Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
.... <insert Flat "What" and Face Palm at the Republican commentaries included in the article>
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Nope. Well, depends on your definition of "a short time". To quote Wiki
:
Then again, most of that article doesn't cite any sources.
Nevermind, I found a better source, and Wiki is more or less correct: Recess Appointments FAQ, by the Congressional Research Service, bless their poor, under-appreciated souls.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A
edited 25th Jan '13 2:07:45 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.What I mean is, it looks like Richard Cordray has held the position for about a year now. You mean the Senate never confirmed him? That doesn't make sense.
I don't see what's the controversy here. Even if the recesses are valid, that just means the Senate will have to make the decision sooner or later.
I read through a bunch of the comments. Only a couple mentioned the "contradicts 150 years of practice" line and basically none were supportive of the President. Considering how the only mildly supportive ones had more "thumbs down" than "thumbs up" I suspect that anything actually supportive got so many "thumbs down" that they were deleted.
Sort of hard to have a discussion when one side's comments, even the ones that are strictly factual and about the pocedure, are COMPLETELY drowned out by the other.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!You expect a civilized and informative discussion in the comments section of a news story? I have some bad news for you... and maybe a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. :P
![]()
The Senators probably see it as breaching their own powers, because let me tell you, those Senators like their power. Also, the Senators raising the fuss are pretty blatantly upset about the fact that Obama got any of his positions staffed at all, since otherwise his agencies wouldn't have been able to move forward with their assigned initiatives. In theory, Obama could just recess appoint the posts all over again and thereby evade the possibility of indefinite filibusters, and we can't have that, can we?
edited 25th Jan '13 2:16:15 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.The Constitution was not designed with the intention of allowing a legislative minority to indefinitely block a President's appointments. SCOTUS really needs to move on this issue, and yet I'm not sure that it has the power, Constitutionally, to compel Congress to hold votes.
edited 25th Jan '13 2:15:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Not really. I just expected some comments going the other way and not the complete take over of one viewpoint. It is how the comments that are not "hate-on/impeach the president/king/dictator" have been completely deleated that really got to me.
@ Fighteer:
Couldn't they just bypass Congress and Directly Appoint them? Isn't there an Act that could do that, an Emergency Powers Act or something?
Iran & Britain: It wouldn't work. Afghanistan and Iraq have proven to be very unpopular amongst the public, since there's no real reason to be there in the first place...
Keep Rolling OnBe careful how you define "living". Explicit (amendment) changes and implicit (interpretive) changes are two different things.
I honestly think the president shouldn't try to bypass the Senate like this. The worst that could happen if the White House loses the case is that the president needs Senate advice and consent. That was the intent all along. If the Senate is being obstructive, that's a problem with Congress and not the executive. The problem should be fixed at the Senate instead of having a presidential overreach to try to cover it up. (By the way, the Senate isn't supposed to filibuster nominations in normal circumstances, by its own agreement.)
If the US government were operating on a parliamentary or semi-presidential system instead of a full-presidential one, would we have to deal with this major headache?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
![]()
It may not "filibuster" them in technical terms, but it does allow indefinite, anonymous holds
on any and all motions, including votes on executive appointments. That's essentially a filibuster in all but name, and the effect is identical. The filibuster as it exists doesn't even fulfill the original purpose of the rule which created it, and it's certainly not something imagined as necessary in the Constitution, unlike recess appointments, which are explicitly spelled out.
I strongly disagree with the notion that recess appointments of the kind we're discussing are "overreach" of any kind, particularly given that they're granted as an option to the President in Article II. It seems fairly clear that the reason for that is to make sure the President is able to do his duty in executing the law.
Ahahahaha. No, we wouldn't have to deal with this headache, but the one we would have to deal with would be even worse, I'm sorry to say. The framers created the structure of our government in such a way that opposing sides and multiple branches would be forced to cooperate in order to get anything done, and in a way that was supposed to prevent too much power from being concentrated in too few hands. One of the major things wrong with our current system, in my opinion, is that the Republican leadership (sorry, have to name them as what they are, no way around it) is treating the Congress like a Parliament, instead of what it is and what it was intended to be. Also, I would place most of the blame for this transformation on Newt Gingrich. Thanks a lot, Newt.
The people in question were appointed January 4, 2012, during the time between the first and second sessions of the 112th Congress (although the Senators disputing the appointments claim that the Senate were still in pro forma session on that date). Recess appointments last until the sine die adjournment of the next session Congress after their appointment - or in other words, they lasted for around one year until the beginning of this month, after the 112th Congress passed the "Fiscal Cliff" band-aid and finally, finally adjourned a day before the start of the 113th Congress. That was January 7th or so. At present, Obama has renominated the officials we're talking about, so the question at hand is about whether their previous term (Jan 4, 2012 - Jan 7-ish, 2013) in their positions was valid.
edited 25th Jan '13 4:46:20 PM by darksidevoid
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.![]()
No, he was sentenced to 30 months for disclosing classified information. There's a tremendous difference between "whistleblowing" and "violating national security". He wasn't punished for saying "the United States is torturing people", he was punished for revealing specifics about the details of assignments of particular individuals when that information was classified.
You can argue that he was targeted for prosecution due to his whistleblowing, but he wasn't prosecuted for his whistleblowing.
edited 25th Jan '13 5:10:00 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.And Congress don't have the rules in place to operate like a Parliament. The only way the minority party can block legislation in a Parliament is by getting sufficient support from members of the majority party.
In addition, Parliamentary systems often stop ping-pong legislating by an unofficial understanding that anything contained in a party manifesto is considered to have been voted on by the electorate. When (to everyone's shock and surprise) a party actually keeps a manifesto pledge, the opposing party is therefore obliged to accept that legislation and not repeal it first chance they get.
Unless there's riots. You can repeal stuff if there's riots about it.

Has the White House offered any preliminary responses to this new ruling?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.