Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Jun 27, 2014, 09:31 AM

With all the checks and balances how do you actually get anything done? I know the problem arises here too but we have learned the art of compromise and negotiation. lessons anyone?

When they can skirt the law there is no need for compromise . The beauty of the Senate appointment power was that the President had to appoint someone that would be acceptable . So the appointment itself was the compromise.

speechlesstx · Jun 27, 2014, 09:33 AM

putting names to the money adds a degree of transparency

Names like Steyer and Soros?

talaniman · Jun 27, 2014, 09:33 AM

The senate can change its own rules since in modern times the whole definition of recess has changed. Good luck on a constitutional amendment since its easier just to send a freshman senator to bang a gavel every other day than to get the required vote for an amendment.

With modern technology and tele conferencing why do they have to be in the same place, and why do we stand in the rain to vote? Stupid humans.

tomder55 · Jun 27, 2014, 09:40 AM

The problem is, Democrats aren't quite sure exactly what the amendment should say.

That's because besides wanting to deny the Koch bros their constitutional right of free speech ;they want to preserve those same rights to their donors like Warren Buffett ,Jon Stryker,Paul Egerman,George Soros and the multitude of public sector unions.

talaniman · Jun 27, 2014, 12:13 PM

What the SCOTUS Decision Ending Obamaâ€™s Recess Appointment Power Means | The Nation

One area where this was extremely problematic was the National Labor Relations Board—three members had their five-year terms expire in 2012, and Senate Republicans filibustered Obama's replacements. With three empty seats, the NLRB would not have a quorum to function, and the practical effect would be that US labor law would no longer be enforced. (It's not hard to see this as the GOP's goal here).
The White House didn't want this to happen, and Obama contemplated and ultimately made “recess appointments” to the three seats.

smoothy · Jun 27, 2014, 12:15 PM

Tal... if you can find a way to attach a fan to that... you could create a windstorm from the spin (or a LOT of free electricity if you hook up a generator). Sicne Harry Reid changed teh rules makign it impossible for the minority to block an appointment.

WHen we take back the Senate and the White House....all we have to do is keep the rules the way they are and the Democrats can't block anything then.

speechlesstx · Jun 27, 2014, 02:14 PM

It doesn't matter what Obama wants, there are constitutional checks and balances. The president does not get to determine when the Senate is in recess.

Tuttyd · Jun 27, 2014, 07:14 PM

"The recess is only the period between sessions"

Can also be written written as:

A recess is only the period between sessions.

tomder55 · Jun 28, 2014, 06:19 AM

The founders clearly meant "the " recesss as a specific period between Congressional sessions . They take weekends ,holidays ,vacations ,and time off campaigning during sessions . In Beyer's world a recess appointment could occur during ANY of this instances as long as they are of an undefined period of time.
For what it's worth ,I think an amendment should eliminate recess appointments entirely . It was designed for a time when it took weeks to travel the country ,and there were months between sessions. That is not the case anymore .
BUT if there is a change ,it should come from an amendment and not from an arbitrary decision by POTUS backed by activist unelected ,appointed for life justices .
I'm sure the emperor would prefer that the Senate had no oversight of his appointments .

talaniman · Jun 28, 2014, 06:41 AM

They can vote for or against, and things have changed dramatically since the horse and buggy that formed the founders views of a recess. Like I said, the nuclear options made the issue moot.

Obama Recess Appointments Case - Business Insider

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin wrote last year that the case had the potential to bring Washington even more paralysis and dysfunction. That was before, however, the Senate changed its rules to allow most presidential nominees to be confirmed by majority vote.

tomder55 · Jun 28, 2014, 06:43 AM

The Dems will rue the day they initiated the nuclear option.

talaniman · Jun 28, 2014, 07:08 AM

Like you guys rue it NOW?

tomder55 · Jun 28, 2014, 02:09 PM

look ;the emperor bemoans the fact that the House won't bow to his wishes and pass his agenda . Too bad . He calls them a 'do nothing Congress ' when in fact they've passed a lot of legislation that sits on Harry Reid's desk collecting dust. But ;let's say this Congress was in fact doing nothing but playing bubble burst on their phones all day long . That still does not give him the authority to act unconstitutionally outside of his defined powers . If he wants his appointments passed without delay then nominate candidates that are acceptable to the whole Senate .If he wants an agenda passed then propose one that is acceptable to both houses of Congress.

talaniman · Jun 28, 2014, 02:25 PM

What's wrong with having a vote and a simple majority? When you guys take the senate don't the same rules apply?

Tuttyd · Jun 28, 2014, 02:32 PM

"The Founders clearly meant "the recess as a specific period between Congressional session."

Yes Tom, I know and I haven't disputed that. I am pointing out that people have devoted chapters in grammar books exclusively on the usage of "a" and "the" in the English language.

This is why people become Constitutional lawyers, and as you point out, some retire to SCOTUS and make further judgements on the meaning of words.

Seems like your stuck with it.

speechlesstx · Jun 30, 2014, 07:23 AM

Sandra Fluke is in mourning today...

Name: Screen-shot-2014-06-30-at-10.18.07-AM-550x347.png
Views: 15
Size: 133.0 KB

tomder55 · Jun 30, 2014, 08:10 AM

The companies in the cases are 'closely held corporations' owned and controlled by members of a single family and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs . SCOTUS did not extend it to publicly held corporations ,suggesting that it may revist the issue if a public corporation gets standing .
SCOTUS also said that this is a limted case concerning onlythe contraceptive mandate ,and that SCOTUS would reject broad religious claims ie. discrimination against gay employees under 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act'(RFRA) .

talaniman · Jun 30, 2014, 08:17 AM

The case also only revolves around four of the most popular types of contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby already covers many other forms. There are still other cases pending in the lower courts that have yet to be decided.

tomder55 · Jun 30, 2014, 08:17 AM

btw ,Hobby Lobby would've never sued if this was about contraception ,as Huffpo suggests . It was the abortion pill they could not abide to.

speechlesstx · Jun 30, 2014, 08:18 AM

Yup, but that didn’t stop Ginsburg from having a stroke in his dissent.

In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

There will be much similar wailing and gnashing of teeth today.