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. [/quote]
Then your tune is changing from name calling to actual discussion. That is refreshing.
I have read everything on this thread.
I dont have all the answers nor am I implying that I do. This will go to the Scotus, but if they rule it is unconstitutional then they will send it back to the Legislature to rectify. Most likely anything this current 3 person panel has handed down will be thrown out, and the POTUS will have to get new members run through a Democratic Senate. Why he was not able to get his picks through the Senate is beyond me? Could it be because he did not bring his picks to the Senate in the first place? Those openings had been there for a year and a half, and then he just throws them in their current position without running them by the Senate? I think this is what the appellate court had a problem with.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Why he was not able to get his picks through the Senate is beyond me? Could it be because he did not bring his picks to the Senate in the first place? Those openings had been there for a year and a half, and then he just throws them in their current position without running them by the Senate? I think this is what the appellate court had a problem with.[/quote]
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This will go to the Scotus, but if they rule it is unconstitutional then they will send it back to the Legislature to rectify. Most likely anything this current 3 person panel has handed down will be thrown out[/quote]
with wider implications, as I have pointed out, to potentially 600+ other appointees in the past 30 years, and decisions made by them.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This will go to the Scotus, but if they rule it is unconstitutional then they will send it back to the Legislature to rectify. Most likely anything this current 3 person panel has handed down will be thrown out[/quote]
with wider implications, as I have pointed out, to potentially 600+ other appointees in the past 30 years, and decisions made by them.[/quote]
As we all know the SCOTUS has a tendency to put everything back on the Legislature and POTUS to work it out. I agree it would be a daunting task, but we are America and we can do it.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Why he was not able to get his picks through the Senate is beyond me? Could it be because he did not bring his picks to the Senate in the first place? Those openings had been there for a year and a half, and then he just throws them in their current position without running them by the Senate? I think this is what the appellate court had a problem with.[/quote]
ummm filibuster?[/quote]
POTUS needs to at least attempt to bring them before the Senate, and then if there is a filibuster wait for the Recess then appoint them. I really think this is what was behind the Appellate courts ruling. These appointees were never presented to the Senate, and then the POTUS did not wait till there was a recess. He appointed them while the Senate was in session.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
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]
It would have been a lot easier if you’d just come out and said that in the first post you made instead of swinging for the fences regarding the gender affiliation and/or intelligence of people here. Your opinion on the forum’s posters is already well known. I had to actually read a bunch of BS just to get to this point in your statement 3 pages ago. If you’d just led with this it would have been a much more interesting conversation. And yeah I agree–the question is, is this decision a fundamental step back or forwards.
It would have been a lot easier if you’d just come out and said that in the first post you made instead of swinging for the fences regarding the gender affiliation and/or intelligence of people here. Your opinion on the forum’s posters is already well known. I had to actually read a bunch of BS just to get to this point in your statement 3 pages ago. If you’d just led with this it would have been a much more interesting conversation. [/quote]
That’s weird that you think I need to tailor my postings to your particular tastes, considering I have no idea who you are…
POTUS needs to at least attempt to bring them before the Senate, and then if there is a filibuster wait for the Recess then appoint them. I really think this is what was behind the Appellate courts ruling. These appointees were never presented to the Senate, and then the POTUS did not wait till there was a recess. He appointed them while the Senate was in session.[/quote]
The other two were nominated just before the Senate “broke” for the holidays (I use the term broke loosely here since they have made it abundantly clear they never were in recess).
Regardless, given that even the Republican Flynn had been filibustered for over a year, what difference does it make that the Senate says they “didn’t have enough time to vet them”? They wouldn’t have confirmed regardless of who was up there.
The problem is not the length of time given for consideration–it is the fact that no consideration is given regardless of the length of time.
It would have been a lot easier if you’d just come out and said that in the first post you made instead of swinging for the fences regarding the gender affiliation and/or intelligence of people here. Your opinion on the forum’s posters is already well known. I had to actually read a bunch of BS just to get to this point in your statement 3 pages ago. If you’d just led with this it would have been a much more interesting conversation. [/quote]
That’s weird that you think I need to tailor my postings to your particular tastes, considering I have no idea who you are…
[/quote]
Nevermind, I take that back. Looking through your forum posts, the one thing I don’t see is an endless string of PWI contributions. Unlike 95% of the other posters in here, you actually seem to have a life outside of the subforum.
You are ok in my book, even if you did take 4 sentences criticizing me with no prior interactions between us before saying you agree.
You have all the class of a crack whore, you know that?
Scratch that; it’s unfair to crack whores.[/quote]
LOL I’m sorry, but who are you you? Did I hurt your precious little feelings at some point? Holy shit there are some fucking cry babies around these parts.
[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.
[/quote]
It would take a court ruling on individual appointments by prior administration to overturn any of them, right? A ruling against Obama’s appointments wouldn’t’ necessarily invalidate prior appointments unless the circumstances were 100% the same.
I would think this would be something that would eventually make it to the SCOTUS for constitutional interpretation/precedent for future situations.
[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.
[/quote]
It would take a court ruling on individual appointments by prior administration to overturn any of them, right? A ruling against Obama’s appointments wouldn’t’ necessarily invalidate prior appointments unless the circumstances were 100% the same.
I would think this would be something that would eventually make it to the SCOTUS for constitutional interpretation/precedent for future situations. [/quote]
Well I have seen some people saying that the Canning opinion also effects the appointment of Cordray to the CFPB as well, even though Canning only addressed the NLRB appointees directly, so its hard to tell. It doesn’t appear though that each appointment has to be ruled on individually if that’s the case. THese people might not know what they are talking about though.
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]
No, that is a complete misrepresentation. For starters I was paraphrasing the ruling which referred to intrasession appointments exlusivey. Not all intrasession appointments are you persist in contending little man.
It’s you who have communication difficulties. Up until now you’ve been raving about all recess appointments and tallying them as if they prove something.
Oh, you rounded up.
Again, the total number of recess appointments is neither here nor there. As I stated before, Clinton made more intrasession recess appointments than Reagan.
Yes, I did notice that as I noticed it before and repeatedly questioned its relevance.
It wouldn’t matter if Reagan made 10,000 ‘total recess appointments’. See above. It’s completely irrelevant.
You’re welcome to play me online any time you choose.
Er…no that’s a game you are playing as it’s obvious from reading our conversation that we’ve been discussing that.
Let me know when you’re ready to play chess Lord Mensa.
His diet amnesty he gave to the illegal alien kids might be unconstitutional as well, ICE sued and a federal judge agreed there is enough merit to continue with the lawsuit.