News: Obama recess appointments ruled unconstitutional!

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by DevilMightCry (3472 posts) -
#2 Posted by whipassmt (13948 posts) -

Take that Obama.

BTW the recess appointments are already expired anyway I think, but now that they've been ruled unconstitutional any policies implemented by those people may not be able to be enforced anymore.

#3 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

for some reason, i think you would have found a way to justify those actions if they were done by bush or romney

#4 Posted by DevilMightCry (3472 posts) -

for some reason, i think you would have found a way to justify those actions if they were done by bush or romney

BossPerson
I didn't vote for Bush. I've already stated this to be a good ruling against both parties.
#5 Posted by whipassmt (13948 posts) -

for some reason, i think you would have found a way to justify those actions if they were done by bush or romney

BossPerson

And others would likely have found a way to criticize those actions if done by Bush or my master Mitt Romney the Great.

#6 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

for some reason, i think you would have found a way to justify those actions if they were done by bush or romney

DevilMightCry
I didn't vote for Bush. I've already stated this to be a good ruling against both parties.

you voted for kerry? Im assuming you didnt/couldnt vote at the time then.
#7 Posted by whipassmt (13948 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

for some reason, i think you would have found a way to justify those actions if they were done by bush or romney

DevilMightCry

I didn't vote for Bush. I've already stated this to be a good ruling against both parties.

But what if the bald dude playing the guitar in your avy made those recess appointments.

I don't like recess appointments though: every recess when the appointments were made I was also the last person appointed to the b-ball team.

#8 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
it's gon be appealed no doubt in any event, i would be fine with this being upheld for ANY president maybe that's just because I like my government to, you know, function
#9 Posted by DevilMightCry (3472 posts) -
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]

for some reason, i think you would have found a way to justify those actions if they were done by bush or romney

BossPerson
I didn't vote for Bush. I've already stated this to be a good ruling against both parties.

you voted for kerry? Im assuming you didnt/couldnt vote at the time then.

I voted for Al Gore. Didn't vote in 2004. I am 32.
#10 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]

for some reason, i think you would have found a way to justify those actions if they were done by bush or romney

BossPerson
I didn't vote for Bush. I've already stated this to be a good ruling against both parties.

you voted for kerry? Im assuming you didnt/couldnt vote at the time then.

Haha. Sounds like a good guess.
#11 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
scratch that
#12 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I didn't vote for Bush. I've already stated this to be a good ruling against both parties.

you voted for kerry? Im assuming you didnt/couldnt vote at the time then.

I voted for Al Gore. Didn't vote in 2004. I am 32.

dafaq happened to you
#13 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

so i guess you do become more conservate as you become older

#14 Posted by Novotine (1199 posts) -
this is insulting. obama should b able 2 do anything
#15 Posted by comp_atkins (31186 posts) -
while i agree with the ruling.. it'd be nice if congress got their heads out of their a--es and at least had the hearing to get people confirmed... there should be another check on congress.. something like if congress doesn't act to rule on the confirmation of appointments in X number of days/weeks, the president can appoint whomever they see fit... keep the ball rolling.
#16 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]you voted for kerry? Im assuming you didnt/couldnt vote at the time then. BossPerson
I voted for Al Gore. Didn't vote in 2004. I am 32.

dafaq happened to you

He probably watched that agitprop film Gore made.
#17 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
Wonder when OT conservatives will post "hurr, let's wait until the supreme court" like they with appeals court rulings on Obamacare
#18 Posted by DevilMightCry (3472 posts) -

so i guess you do become more conservate as you become older

BossPerson
I agreed more with Conservative and Libertarian positions. I also found the constant hatred of Bush by mainstream news and Media repulsive that made me question a lot of my own views as a Democrat. I was on the hate train myself especially after the election and then Iraq war. There was a lot of BS being fed to me, and I just saw through it, and matured I guess.
#19 Posted by osirisx3 (1739 posts) -

OBAMA IS A GODLESS COMMUNIST FROM KENYA!!!!111 BIG GOVERNMENT IS SOCALISM NEW WORLD ORDER!!11

#20 Posted by comp_atkins (31186 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

so i guess you do become more conservate as you become older

DevilMightCry
I agreed more with Conservative and Libertarian positions. I also found the constant hatred of Bush by mainstream news and Media repulsive that made me question a lot of my own views as a Democrat. I was on the hate train myself especially after the election and then Iraq war. There was a lot of BS being fed to me, and I just saw through it, and matured I guess.

or took the "everyone's hating on bush, i gotta be different" approach. :P
#21 Posted by Novotine (1199 posts) -
the only reason it was ruled unconstitutional was because obama is black
#22 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

so i guess you do become more conservate as you become older

DevilMightCry
I agreed more with Conservative and Libertarian positions. I also found the constant hatred of Bush by mainstream news and Media repulsive that made me question a lot of my own views as a Democrat. I was on the hate train myself especially after the election and then Iraq war. There was a lot of BS being fed to me, and I just saw through it, and matured I guess.

Good for you for seeing through the agitprop. I guess you also realised now that Obama is carrying out the same foreign policy that the media hated so much under Bush? And where is their outrage now? Right.
#23 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
huh. i must have missed the part where obama ordered an extensive ground war, occupation, and nation building effort on two separate occasions
#24 Posted by whipassmt (13948 posts) -

while i agree with the ruling.. it'd be nice if congress got their heads out of their a--es and at least had the hearing to get people confirmed... there should be another check on congress.. something like if congress doesn't act to rule on the confirmation of appointments in X number of days/weeks, the president can appoint whomever they see fit... keep the ball rolling. comp_atkins
Actually I think Obama used the recess appointments only 10 hours after notifying the senate of the nominations of three people, so it makes sense they never voted on those guys. The other recess appointment, I think Obama had given the Senate more time on him.

#25 Posted by Aljosa23 (24542 posts) -

Good for you for seeing through the agitprop. I guess you also realised now that Obama is carrying out the same foreign policy that the media hated so much under Bush? And where is their outrage now? Right.MrPraline
haha, funny sh1t. If anything foreign policy is the only thing Obama is doing differently than Bush.

Maybe you should go back to drone strike jokes?

#26 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Good for you for seeing through the agitprop. I guess you also realised now that Obama is carrying out the same foreign policy that the media hated so much under Bush? And where is their outrage now? Right.Aljosa23

haha, funny sh1t. If anything foreign policy is the only thing Obama is doing differently than Bush.

Hah yeah, the difference is that he killed a whole lot more people, if you want to split hairs. ;}
#27 Posted by DevilMightCry (3472 posts) -
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]

so i guess you do become more conservate as you become older

MrPraline
I agreed more with Conservative and Libertarian positions. I also found the constant hatred of Bush by mainstream news and Media repulsive that made me question a lot of my own views as a Democrat. I was on the hate train myself especially after the election and then Iraq war. There was a lot of BS being fed to me, and I just saw through it, and matured I guess.

Good for you for seeing through the agitprop. I guess you also realised now that Obama is carrying out the same foreign policy that the media hated so much under Bush? And where is their outrage now? Right.

My position hasn't changed on Foreign policy one bit. We need to get out of these countries and focus on domestic issues, while maintaining intelligence gathering. I dont disagree with Obama on every issue you know. Just 85% apparently according to that quiz. :D
#28 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
Maybe you should go back to drone strike jokes?Aljosa23
I'm not following a plan here, drinking a sh*tty month away and Obama is a decent target to rage at in 2013.
#29 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I agreed more with Conservative and Libertarian positions. I also found the constant hatred of Bush by mainstream news and Media repulsive that made me question a lot of my own views as a Democrat. I was on the hate train myself especially after the election and then Iraq war. There was a lot of BS being fed to me, and I just saw through it, and matured I guess.

Good for you for seeing through the agitprop. I guess you also realised now that Obama is carrying out the same foreign policy that the media hated so much under Bush? And where is their outrage now? Right.

My position hasn't changed on Foreign policy one bit. We need to get out of these countries and focus on domestic issues, while maintaining intelligence gathering. I dont disagree with Obama on every issue you know. Just 85% apparently according to that quiz. :D

What about his drone strikes (BLAME ALJOSA)?
#30 Posted by Aljosa23 (24542 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Good for you for seeing through the agitprop. I guess you also realised now that Obama is carrying out the same foreign policy that the media hated so much under Bush? And where is their outrage now? Right.MrPraline

haha, funny sh1t. If anything foreign policy is the only thing Obama is doing differently than Bush.

Hah yeah, the difference is that he killed a whole lot more people, if you want to split hairs. ;}

ffffffffff I should have inb4'd

#31 Posted by whipassmt (13948 posts) -

huh. i must have missed the part where obama ordered an extensive ground war, occupation, and nation building effort on two separate occasionsAbbeten
He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He ordered U.S. planes to participate in Libya. He kept Gates as Secretary of Defense.

#32 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]huh. i must have missed the part where obama ordered an extensive ground war, occupation, and nation building effort on two separate occasionswhipassmt

He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He ordered U.S. planes to participate in Libya. He kept Gates as Secretary of Defense.

A surge which was drawn down, and happened in a situation he inherited. Which is different than having a blank slate. Not to mention that he is keeping to the timetable for departure. Libya doesn't meet a single criterion that I laid out but thanks for reading. Keeping Gates was mostly symbolic. He wanted to show that he was willing to surround himself with both Democrats and Republicans. Not exactly a major extension of Bush foreign policy.
#33 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

This is a good thing. This was a bad practice and you'd have to be blindly supporting Obama not to think so.

#34 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]huh. i must have missed the part where obama ordered an extensive ground war, occupation, and nation building effort on two separate occasionswhipassmt

He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He ordered U.S. planes to participate in Libya. He kept Gates as Secretary of Defense.

Yup. Reminds of what Tariq Ramadan (i know, i know) said: "As many of you know the images of the campaign are still vivid. Big, large mobilizations in the United States, of young people primarily. Desperate for change. And the slogan of that campaign change we can believe in. Change Change Change. But what has changed and what hasn't changed. There has of course been a change in the presidency, and we can't complain too much about that. There is a new vice-president also in the United States, and we can't complain too much about that. But the Defense Secretary is the same. That's the guy who sits in the pentagon and organizes wars, and the reason he was kept on was to show that there is, there are both elements of discontinuity at the top and very strong elements of continuity. And the reason for that, is that if you wear Caesars clothes, you must behave like Caesar."
#35 Posted by DevilMightCry (3472 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]huh. i must have missed the part where obama ordered an extensive ground war, occupation, and nation building effort on two separate occasionsMrPraline

He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He ordered U.S. planes to participate in Libya. He kept Gates as Secretary of Defense.

Yup. Reminds of what Tariq Ramadan (i know, i know) said: "As many of you know the images of the campaign are still vivid. Big, large mobilizations in the United States, of young people primarily. Desperate for change. And the slogan of that campaign change we can believe in. Change Change Change. But what has changed and what hasn't changed. There has of course been a change in the presidency, and we can't complain too much about that. There is a new vice-president also in the United States, and we can't complain too much about that. But the Defense Secretary is the same. That's the guy who sits in the pentagon and organizes wars, and the reason he was kept on was to show that there is, there are both elements of discontinuity at the top and very strong elements of continuity. And the reason for that, is that if you wear Caesars clothes, you must behave like Caesar."

Ohh, please. Not another "he's just a puppet controlled by secret society/nwo/military industrial complex". I know you're just quoting it, but that's what I think of it.
#36 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17379 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] He ordered a surge in Afghanistan. He ordered U.S. planes to participate in Libya. He kept Gates as Secretary of Defense.DevilMightCry
Yup. Reminds of what Tariq Ramadan (i know, i know) said: "As many of you know the images of the campaign are still vivid. Big, large mobilizations in the United States, of young people primarily. Desperate for change. And the slogan of that campaign change we can believe in. Change Change Change. But what has changed and what hasn't changed. There has of course been a change in the presidency, and we can't complain too much about that. There is a new vice-president also in the United States, and we can't complain too much about that. But the Defense Secretary is the same. That's the guy who sits in the pentagon and organizes wars, and the reason he was kept on was to show that there is, there are both elements of discontinuity at the top and very strong elements of continuity. And the reason for that, is that if you wear Caesars clothes, you must behave like Caesar."

Ohh, please. Not another "he's just a puppet controlled by secret society/nwo/military industrial complex". I know you're just quoting it, but that's what I think of it.

That's far from a fair interpretation of what was quoted.
#37 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

I was like "WTF?" when I read the title, and then I entered the thread and saw appeals court, then I lol'd. This won't hold up.

#38 Posted by DevilMightCry (3472 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] Yup. Reminds of what Tariq Ramadan (i know, i know) said: "As many of you know the images of the campaign are still vivid. Big, large mobilizations in the United States, of young people primarily. Desperate for change. And the slogan of that campaign change we can believe in. Change Change Change. But what has changed and what hasn't changed. There has of course been a change in the presidency, and we can't complain too much about that. There is a new vice-president also in the United States, and we can't complain too much about that. But the Defense Secretary is the same. That's the guy who sits in the pentagon and organizes wars, and the reason he was kept on was to show that there is, there are both elements of discontinuity at the top and very strong elements of continuity. And the reason for that, is that if you wear Caesars clothes, you must behave like Caesar."

Ohh, please. Not another "he's just a puppet controlled by secret society/nwo/military industrial complex". I know you're just quoting it, but that's what I think of it.

That's far from a fair interpretation of what was quoted.

What else is it. That Obama can't appoint anyone, else, or change course? That, there are forces in government that dictate that you must adhere to politicians will, and special interest? It's actually very simple. Obama did whatever benefitted him in the long run, and if that meant changing view on gay marriage, or war in middle east, campaign financing, etc... so be it. There is no "Ceaser" outfit that every President must wear. It makes for good conspiracy conversation, but reality is much different.
#39 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
He needs to keep his Kenyan ideology to himself.
#40 Posted by wis3boi (31007 posts) -

OBAMA IS A GODLESS COMMUNIST FROM KENYA!!!!111 BIG GOVERNMENT IS SOCALISM NEW WORLD ORDER!!11

osirisx3

r/pyongyang is that way ---->

#41 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Ohh, please. Not another "he's just a puppet controlled by secret society/nwo/military industrial complex". I know you're just quoting it, but that's what I think of it. DevilMightCry
That's far from a fair interpretation of what was quoted.

What else is it. That Obama can't appoint anyone, else, or change course? That, there are forces in government that dictate that you must adhere to politicians will, and special interest? It's actually very simple. Obama did whatever benefitted him in the long run, and if that meant changing view on gay marriage, or war in middle east, campaign financing, etc... so be it. There is no "Ceaser" outfit that every President must wear. It makes for good conspiracy conversation, but reality is much different.

i think it was more along the lines of obama having 'put on caesars clothes' by retaining bush's defense secretary, and he can pretend to be different and such, but you know

#42 Posted by Lotus-Edge (50439 posts) -

I was like "WTF?" when I read the title, and then I entered the thread and saw appeals court, then I lol'd. This won't hold up.

theone86

This.

I thought only the Supreme Court could rule presidential actions unconstitutional....

#43 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

it's gon be appealed no doubt in any event, i would be fine with this being upheld for ANY president maybe that's just because I like my government to, you know, functionAbbeten

If the government was functional then the Congress wouldn't have threatened to hold up every single one of President Obama's appointments and he never would have had to resort to recess appointments in the first place. It's such an easy, procedural thing, but even something like that gets held up and kicked down the line until by the time they actually resolve the issue the appointments have expired. It's essentially a vote for these people not being appointed at all, which fits in great with the Republican agenda because they don't want the entities they were appointed to to function in the first place.

#44 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]That's far from a fair interpretation of what was quoted. Abbeten

What else is it. That Obama can't appoint anyone, else, or change course? That, there are forces in government that dictate that you must adhere to politicians will, and special interest? It's actually very simple. Obama did whatever benefitted him in the long run, and if that meant changing view on gay marriage, or war in middle east, campaign financing, etc... so be it. There is no "Ceaser" outfit that every President must wear. It makes for good conspiracy conversation, but reality is much different.

i think it was more along the lines of obama having 'put on caesars clothes' by retaining bush's defense secretary, and he can pretend to be different and such, but you know

Lmao, great clip/reference. And agreed. I don't think Tariq was refering to a new world order or conspiracy. Caesar's clothes = the US presidency.
#45 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I was like "WTF?" when I read the title, and then I entered the thread and saw appeals court, then I lol'd. This won't hold up.

Lotus-Edge

This.

I thought only the Supreme Court could rule presidential actions unconstitutional....

Not really, but if there's a lot of ambiguity and contention then the SC has the final say.

#46 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17379 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Ohh, please. Not another "he's just a puppet controlled by secret society/nwo/military industrial complex". I know you're just quoting it, but that's what I think of it. DevilMightCry
That's far from a fair interpretation of what was quoted.

What else is it. That Obama can't appoint anyone, else, or change course? That, there are forces in government that dictate that you must adhere to politicians will, and special interest? It's actually very simple. Obama did whatever benefitted him in the long run, and if that meant changing view on gay marriage, or war in middle east, campaign financing, etc... so be it. There is no "Ceaser" outfit that every President must wear. It makes for good conspiracy conversation, but reality is much different.

It doesn't take a conspiracy theory or the illuminati to conclude that the president does not have full reign over the military and foreign affairs - especially a president with little experience dealing with the politics of the defense department and DC in general. The people who work at the pentagon have their own agendas, and they sometimes don't align with those of the White House. Bill Clinton wanted to end the discrimination of gays in the military in the early 90's but Colin Powell told him no, so he backed down. Obama wanted to do the same thing - only difference was that Michael Mullen said he was alright with it. Had the admiral told him no like Colin Powell did before him Obama would've had no chance of ending DADT, despite being "commander-in-chief".

In 2009 when the white house was debating what course of action to take in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystalleaked his classified recommendation to the press, putting enormous pressure on Obama to follow through with McChrystal's plan in wholesale. There is a cult of personality surrounding the career military figures in this country (see: Colin Powell, David Patreaus) - what they say is revered, and that diminishes the clout of the presidency. And on top of that they and their friends stay in DC for quite some time. Look at everyone in Obama's cabinet and tell me how many of them didn't work for Bill Clinton. Look at everyone in Bush's cabinet and tell me how many of them didn't work for his father. The government is nothing if not a huge bureaucracy - changing the guy at the top can only change so much.

#47 Posted by MrPraline (21284 posts) -

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]That's far from a fair interpretation of what was quoted. -Sun_Tzu-

What else is it. That Obama can't appoint anyone, else, or change course? That, there are forces in government that dictate that you must adhere to politicians will, and special interest? It's actually very simple. Obama did whatever benefitted him in the long run, and if that meant changing view on gay marriage, or war in middle east, campaign financing, etc... so be it. There is no "Ceaser" outfit that every President must wear. It makes for good conspiracy conversation, but reality is much different.

It doesn't take a conspiracy theory or the illuminati to conclude that the president does not have full reign over the military and foreign affairs - especially a president with little experience dealing with the politics of the defense department and DC in general. The people who work at the pentagon have their own agendas, and they sometimes don't align with those of the White House. Bill Clinton wanted to end the discrimination of gays in the military in the early 90's but Colin Powell told him no, so he backed down. Obama wanted to do the same thing - only difference was that Michael Mullen said he was alright with it. Had the admiral told him no like Colin Powell did before him Obama would've had no chance of ending DADT, despite being "commander-in-chief".

In 2009 when the white house was debating what course of action to take in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystalleaked his classified recommendation to the press, putting enormous pressure on Obama to follow through with McChrystal's plan in wholesale. There is a cult of personality surrounding the career military figures in this country (see: Colin Powell, David Patreaus) - what they say is revered, and that diminishes the clout of the presidency. And on top of that they and their friends stay in DC for quite some time. Look at everyone in Obama's cabinet and tell me how many of them didn't work for Bill Clinton. Look at everyone in Bush's cabinet and tell me how many of them didn't work for his father. The government is nothing if not a huge bureaucracy - changing the guy at the top can only change so much.

Fantastic post. Thanks.
#48 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

Good.

#49 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
I'd be totally okay with recess appointments being declared unconstitutional if the abuse of the filibuster was dealt with. Sadly, because Democrats remain ginormous "wimps", that's unlikely to happen.