have you missed that?

[quote]

3 pages ago you were arguing they were Constitutional.[/quote]

I actually stated that there were 3 opinions that said they were constitutional (fact) and that there was a shitton of precedence for it (fact). But yes I do think Canning will eventually be overturned.

But I’m certainly willing to look at things in light of the Canning decision and its implications to past appointments. Unless everybody just wants to continue hurling turds at the Bamanator and avoid any meaningful discussion.

78

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Were any of the appointments by the previous administrations ever challenged?

CNN is reporting in this case it was a small business owner that brought the suit.

[/quote]

I think the three case opinions I posted earlier were as a result of challenge, but I can’t remember for sure what their genesis was. That is a good question though. A better question I think would be: can those appointments (or more specifically actions resulting from those appointments) still be challenged given statute of limitations and “give a damn” considerations?

79

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Were any of the appointments by the previous administrations ever challenged?

CNN is reporting in this case it was a small business owner that brought the suit.

[/quote]

I think the three case opinions I posted earlier were as a result of challenge, but I can’t remember for sure what their genesis was. That is a good question though. A better question I think would be: can those appointments (or more specifically actions resulting from those appointments) still be challenged given statute of limitations and “give a damn” considerations?
[/quote]

I would think any actions that still carry weight today would be terminated immediately if the constitutionality of prior administration appointments was determined to be unconstitutional. But, why would the SCOTUS look into prior administrations? It wouldn’t make much sense unless the public pushed for it and even then it would have to be a very large push.

I think at best it would set a precedent for future administrations and that’s about it.

80

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
SCOTUS look into prior administrations? It wouldn’t make much sense unless the public pushed for it and even then it would have to be a very large push.

[/quote]

Why would SCOTUS need to look into it though? The judicial law of the land, at least as it currently stands in DC, is that any appointments made while not in THE recess and to fill vacancies that did not arise DURING the recess, are unconstitutional.

I have no idea what the process would be to actually go and immediately invalidate all those decisions, but whoever has that responsibility wouldn’t have to lean on the SCOTUS to do so.