Unconstitutional Appointment by Obama

[IndyDave1776]

Decades ago the Senate was simply interested in answering one (1) important question: is the nominee qualified to do the job? Senate hearings took little time with almost no fanfare. Today the question of qualifications is almost forgotten. It may depend upon whether the nominee prefers blue or green.

You say the Senate "used." My opinion is that the Senate "abused." If the Senate wishes to have nominees appear before them when they are in session perhaps they who have the power in their own home can get their crap together and look at the nominee's qualifications instead of his politics. This goes for Democrats and Republicans.

In the end let us face the reality that whomever the sitting President is - HE WON! In 1992 this was Pres Clinton, in 2000 it was Pres Bush, and in 2012 it is Pres Obama. Naturally their appointees are going to lean their way. I don't disagree with keeping out criminals, incompetents, or severe extremists but the process itself has become very polarized to the point of grinding to a halt.

In the end DragonGunner may have it right: their infighting may(?) be the best thing for us. That doesn't change my mind that the Senate is abusing its power[SIZE=3] (IN THIS CASE!)

So in your reckoning if the president doesn't like the way the Senate operates, that justifies leaving positions vacant until the Senate is out of session in order to make a recess appointment? You are generous in spreading the criticism, but why it is that a truly conservative GOP appointee doesn't stand a chance, but Obama sailed Kagan through the Senate with little complaint about the fact she had NEVER presided over a trial? It seems that this has been a very one-sided affair for most of my lifetime. I have a problem with allowing one side to run roughshod over the opposition and Constitution both, but when the other tries it screaming "STOP! RULES!!!!"

 

[MightySanta]

Good news to start off my weekend

 

[Pilfin]

I just hope the courts can peel back some of these executive orders that he is throwing around

 

[dross]

To DragonGunner,

I do not disagree! 100% correct.



To Indytiger,

While I am a Libertarian and believe in less government that does not mean I do not believe in the rule of law. The law, whether we like it or not, allows the President to make recess appointments. If we do not like this the law should be changed. For the Senate to simply claim to be in session when they really are not is what I am oppossed to. If we do not like it we should lobby our legislators to change the law. In my mind the Senate is abusing its position.



To Dross,

I do not disagree with your observation. Each side is playing politics to do what?

Decades ago the Senate was simply interested in answering one (1) important question: is the nominee qualified to do the job? Senate hearings took little time with almost no fanfare. Today the question of qualifications is almost forgotten. It may depend upon whether the nominee prefers blue or green.

You say the Senate "used." My opinion is that the Senate "abused." If the Senate wishes to have nominees appear before them when they are in session perhaps they who have the power in their own home can get their crap together and look at the nominee's qualifications instead of his politics. This goes for Democrats and Republicans.

In the end let us face the reality that whomever the sitting President is - HE WON! In 1992 this was Pres Clinton, in 2000 it was Pres Bush, and in 2012 it is Pres Obama. Naturally their appointees are going to lean their way. I don't disagree with keeping out criminals, incompetents, or severe extremists but the process itself has become very polarized to the point of grinding to a halt.

In the end DragonGunner may have it right: their infighting may(?) be the best thing for us. That doesn't change my mind that the Senate is abusing its power (IN THIS CASE!)

Regards,

Doug

The notion that politics shouldn't enter the confirmation process is recent and historically incorrect. It's also impossible. It's been happening since day one. The Constitution does not prescribe criteria.

Obama's argument boils down to, "No, fair cheating to stop me from cheating."

 

[mbills2223]

Ummm...a general statement and a request that at least a minimal effort be exerted by everyone before they post to see if the topic is already on the first page of posts, perhaps even in the top 5 at the time you are contemplating adding yet another.....

^INGO Police. Serving and protecting us all from ourselves while spreading his vast knowledge of everything since November of 2012...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Didn't Bush have like almost 200 recess appointments?

 

[devious169]

TYRANT, need I say more

 

[Kutnupe14]

TYRANT, need I say more

...asaurus Rex

 

[Expat]

Recess appointments are an anachronism anyway. The Senate is no longer out of session for many months due to traveling by horseback. The ONLY reason they are made now is to avoid an up or down vote in the Senate.

 

[IndyS3]

+1