Who needs three branches of government…

… when you’re The Won:

ObamaPushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs.

Mr. Obama said the appointments, which he previewed during a campaign-style speech in Ohio, were necessary because Senate Republicans have blocked him at every turn. But in making the move, he rejected three precedents, including two in which he played a part, that would have blocked the appointments.

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the consumer protection agency and named three others – two Democrats and one Republican – to the labor board. Those nominations had all been stymied by congressional Republicans, who said Mr. Obama was accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session, albeit a pro forma one without any business transacted.

Senators from both parties – including Democrats in 2007 and 2008, when Mr. Obama was in the Senate – have said it takes a recess of at least three days before the president can use his appointment powers.
Mr. Obama’s move threatens to ignite an all-out legislative war with Congress, and Republicans reacted with strikingly sharp language.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the move “arrogantly circumvented the American people.”

“Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress‘ role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch,” he said.

William Jacobson is suggesting this is much more than a mere power grab:

Obama’s campaign theme is to run against Congress.  What better way to run against Congress than to create a confrontation with Congress?

Republicans in Congress have no choice but to retaliate against this power grab, and that is just what Obama wants.  He wants a crisis he can take advantage of, perhaps over the FICA holiday which runs out in February (how smart were the Tea Party congressman for opposing a short term extension?).

Obama was elected by crisis, he seeks to create crisis at every turn, and he never lets a good crisis go to waste.

I say give him the crisis, but do it carefully so that this time we are the ones who get to take advantage.  We have a President who is arrogant, dismissive, and out of control, the nation knows it.  It has to stop, and it sets the issue up nicely for November 2012.

The question is do we still have a country that truly sees Obama as arrogant, dismissive and out of control.

I have my doubts.  I hope I’m wrong.

McCain complains that Gingrich has done “something that we don’t do in politics”
Christians told to leave northern Nigeria...
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Commander_Chico

    I have sympathy for Obama on this one.  These agencies and the procedures for filling vacancies are established by law.  The NLRB has been around since the 30s.   Just as with court vacancies, the president should get some deference on being able to appoint qualified people.  There’s no argument that Cordray is not qualified – the Republicans just don’t like the idea of a financial consumer protection agency.  But they lost that vote, and the agency is there.

    The trend of filibustering all of the opposing party’s nominations is troubling. For example, there are a growing number of federal court vacancies. Some day, there’ll be no federal judges left, all having reached the mandatory retirement age, and only one Supreme Court Justice left.  He or she will be 102 years old, because the rest of the seats will have been permanently filibustered.

    • Justrand

      Chico…two of the NLRB appointees were submitted to Congress one WEEK before Christmas…and no hearing of any kind had even been held as a result.  How were they being “blocked”??

      The Dodd-Frank law (and those are two DEMOCRATS in the title) requires that the “Consumer Protection” appointment receive the “Advise and Consent of the Senate” before being seated.  Dodd and Frank inserted that language in the Bill themselves.

      Lastly, Harry Reid established the “Pro Forma Session” policy, and Obama’s own administration argued strongly that THREE DAYS was the minimum amount of time that must transpire before the President could make “recess appointments”.  Yet a Pro Forma session was held ONE DAY before Obama made these.

      Obama’s rationale for being able to do this: HE did not recognize the Senate as having been “In Session”.  HE…the head of the EXECUTIVE Branch…is saying it is up to HIM to determine whether the Senate is “In Session” or not. 

      IF the Senate accepts this precedent, then there is NOTHING to stop Obama (or any President) from bypassing the Senate on ALL appointments.  When the Senate adjourns for the day, or over a weekend, the President simply deems them NOT In Session…and appoints all the judges, Cabinet members, Ambassadors, etc that he or she wants.

      Is that what YOU want?? 

      49 AD…Caesar crossed the Rubicon in defiance of the Roman Senate, and then stripped them of their power, establishing himself as “Dictator for Life”. 

      Obama crossed the Rubicon yesterday.

    • 914

      “I have sympathy for Obama on this one”

      Sympathy for the Devil?  lol

    • iwogisdead

      Let’s suspend the Constitution using the “Chico is Troubled” Doctrine.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I’d rather wait until President Romney does the same thing a year from now and then we can all ask Chico if he still feels sympathetic.


      • Jay

        A little much, don’t you think?

        President Roosevelt had about 160 appointments done in one afternoon.

        President Bush had ~130+ appointments done during recesses.

        President Obama had about 29 appointments done during recesses.

        I fail to see why Obama is slammed here, but his signing of the NDAA is ignored.

        • iwogisdead

          The Constitution allows recess appointments only when the Senate is in recess. It wasn’t.

    • retired.military

      Funny that wasnt the liberal argument when Bush had vacancies to fill.

      And  you secretly sympathize Obama about everything.

  • herddog505

    Rick RiceThe question is do we still have a country that truly sees Obama as arrogant, dismissive and out of control.

    No, we have a country that fundamentally doesn’t care.  I’m really starting to understand the old saying about making the trains run on time: so long as somebody in DC manages to get the checks in the mail on time, nobody really cares who does it, how they do it, whether they are elected, or much of anything else.

    This is how dictatorships really start: people signal to the ultra-ambitious that it’s acceptable.

  • Hugh_G

    Bush – 171 recess appointments; 700+ signing statements.

    Enough said. End of discussion.

    • Gmacr1

      None of W’s were made while Congress was still in session.


      Thanks for playing.

      • Hugh_G

        You mean the “fiction” that Congress is still in session as in the current Republican “fiction” right”?

      • Hugh_G

        It’s a fiction that Congress is in session. You might want to read what President Bush’s counsel had to say about this very “fiction.”

        Is it anywhere in the Constitution? Of course not.

        By the way I don’t play tennis. 

    • herddog505

      So, “Change You Can Believe In” ACTUALLY means “doing exactly the same bad, lawless things that the guy who came before me did”?

      Who knew?

      • Hugh_G

        Glad you  admit to Bush’s lawlessness. Refreshing.

        • Jwb10001

          The democrats did exactly this same thing to keep Bush from recess appointments which worked then. So your guy is not only as bad as Bush he’s actually worse… Change you can believe in.

          • Stephen

            When in Rome…

          • Rome?  Over thataway… (waves vaguely towards Italy…)

            Stop in Naples on the way – have the ‘fruits of the sea’ sphagetti. You’ll love it.

          • herddog505

            Or Berlin, Tokyo, Madrid, Moscow, Havana, Harare, Caracas…

          • retired.military

            Thats the trouble.
            We arent Europe no matter how much Obama wants us to be Europe.

          • Jwb10001

            We’re in America where the rules are supposed to apply to everyone including your savior.

        • “Glad you  admit to Bush’s lawlessness. Refreshing.”

          Glad you admit to Obama’s lawlessness. Refresing.

    • Justrand

      You have accepted the hypocrisy of Obama, who railed against both Recess Appointments AND “signing statements” when he was Senator/Candidate Obama.

      Harry Reid established the “Pro Forma Session” approach to keeping to the Senate in session…and Bush respected the Senate’s RIGHT under the Constitution to establish their OWN RULES for how they operate.  So when Reid said the Senate was NOT “In Recess”, Bush respected that.

      Obama has slapped the Senate, AND Reid, in the face…telling them it is up to HIM to determine whether the Senate is “In Session” or not.

      I don’t want ANY President to have such power…YOU want Obama to have these dictatorial powers.  The consequences of your, and others, desire for Lord Obama to exert direct control over the Legislature will be dire for our nation.

      • Hugh_G

        I don’t accept the hypocrisy of any president. Sadly it’s pretty common. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of this post.

        As for president’s and their exercise of power, most if not all, have exercised power beyond their office. Abraham Lincoln come to mind?

        That said, I don’t like it anymore than anyone else does. I simply was pointing out that “he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.”

        • Justrand

          Hugh…do you believe that the Senate has the Constitutional authority to determine their own rules for when they are and are not in “Recess”??  Yes or no?

          The head of the Senate…Harry Reid…apporved the Pro Forma sessions for this particular holiday period.  Reid declared the Senate IN SESSION during THIS period…and Obama said: “No, you’re not”.

          Where is the limit to ANY President’s power over the Senate if Reid accepts this? 

          Of course, if a Republican did this then the media would be up in arms…declaring he/she a DICTATOR (which they would be).  In this case the media is CHEERING!

          Reid is ceding control of 1/2 of the Legislative Branch to the Executive…and that doesn’t trouble you at all?

          • Hugh_G

            Justrand – as I’ve said I done like anyone abusing power, the political system in Washington is so poisoned by both sides resulting in what we’ve got now.

            Correct me if I’m wrong here but as I understand it it is the Republicans who are keeping the Senate in session in an obvious sham move (not picking on one party here). Obama says it’s a sham and he’s not bound by it. Is that right? I can see both sides. But I go back to the above – it’s all cause and effect created by the poisoned well in Washington.

          • Justrand

            Hugh: “Correct me if I’m wrong here but as I understand it it is the Republicans who are keeping the Senate in session”

            OK, you’re wrong. The Senate MAJORITY Leader (Harry Reid in this case) determines whether or not the the Senate is in “Recess”. HE (Harry Reid) established THIS SET of “Pro Forma” sessions (yes, at Republican request). But Harry could have said “No, we’re formally in Recess”. He did not. Harry controls the Senate right now. It is HIS authority that Obama usurped.

            Obama has declared, for the 1st time in American history, that the EXECUTIVE Branch will determine whether or not the LEGISLATIVE Branch is in session or not. Since the Constitution allots several key Executive powers for times when the Congress is NOT in session, this gives Obama (and future Presidents…if any) absolute power.

          • Hugh_G

            Gotta run but I’ll respond later.

          • 914

            “Gotta run but I’ll respond later.”

            Nice exit strategy..

          • Jwb10001

            Gotta run to Media Matters to get some new talking points.

          • When facts reared their ugly head
            Brave Sir Hugh_G turned and fled.

          • He is packing it in and packing it up
            And sneaking away and buggering up
            And chickening out and pissing off home,
            Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge…

          • Evil Otto

            11 hours later…

          • Hugh_G

            You all obviously have no lives whatsoever if you think I’m going to hang around responding to each and every one of you.

            I’ve stated my position. I stick by by it. 

            Now I am going to bed because I’m tired. That OK?

          • Evil Otto

            You’ve been back several times, Hugh. You wrote “Gotta run but I’ll respond later”

            You clearly felt you HADN’T stated your opinion and claimed you intended to respond, then didn’t. There seems to be a trend in your posts: when the questions become too difficult or force you to respond in ways you don’t like, you abandon ship or try to change the subject to the commenter’s behavior.

          • lol!  So much for “I’ll respond later”

          • Hugh_G

            You are clearly one of those whom I said had no life.

            lol! back at ya

          • Just admit that you had no intention of responding later and were merely running away.

          • Hugh_G

            Number one, folks like you have no sense of humor and an overwhelming need to win.

            Number two, numb nuts, I did come back and I did respond and I had clearly stated my position, thoughts and beliefs.

            So now go play in your sandbox and believe in your  own superiority.

            And, oh by the way, get a freaking life.

          • Gmacr1

            Actually, the House has to tell the Senate it can recess. So in essense the Repubkicans are keeping the Senate in session only because they are not allowing them to recess.
            BUT, as pointed out above teh ‘Won’ has deemed them to be in recess and has gone against ALL legal precedent.
            Its really going to suck being a Democrat in the next few sessions of both chambers as legislation is ‘deemed’ to have passed and appointments are filled without ANY consultation.
            Stupid MFer’s, the ship is set to autopilot straight into the sun.

          • jim_m

            I doubt that it will suck.  They are pushing for an overthrow of the federal government. That is what this is.  The MSM will cover for them and they will be pushing for absolute power for obama, which is what he has asked for here.

            And really, they don’t care how bad the economy gets because they will be in control so they know that any suffering will be done by someone else, certainly not by party members. That’s how it always worked in the Soviet Union, that’s what they want here.

          • herddog505

            Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you’ve got to create the crisis yourself.

          • retired.military

            Doesnt matter who is keeping congress in session.  IT IS IN SESSION.  RECESS APPTs are for when CONGRESS IS NOT SESSION.

            That is the way it works.

            If Obama doesnt like it than just maybe he should take his case to the American people and let them decide in Nov.l

            Too long you say?  We have been stuck with the turd in the WH for the past 3 years.   You can get stuck with this one for 11 more months or so.

        • herddog505

          Sounds less like “pointing out hypocrisy” and more like… well… hypocrisy of your own. 

          “Bush did it, too!” has been the refrain of Obama supporters from Day One.  Barry ran on a platform of being the anti-Bush; he was gonna bring respect for the law back to the White House!  He wasn’t going to run by fiat!  He was going to respect the Constitution!  Barack Hussein Obama, umm, umm, umm!

          And yet here we are, with his partisans (you, in this case) telling us that everything he does is OK because Bush did it, too, and we shouldn’t complain because THAT (gasp!) would be hypocrisy, which, like so many other things, is a deadly sin… unless it’s a democrat committing it.

          Tell me: is that ANYTHING that Barry could do that would arouse your indignation?  Anything that would cause you to think – even for a fleeting moment in the deepest, darkest, most secret part of your mind – that Barry is a lawless menace to our republic and needs to go?  Or do you simply repeat to yourself, “Bush did it, too / Bush did it, too / Bush did it, too / four legs good, two legs baaaad” until you feel better?

          • Hugh_G

            Easy reply here. I don’t like any president abusing his power. Did Obama do it here? That’s subject to debate since it is the Republican’s who using a sham tactic in order to prevent just what President. The right way to do these things is for both parties to quit this bullsh** and allow a president to have his appointees. Now remember, I said both parties.

          • herddog505

            “Sham tactic”?

            1.  Contrary to what Barry and the dems and their mouthpieces in MiniTru would have us believe, the democrats control the Senate, not the Republicans;

            2.  Either the Senate is in actual recess or it is not.  This is an official matter for the Senate, not a matter for Barry to decide, “Meh, you guys left for the day, so you’re practically not in session, so I get to make my appointments”;

            3.  While the president should have the authority to recommend whoever he likes, there’s that pesky “advice and consent” clause and the whole nuisance of coequal branches.  The fact that Barry is being balked by perfectly legal means does NOT give him the right to resort to extra-legal means to get what he wants;

            4.  The point of our form of government is to prevent the president (or the Congress, for that matter) acting in an arbitrary, capricious, tyrannical manner.  The way it is SUPPOSED to work is that, if one branch or the other doesn’t agree on a decision, then they are supposed to go back to the drawing board and either find a compromise or else try again some other day after elections are held (i.e. after the American people have had a chance to weigh in).  Barry, the noted constitutional law professor (we’re told) doesn’t seem to grasp that idea.

            What’s frightening is that a considerable fraction of our people are just fine with that.  I suggest that they move to a country with a form of government more congenial to them, such as Zimbabwe, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. where the chief executive has the sort of power that they seem to think that he ought to have.

            I must say in closing that, for somebody who doesn’t “like any president abusing his power”, you’re spending an awful lot of time justifying it in this case. 

          • jim_m

            This is an official matter for the Senate, not a matter for Barry to decide,

            Technically, the Senate cannot go out of session without the permission of the House. The GOP controlled House refused permission so the Senate is, under the Constitution, still in session. 

            But this is meaningless.  This is obama deciding that the time is right to rule the nation as a dictator.  The dems are going to back him because they see the disaster approaching in November. Siezing power is their only hope.

          • Evil Otto

            I must say in closing that, for somebody who doesn’t “like any president
            abusing his power”, you’re spending an awful lot of time justifying it
            in this case.

            He likes it just fine. Hugh seems to be OK with rule by decree as long as it’s his guy making the decrees.

          • Jwb10001

            Sure now you want both parties to “quit this bullsh**” where were you when it was being done to Bush? Tell you what how about we keep this bullsh** for now and stop it when we have the next republican president.

          • retired.military

            Sure.  Until you get a republican in the WH.  Libs always say well both parities should be able to do X until republicans are the ones ready to do X and then you hear how it is the worst thing since Hitler.

        • retired.military

          Except that your point about Bush was totally wrong since he made no recess appointments when Congress was in Session.  Hence all the news articles stating that this is a first.


          • Hugh_G

            Slow down man take a deep breath. No need to call folks who disagree with you names.

          • retired.military

            I call it like I see it Hugh.  You obviously dont believe facts even when they slap you in the face.

            But as you have not used such language I shall apologize for the dumbass comment..

          • Hugh_G

            Thanks r.m  I believe the facts. You believe the facts and there we are.

          • There’s a subtle distinction between “calling someone a name” and describing him accurately.

          • Hugh_G

            Who are you?

          • Evil Otto

            Address his point, Hugh. Did Bush make recess appointments while congress was in session?

            Update: Still waiting, one day later Hugh. You’ve been back since then. Do I need to repeat the question?

    • GarandFan

      If you’ll recall, Bush appointed Bolton as UN rep.  The Democrats were outraged.
        Reid was in charge of the Senate.  He then began the ‘proforma’ routine so that the Senate would be deemed ‘in session’, thus preventing Bush from making any more recess appointments.

      Is your memory that selective, or are you that stupid?

      • Commander_Chico

        Either way, or however it started, it’s unseemly congressional obstruction of the executive.  The whole filibuster thing has gotten out of control. This is a part of the decline and fall of the USA.

        They need to go back to the old days – you want to filibuster, stay on the floor and keep speaking.   Otherwise, sit down and vote on the issue.

        • Jwb10001

          And just like our friend Hugh you find this offensive now and it doesn’t matter who started it…. Same goes for you, let’s just keep the crap going until the next republican president then call it even and go back to the old ways ….. not so keen on that idea I’m guessing.

          It’s like a lot of things these days, the shoe is on the other foot and the liberals don’t like it one little bit…. too bad.

        • Justrand

          Chico, please explain how Obama’s “Recess Appointments” of Sharon Block and Richard Griffin fits with your “filibuster” excuse of Obama.

          They were submitted TWO DAYS before Christmas…and NEVER filibustered.  Heck…they weren’t even reviewed one bit…no hearings…no debate…NOTHING.

          There was NO attempt to get the Senate’s “Advise & Consent” of those two. 

          And you say…

          • herddog505

            Oh, but the nasty ol’ GOP in the House WOULD have fillibustered, so that’s the same thing, so that’s why Barry HAD to act.  To save the economy.  For the middle class. 

            How, exactly, appointing some apparatchiks saves the economy escapes me, but that’s democrat logic for you.

        • herddog505

          The fillibuster has been part of the Senate since at least 1837.  I note that – somehow – the country’s business managed to get done since then.

          As a personal matter, I find the fillibuster, and especially its modern form, to be ridiculous.  However, it’s part of the rules of the Senate and unless / until the Senate votes to change it, we’re stuck with it.  That Barry doesn’t like that bothers me not at all.  That he seems to think that he can rule by fiat to get around it most certainly does.  THAT’S the decline and fall of the USA: “F*CK THE LAW!”

          Perhaps you heard Barry’s little speech.  He’s claiming that, because the Congress “won’t act” due to “partisan politics”, he MUST act on behalf of “the middle class”.  Classic dicator prose: “the situation is so dire that I MUST take more and more power for the people.”

          And democrats are fine with that.

          No surprise, really: one of their chief spokesmouths, Tom Friedman, likes to wax lyrical about the beauties of Red Chinese govenrnment.  If it wasn’t for the fact that we’re all in the same boat, I’d ardently wish them to get everything that they want and all that comes with it.  You know: secret police, gulags, starvation, misery and death.

        • retired.military

          It is always unseemly and wrong and BS when dems are in power but it is never that way when Republicans  are in charge.  Than it is right and just and ensuring the little guy isnt ran over and For the children and to keep people on Social security from being marched off to the republican death camps.

          Chico you and the other libs with this line of “both parties should blah blah” are so fucking laughable it is funny.  Lets see how you sing your tune when a republican is in charge and Harry’;s replacement is crying about the same thing.

    • Mr Kimber

      End of discussion…you sound like Pelosi.

  • Jwb10001

    I think a smart Repbulican in the House should introduce a bill to cut funding to both of these departments until the recess appointments are null and void (next session of congress.)

    • jim_m

      So what?  obama will just declare that he can spend the money out of some sluch fund and the dems in Congress will endorse it.  They are already pushing that there should be no debt limit.  The dems want to take off all spending limitations so they can just rule by fiat.  The only reason for their willingness to make such precedents is that they anticipate that they will never lose power.  I think that is their intent – to never give up the White House, regardless of (or in spite of) any vote or election result.

  • 914

    “Who needs three branches of government…”

    Courtesy of  ‘The Lying King!!’

  • GarandFan

    It’s GOOD to be The King.

    • Justrand

      Ya, but it sucks to be his subjects! 

      Didn’t we fight a war back in the late 1700s in order to NOT have a King?? 

      The Fundamental Transformation of America into Barry’s plaything continues apace.  I don’t think I’ll go quietly…

    • Mr Kimber

      Every time Obama is forced to go by the rules he dosen’t.  I think there will be a lot of voter fraud next yr.

  • Hawk_TX

    I agree that this is a outrageous power grab by Obama, but not for the reason that others do.

    The constitution reads “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen
    during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall
    expire at the end of their next session.”

    It is pretty clear that the president can only appoint someone to an office in recess if the vacancy occurs during recess. And even then the appointment is temporary and last just for the next session.

    While it is true that both sides have abused this power for a long time that is no reason for it to continue, or for it to be abused even more.

    • Jwb10001

      Yes and up to now both sides have found a way to stop it, by staying in session (sham session I believe is the current dem talking point.)

  • Hank_M

    I notice Obama and other dems like Warren locally are using the mantra of
    protecting/saving/fighting for the middle class.

    Dems have historically rallied around causes for the poor albeit disingenuously.
    But that is usually how they like to portray themselves. And their policies and programs have created a nice permanent class of dependent poor families across the country who find it more lucrative to stay home and collect instead of trying to work themselves out of their poverty.

    Now it’s all for the middle class as Obama mentioned when appointing Cordray and even last month when they argued over the 2 month SS cut extension.

    I hate to say it but this is a good strategy. Dishonest, but good politics for Obama.
    He’s relentlessly associating repubs to nothing but the rich, the so-called 1% and when you sit back you can see that everything that’s happened in the last year all ties together.
    Don’t for a minute think OWS was spontaneous or just happened. Same with this appointment, same with demanding nothing more than a 2 month extension on the SS taxes.

    The repubs need a counter to this “message” and fighting this appointment or the means used to accomplish it isn’t going to help.

  • Justrand
  • jim_m

    Just remember this when he suspends the election in November to avoid getting his butt kicked.

    The Constitution is a barrier to obama.  It is a problem he desperately wants to eliminate.  If he can appoint anyone without confirmation (and it already appears that the dems are going to back him completely on this) then he can pretty much ignore the rest of the constitution.  If he gets his way on this I can almost guarantee that there will not be anything like a fair election in November if there is any election at all.

  • 914

    Speaking of idiots, who’s that purple lipped moron in the caption?  

    • Sky__Captain

      Only the biggest SCOAMF this country has ever seen.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker
    Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to
    act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I
    have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

    Gee – it seems like only yesterday when the democrats battle cry was “Compromise!”

    • retired.military

      And how did Obama feel about recess appointments when Bush was President

      http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/defying-republicans-oba… “Recess Appointments have no credibility.” – 2005 Senator Obama.

      Senator Obama 2007

      “It’s disappointing that President Bush would defy the will of Congress by appointing Sam Fox Ambassador to Belgium. I opposed Mr. Fox’s nomination because I had serious concerns about his candor, judgment, and qualifications for this important post. Appointing nominees that are opposed by a majority in Congress simply because they are political cronies is old style politics at its worst. Our nation’s ambassadors should possess strong credibility and character so that they may effectively represent U.S. interests overseas, and I don’t think President Bush applied that test with this recess appointment.”

      On Bush;s recess appointment of Bolton to the UN WHEN CONGRESS WAS ACTUALLY IN RECESS.

      “To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.” – Obama
      and on the same subject obama sayd

      “…somebody who couldn’t get through a nomination in the Senate. And I think that that means that we will have less credibility…”

      Also there is the little tidbit that the NONRECESS “recess appointment” to the NLRB VIOLATES THE DODD FRANK LAW which states that the person holding the position that CORDRAY is taking MUST BE (not should be, not maybe, MUST BE) APPROVED BY THE SENTATE.

      Barrack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm ignoring the law since he could read it.

      But Chico has stated many times that the OWS crowd can ignore the law so why not Obama.    I am sure Obama feels the same as all the libs have stated on this board.  Hey both parties should jsut get along.  We promise we wont raise a stink when a republican is President if you just let this slide now.


    • Hugh_G

      Yeah, and look how far that got them.

  • As for Reid and the dem mime of doing pro forma sessions to thwart the President from making Recess appointments.


    All that said, it is more than a bit comical (to put it kindly) to see Think Progress and other lefty sites relying on Steve Bradbury and John Elwood’s well-considered views of the president’s power here. Steve was the intended target of Harry Reid’s first use of “pro forma” sessions to prevent President Bush from using the recess appointment power. He languished for years as President Bush’s extraordinarily gifted nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Reid bragged that he used the blocking tactic during several recessess specifically to prevent Bradbury’s appointment. So for the Left to jump on board Steve’s thoughtful analysis as if it were gospel smacks of opportunism.

  • retired.military

    ” I think there will be a lot of voter fraud next yr. ”

    I would bet there is a BOATLOAD. Lots of dem districts not reporting in until last and then with just enough votes to help Obama win the state. Look for more votes in some states than voters.

  • Olsoljer

    THIS JUST IN:  Obama has just announced new Recess appointments
               Bill Ayers  has been appointed Czar of Domestic Terrorism Prevention.  Citing Ayers long familiarity with terrorist activities.”…………….he is more than qualified, and has the experience…..”
               Louis Farrakhan and two (as yet unidentified) members of ACORN are being appointed to the positions of Election Fraud Prevention Board.  This board will report directly to Eric Holder in the Justice Department,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    In a little publicized event, Obama has signed an Executive Order that presidential elections are no longer needed, as he is the “Won” and the smartest man in the room.  He was quoted as saying “The Senate and House Members are no longer needed, I will be making all decisions because I know what is best for All Americans, furthermore, any Supreme Court Decisions will be subject to my review.”  

  • TomInCali

    What’s with this fiction of “the Senate is not in recess”? Yes it is. The pro-forma session was adjourned the day before the appointments. It was no longer in session. The Senate needs the House’s consent to adjourn for longer than three days, but there’s nothing in law or the Constitution that defines a recess as only more than three days.

  • TomInCali

    What’s with this fiction of “the Senate is not in recess”? Yes it is.
    The pro-forma session was adjourned the day before the appointments. The Senate needs the House’s consent to
    adjourn for longer than three days, but there’s nothing in law or the
    Constitution that defines a recess as requiring that. Here’s what a federal court said in Evans v. Stephens when Bush’s recess appointments were challenged (Bush, too, set a new record at the time for shortest recess before an appointment):

    “The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an
    authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s
    appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set
    that limit today. Although a President has not before appointed a judge to an
    Article III court during an intrasession recess as short as the one in this case,
    appointments to other offices — offices ordinarily requiring Senate confirmation
    — have been made during intrasession recesses of about this length or shorter.
    Furthermore, several times in the past, fairly short intrasession recesses have
    given rise to presidential appointments of judges to Article III courts.”

    In addition, Bush officials argued:

    “In a 1905 report that the Senate still considers authoritative, the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized that a “Recess of the Senate”
    occurs whenever the Senate is not sitting for the discharge of its
    functions and when it cannot “participate as a body in making
    appointments.” The committee cautioned that a “recess” means “something
    actual, not something fictitious.” The executive branch has long taken
    the same common-sense view. In 1921, citing opinions of his predecessors
    dating back to the Monroe administration, Attorney General Harry M.
    Daugherty argued that the question “is whether in a practical sense the
    Senate is in session so that its advice and consent can be obtained. To
    give the word ‘recess’ a technical and not a practical construction, is
    to disregard substance for form.”

    The Senate, of course, does not meet as a body during a pro forma
    session. By the terms of the recess order, no business can be conducted,
    and the Senate is not capable of acting on the president’s nominations.
    That means the Senate remains in “recess” for purposes of the recess
    appointment power, despite the empty formalities of the individual
    senators who wield the gavel in pro forma sessions.”

    Yes, Bush also made recess appointments to circumvent the Senate’s obstruction. Yes, the Democrats also held sham sessions to thwart him. The hypocrisy here is thick on both sides. But rather than admitting that, it’s amazing how quickly those on the right equate Obama doing something that pisses you off to doing something unconstitutional.