Hugo Chavez oops Obama Makes Alleged Recess Appointments

President Hugo Chavez Obama has shredded the Constitution. This has been my greatest fear of this pseudo president.

Here are the pertinent portions of the Constitution which BO sees as a roadblock to his Fundamentally Change America. How’s the Hope and Change workin’ for ya?

Article I – The Legislative Branch
Section 5 – Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

The Senate and the House have come in every three days to have a Pro-Forma meeting. Therefore, it appears that Constitutionally they were never in recess

Article II – The Executive Branch
Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
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.

If the Senate was in Recess this could happen, but the Senate never recessed.

BO has sworn to uphold the Constitution. This appears clearly to be a violation of the Constitution. If nothing is done, BO has usurped the Constitution with Impunity.

But when BO was Senator BO, he backed the use of Pro-Forma sessions to Block any recess appointment by then President Bush. Seems like BO wants it both ways and the middle.

But an article in “The Hill” confirms BO’s approval of the use of Pro Forma Sessions to say the Senate was not in recess


Reid backs Obama after using pro forma sessions to block Bush


By Peter Schroeder – 01/04/12 12:13 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who previously held pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush, said Wednesday he supported President Obama’s decision to ignore those sessions to push through one of his key nominees.

“I support President Obama’s decision,” he said in a statement.

The White House announced Wednesday that Obama planned to recess appoint Richard Cordray to be director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). However, Republicans immediately cried foul about the move. They argue that because the holiday break has been broken up by brief pro forma sessions, the Senate is not in recess and the appointment is illegitimate.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the novel move “arrogantly circumvented the American people.”

The rest of the article is here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/202335-reids-backs-obama-for-ignoring-pro-forma-sessions-he-once-pushed

Will he cancel the 2012 elections next?

77 Comments

  1. Yorkshire asked:

    Will he cancel the 2012 elections next?

    Well, if they would just result in the elections of the do-nothing Republicans and an extremist Tea Party president, then for the good of the country, he should. Then, after Obama has fixed this economy, we can resume normal elections again.

  2. The Republicans’ solution is obvious: if President Obama is going to make an end-run around the Constitution to appoint his cronies, then the House of Representatives should refuse to appropriate any funds to maintain the agencies that such appointees run.

  3. What BO syncophants keep forgetting is there a THREE BRANCHES of Government. It’s the great balance of power instituted by the Founding Dads. Since BO hates the Constitution anyway, he sees this obstacle and now wants to be Emporer.

  4. Here is the real story: The Consumer Financial Protection Board was formed by an act of Congress. However, the do-nothing/obstructionist anti-American Republican Party does not like the idea, therefore they refuse to allow an appointment to fill the job of the head of the CFPB. Finally, President Obama uses a method to fill the position, a method used by Presidents before him, including President Bush, to make a recess appointment. Technically, the Senate is in recess, therefore the President had it in his power to make the appointment. In order to thwart the President, the House majority Republicans are using their power to keep the Senate from adjourning for more than three days, so every three days, a pro-forma call to order and adjournment procedure has been used. In short, the Republicans are attempting to use another one of their dirty tricks to thwart the operation of a legally formed government agency, the CFPB.

    Of course the do-nothing/obstructionist anti-American Republican Party is furious. So what do is say about that: Tough!!!

    Take note:

    “Seen in this light, President Obama’s recourse to his recess appointment power was really the only plausible way of responding to a pattern of Senate behavior – induced by the Republican minority – that paid no regard to his authority and obligation to appoint officers of the United States to a host of positions critical to effective governance. It is notable that he targeted his latest appointments with just that limiting principle in mind – that is, he filled vacancies only in agencies that were utterly disabled from carrying out their legally assigned missions because leadership nominations were languishing in the Senate.

    Constitutionally, President Obama could have gone further. He could have filled other executive branch positions that the Senate has been holding hostage for reasons unrelated to the merits of the nominees. He could have filled judicial vacancies. He could have used his power under Article II to adjourn Congress, thus creating his own recess of the Senate during which he could make these appointments.

    That President Obama has not gone to these lengths demonstrates a commendable inclination to continue to respect the Senate’s confirmation power. It also continues a tradition of making recess judicial appointments only in extremely rare circumstances, in large part because – although such appointments are constitutional under the text – their limited duration stands in tension with the Framers’ conspicuous commitment to judicial independence, embodied in the constitutional guarantee of lifetime tenure.”

    Here is a non-partisan discussion of the power that President Obama used:


    Summary

    Under the Constitution (Article II, §2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to
    make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies,
    boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and
    the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also
    provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a
    temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate
    approval (Article II, §2, clause 3). This report supplies brief answers to some frequently asked
    questions regarding recess appointments. It will be updated as events warrant”

    So Mr Editor, stop all your whining and crying about the Constitution. You know as well as I do that the Senate is in effect in recess, and that no business is being conducted. Your party is desperately trying to thwart a constitutional power which the President possesses, and you know that very well!!!

  5. FACT CHECK
    Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?
    Posted on March 28, 2008
    Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

    A: His formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor.

    FULL QUESTION

    When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as “professors,” regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a “constitutional law professor” at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?

    FULL ANSWER

    Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was “senior lecturer” and not “professor.”

    Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

    Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

    the rest here: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

  6. WW Dreams:
    So Mr Editor, stop all your whining and crying about the Constitution. You know as well as I do that the Senate is in effect in recess, and that no business is being conducted. Your party is desperately trying to thwart a constitutional power which the President possesses, and you know that very well!!!

    I think it’s obvious you didn’t read the post. Also, you missed that when Congress was going to go into recess, the dems set up a Pro Forma meeting so as to say the Senate was not in recess and block Bush from making recess appointments. It was something that Obama was all for doing. Funny now that the Reps did the same to him, he squeels like a stuck pig. So, BO wants it both ways. And BO being an alleged Constitutional Professor, he conveniently ignores what he learned, taught, and practiced in the Senate. WW you want it your way. Your way is WRONG.

  7. Wagonwheel shows very clearly that he is not at all concerned with blatant violations of the Constitution, so long as it’s the Democrats who are blatantly violating the Constitution. While it has been ever more obviously known about him, it is good that he came out and said it rather clearly and directly.

    That really is and always has been a serious problem with “progressives” (who are actually socialists): the willingness to shred the Constitution every time it gets in their way.

  8. Yorkshire, I explained my view, and you have not refuted it.

    Bottom line: The CFPB was created by an act of Congress, and the President then appoints the top person. But the Republicans don’t like the law, so they have refused to approve the President’s selection, even though they agree that Cordray is qualified. The Senate is technically in recess, therefore, President Obama is Constitutionally empowered to make a recess appointment. As far as the pro forma session, I discussed that too, so I did not miss anything. You and our editor are whining and crying because the President thwarted your party’s dirty trick to subvert the law that created the CFPB. You want to play hardball, fine, but when you get a hardball pitched right back, you whine and cry. Tough!

  9. The point is, Mr Hitchcock, the Constitution has not been violated. Let us see if your party takes the issue to the courts. You know as well as I do that the Senate was technically not in session. What business was conducted? Answer: There was none. This is all one more Republican dirty trick done to keep the legally formed CFPB from acting. And you are willing to defend that tactic, Mr Hitchcock? You people can dish it out, but given back to you, you whine and cry like a bunch of sissies!

  10. WW:
    The Senate is technically in recess,

    Then the bill they passed is no good, and neither is the payroll tax bill is legal then. Which way do you want it WW? It appears if it’s bad for the dems, you don’t want. If it’s good for the dems, you’ll take it. Such double standards you practice.

  11. Wagonwheel, what does the US Constitution say about Congressional Recess? How does the US Constitution rule that a Recess can be taken?

    Wagonwheel, you directly support the usurpation of the US Constitution by declaring the Congress in recess in direct violation of the rules put forth in plain English in the US Constitution. That fact, you cannot get around in all your diatribes, regardless of how many exclamation points you use.

  12. I do not think you are correct, Yorkshire, because a vote cannot be taken in a pro forma session in which there are no legislators present.

    And again, Mr Hitchcock, this may be a matter for the courts to decide. Let us see if that happens and if so, what the decision is. Like I said, the Senate was technically in recess. There was no business being conducted. I do not think that the dirty trick by the House Republicans will prevail. You think differently. That’s fine!

  13. And Wagonwheel, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you do not know what “technically” means. You really should look it up before you use it, because you are currently turning its definition on its head.

  14. “We’re throwing facts to you WW. You’re throwing hyperbole.”

    I don’t think so, Yorkshire. I think you are confused. You ought to review what a pro forma session is. There is no business conducted, therefore there can be no legislation passed, correct?

  15. Wagonwheel wrote:

    So Mr Editor, stop all your whining and crying about the Constitution. You know as well as I do that the Senate is in effect in recess, and that no business is being conducted.

    Oh, so now Article II, §2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States reads “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during a Recess in effect of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” I must admit, I hadn’ty noticed that part before. Apparently the printer erred when he produced my copy.

    As I’m certain you are aware, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid kept he Senate in pro-forma sessions in 2007 and 2008, precisely to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Shall we assume that you were opposed to that as well?

  16. WW wrote:

    This is all one more Republican dirty trick done to keep the legally formed CFPB from acting. And you are willing to defend that tactic, Mr Hitchcock? You people can dish it out, but given back to you, you whine and cry like a bunch of sissies!

    Shall we assume, then, that you would agree that it was just one more Democrat dirty trick to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments?

    However, one thing is clear: President Obama will get his way on this, because even if it is challenged in court, by the time that the matter was resolved, the 112nd Congress will be over.

    That leaves two possible challenges:

    1. The Republicans must refuse to fund the agency, leaving the appointee in place, but with no employees and no budget and no means of exercising power; and
    2. Due to the way the appointment was made, every decision of the agency is challengeable in court, which means that adversely affected parties can delay any actions by the agency until after the recess appointment is expired.
  17. If Obama is going to act like a dictator and make arbitrary decisions in open defiance of long established procedures, he should be recognized and acknowledged for what he is:

    Therefore, let it be resolved that henceforth the title of President shall be denied to the dictator and he shall be referred to as Pol Pot.

  18. I think it is plainly obvious that Wagonwheel’s hatred of Republicans/conservatives has overtaken his ability to reason rationally. For, how can one continually criticize the GOP for actions/behavior that was/is routinely exercised by Democrats? How can one refer to a duly elected GOP government official as a “dictator,” yet make every excuse in the book for a Democrat official (Obama) who acts the same, if not worse?

    It’s hilarious, but ultimately dangerous.

  19. Wagonwheel says:
    January 6, 2012 at 23:13 (Edit)

    “We’re throwing facts to you WW. You’re throwing hyperbole.”

    I don’t think so, Yorkshire. I think you are confused. You ought to review what a pro forma session is. There is no business conducted, therefore there can be no legislation passed, correct? No WW, you are.[Ys update]

    Read it and weap Wagonwheel. From the NYT no less said the BILL WAS PASSED DURING A PRO FORMA SESSION OF THE SENATE

    For Payroll Tax Cut, Next Step Is Obama’s Signature
    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

    In under an hour on Friday, the House and Senate dispensed with weeks of partisan bickering, passing a bill to ensure a two-month extension of a payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits for millions of Americans.

    The fight over how and whether to pass an extension was settled Thursday afternoon, when House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio agreed — against the will of many of the chamber’s most conservative members — to a Senate bill to extend the benefits for two months while a longer deal was hammered out.

    The legislative day began at 9:30 on Friday, when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, addressed the presiding officer, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who was decked out in his Christmas tie. Mr. Reid asked for unanimous consent to extend the payroll tax, unemployment benefits and to maintain the fee levels for doctors who accept Medicare. The bill also called for Democrats to appoint conferees to a bicameral committee to come up with a longer-term measure, a request from the House Republicans.

    Without objection, it was so ordered, and, a minute after Mr. Reid began speaking, the gavel was down and the Senate — void of the other 98 Senators — recessed for the day. The Senate will still be in pro forma sessions through Jan. 23, when it resumes regular business.

    More here:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/for-payroll-tax-cut-next-step-is-obamas-desk/

  20. That leaves two possible challenges:
    1.The Republicans must refuse to fund the agency, leaving the appointee in place, but with no employees and no budget and no means of exercising power; and

    Mr. Editor,

    Are you aware that funding for the CFPB may not be controlled by our Congress?

    The Director of the CFPB has access to up to 10% of the Federal Reserve’s total operating budget (based upon funding levels for 2009) for FY2011, 11% for FY2010, 12% in FY2013 increasing thereafter by an inflation index. The Director may request these funds in “the amount determined by the Director to be reasonably necessary to carry out the authorities of the Bureau” taking into account any amounts left from the prior year. Calculated according to the Fed’s $5.39 billion total operating budget for 2009, this would guarantee the Bureau a budget of $539 million in its first year.

    These funds are not subject to review by congressional appropriations committees, and the Director must provide operating plans and forecasts to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but he or she will not be obligated to consult or obtain OMB’s approval for spending. In addition, should the Director find the transfer of funds from the Fed insufficient, the Act authorizes $200 million in appropriations annually from FY2010-2024.
    link

    Obama is using the Federal Reserve to fund those programs he can not pass through regular order of the legislative branch—another abuse of executive power, imo.

  21. Perry needs a glass-ectomy. That’s where there the belly button is removed and in its place they install a glass porthole. That way while he has his head up his ass he can see where he’s going.

  22. Koolo, the sad thing is I encounter people with Wagonwheel’s attitude all the time. Hell, at my own Club there are two guys who sound like cookie-cutter copies of Wagonwheel. They hate, yes HATE any and all Republicans (which puts them at odds with just about everyone else at the Club). I mean it’s seething, low down hatred. If they had the same feelings toward moslem terrorists or even commies I could understand, but just because someone has a different political view of America? Come on. BTW, they also use all the same talking points Wagonwheel uses. It’s like they get their marching orders by radio waves while they sleep or something. They even throw around That “dysfunctional” word all the time. I guess anyone who disagrees with a leftist is by deffinition “dysfunctional”. But we have fun with them. We let them talk and talk till they paint themselves into a corner then blast them. At that point they usually pay their tab and flee.

    But like the usual leftists they constantly bitch and complain about stuff but don’t do anything about it. Just before Christmas we were at the bar watching a Flyers game and one of them was bitching that there should be another TV (we have 4 at the bar) on a wall in the corner so his neck wouldn’t “hurt” watching the big screen. I told him if he wanted a TV there, all he had to do was buy it and the boys will mount it anywhere he wanted. His answer was: “Why should I buy it? That’s the Club’s job” Meaning “our” job. I asked him where he thought the 52″ plasma he was watching came from. You should have seen the puzzeled look on his face when the guys, in unison, shouted “Hoagie donated it”. Typical leftist. They are first to bitch and last to act.

    Well, today’s my 61st birthday so I’m heading to the Club. The boys are taking me to Mad Mex ( a new Mexican restaurant next to the Willow Grove Mall) for lunch. Then, who knows? But we do have a designated driver (Sharon the bartender) who only drinks Red Bull and Diet Coke so we should be fine.

  23. Hoagie (we call them subs)
    Well, today’s my 61st birthday so I’m heading to the Club. The boys are taking me to Mad Mex ( a new Mexican restaurant next to the Willow Grove Mall) for lunch. Then, who knows? But we do have a designated driver (Sharon the bartender) who only drinks Red Bull and Diet Coke so we should be fine.

    Hey man, Happy Birthday. Today is my wife’s B-Day, but her age is a state secret. But she is a Sharon also, but not your bartender.

  24. ropelight wrote”

    If Obama is going to act like a dictator and make arbitrary decisions in open defiance of long established procedures, he should be recognized and acknowledged for what he is:

    Therefore, let it be resolved that henceforth the title of President shall be denied to the dictator and he shall be referred to as Pol Pot.

    Amazing how someone WW calls “Dictator Walker” had to actually get the consent of the legislature for his programs.

  25. BrokenWheel wrote:

    Are you aware that funding for the CFPB may not be controlled by our Congress?

    Holy, cow, no, I didn’t know that.

    So what we have is an agency run by someone not subject to congressional approval, with a budget not subject to congressional approval! No wonder Republicans opposed the creation of this agency.

  26. When G.W. Bush was POTUS, the Democrat-majority Senate remained in pro forma in session to prevent his making interim appointments. Indeed, that strategy was contrived by Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in Congress. The current president, who was a Democratic Senator at the time of the Democrats’ solution to the prevention of Bush’s being allowed to make recess appointments, was in full support of the plan…at the time. President Bush abided by those rules.

    Now that the apparently Machiavellian-inspired Barack Obama is ensconced in the Oval Office, the rules that applied when he was a senator, he deems no longer applicable. The only means he can achieve the end of his overt power grab is to toss aside the very rules he supported when a GOP president was in office. His devious partner in crime, Harry Reid, is all too happy to serve as Obama’s lapdog in this end around effort to spit in the eye of the very rule they invented.

    Obama and his blindly obedient partisans have gone beyond being merely hypocritical. This effort to usurp the Senate’s advice and consent role while the Senate is in pro forma session, has demonstrated clearly that Obama and his sycophants are a repugnant threat to Article One of the United States Constitution.

  27. KNIGHT: Obama’s inoperable Constitution
    By Robert Knight

    The Washington Times

    Back in 1973, when the Nixon administration was under fire for Watergate, Press Secretary Ron Ziegler uttered an unforgettable response when caught in a lie during a news conference: “This is the operative statement. The other statements are now inoperable.”

    Well, the Obama administration just topped that by essentially declaring the U.S. Constitution “inoperable.” President Obama did not use that term when making an illegal recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the new post of consumer czar on Wednesday, but he might as well have.
    More here:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/no-time-for-advice-and-consent-568663286/

  28. ACLJ Preparing to File Lawsuit over Cordray Appointment
    ——————————————————————————–

    This is so new, I can’t even find an article on it yet.

    So, I’m going to quote from what I just saw on FOX News in an interview between Martha McCallum and Jay Sekulow.

    Martha: As we’ve been telling you, today President Obama is visiting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – that’s the new agency that’s been created to protect us from financial agencies and the wrath we saw in 2008.
    And he appointed Richard Cordray as the Chief of that agency – and that’s sparked a huge controversy…and a newly filed lawsuit today, is claiming that President Obama violated the Constitution by not seeking congressional approval for that appointment.
    Jay Sekulow is the Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
    Jay welcome.
    So tell me about the lawsuit.

    Jay: We haven’t filed it yet; we’re looking at all the options. We’re not gonna be the only ones, btw, looks like there’s gonna be 3 or 4.

    Here’s what it is: There’s two provisions of the Constitution at play. Article 1, which is the congressional authority – which sets their own recess schedule, and there’s article 2, the presidential authority. And the Congress isn’t in recess.
    What you’ve got is a situation where the presidents can make recess appointments when the Congress is in recess. But that’s not the case here.

    What’s making it even more complicated is, the nominees for the National Labor Relations board were just made toward the end of December, so they didn’t even have time for hearings.

    More here:

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/202093-aclu-preparing-to-file-lawsuit-over-cordray-appointment.html

  29. Reports of Obama’s NLRB appointees failure to pay federal income taxes are circulating.

    It seems they’ll fit right in with the sorry mob of crooks, deadbeats, and unemployables His Imperial Magnificence, Shovel Ready Dictator, Compulsive Golfer and Master of Vacations, Barack Insane Obama, has invited to feed from the public trough.

  30. Ropelight writes: Reports of Obama’s NLRB appointees failure to pay federal income taxes are circulating.

    Perhaps they are tax evaders; perhaps they are not. Questions have arisen because the POTUS was so eager to circumvent the Senate, he appointed them before they had even filled out the required paperwork for the mandatory (required and mandatory mean nothing, of course, to the Power Grabber-in-Chief) FBI background check.

    Are Obama’s Democrat NLRB appointees tax evaders?

    Mark Tapscott
    Published: January 6, 2012

    Sharon Block and Richard Griffin – President Obama’s Democratic likely illegal recess appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) – may not have paid their federal taxes in recent years. Either one or both of them may be subjects of criminal investigations. There is even the possibility that one or both of them have substantial conflicts of interest that will prevent them from serving honestly.

    Odds are neither Block nor Griffin is guilty of any of these things, but the U.S. Senate has no way of knowing for sure because both of them failed to fill out the required paperwork for their confirmation hearings before Congress, according to Lachlan Markay, a reporter for the Heritage Foundation’s Scribe.

    One of the key sources of information for that paperwork is the full FBI background check that is conducted on all presidential nominees in preparation for the Senate confirmation process.

    “Neither Griffin nor Block had even submitted the required paperwork to the committee,” Markay said, quoting Senate Health Education, Labor and Pension Committee sources.

    “That paperwork includes a background check, ‘which addresses whether taxes are paid and if the nominee is facing any pending civil or criminal investigations,’ according to the committee. ‘This also ensures that there are no conflicts-of-interest before being confirmed for the position.’”

    Markay said committee spokesman Joe Brenckle told him that “members had not expressed their views on those nominations for the simple reason that they had not had a chance to undergo the normal vetting procedures. In other words, there is no evidence that the committee – let alone the full Senate – would have blocked those nominations even if they had come up for a vote.”

    Click to read full article at http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/are-obamas-democrat-nlrb-appointees-tax-evaders/296951

  31. “Well, the Obama administration just topped that by essentially declaring the U.S. Constitution “inoperable.” President Obama did not use that term when making an illegal recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the new post of consumer czar on Wednesday, but he might as well have.”

    Of course, I would expect such from the Washington Times, prejudging the court case outcome which is sure to come. Rational people would merely say: Let us wait to hear the court ruling.

    Hopefully it will take several years for the case to work it’s way to the SCOTUS. By that time, it will be too late, because the Dems will have taken back the House, retained the Senate, and retained the President for one more term, and can then make any appointment the President desires. Moreover, hopefully Justice Kennedy will retire so we can regain our 5-4 majority and get the Court back to the Constitution and away from the right wing activists who now run the place!

  32. Gretchen, your source is reporting rumor and innuendo. Moreover, allegations are being made based on unidentified sources. Do you think we can hang our hats on this kind of reporting? I think not.

    And then we have ropelight reporting on some kind of “buzz”, therefore no more credible either.

    I suspect this is no more than right wing wishful thinking, motivated by anything to smear our President. Par for the course, I suppose!

  33. Wagonwheel says:
    January 8, 2012 at 21:42 (Edit)

    Gretchen, your source is reporting rumor and innuendo. Moreover, allegations are being made based on unidentified sources. Do you think we can hang our hats on this kind of reporting? I think not.

    And then we have ropelight reporting on some kind of “buzz”, therefore no more credible either.

    I suspect this is no more than right wing wishful thinking, motivated by anything to smear our President. Par for the course, I suppose!

    All this would not have been a point of contention had BO followed the Constitution rather than shredding it.

  34. Wagonwheel writes: Gretchen, your source is reporting rumor and innuendo. Moreover, allegations are being made based on unidentified sources. Do you think we can hang our hats on this kind of reporting? I think not.

    Barack Obama fostered the questions when he rushed the process of appointments, ignoring not only the Senate’s role in advice and consent, but also bypassing the initial steps that all appointees are supposed to take prior to their names being submitted for confirmation.

    Do you realize that this man you feel so compelled to defend has made you and others who are trying to defend his actions sound cloying in your efforts to justify the unjustifiable? Surely during the Pep Rallies for Barry someone in the crowd is bound to ask, “Why is he doing things like this–especially now when he is already being revealed as a less than stellar decision maker? Why is Obama forcing us to defend him again. We are already hoarse from trying to justify his reckless spending on programs like Solyndra?”

  35. Gretchen:
    Do you realize that this man you feel so compelled to defend has made you and others who are trying to defend his actions sound cloying in your efforts to justify the unjustifiable? Surely during the Pep Rallies for Barry someone in the crowd is bound to ask, “Why is he doing things like this–especially now when he is already being revealed as a less than stellar decision maker? Why is Obama forcing us to defend him again. We are already hoarse from trying to justify his reckless spending on programs like Solyndra?”

    The hatred of anyone to the right of center by Progressives/Liberals/Socialists outweigh rationality. They are defending the indefensible because they can’t come to grips with reality.

  36. “The hatred of anyone to the right of center by Progressives/Liberals/Socialists outweigh rationality. They are defending the indefensible because they can’t come to grips with reality.”

    Here we have a classic case of projection!

  37. “The hatred of anyone to the right of center by Progressives/Liberals/Socialists outweigh rationality. They are defending the indefensible because they can’t come to grips with reality.”

    I supported the Solyndra start up funding, but two problems appeared afterwards. First, the executives were dishonest in not fully disclosing their financial position, even after the collapse, protected by the Fifth Amendment. Secondly and unexpectedly, the supply of natural gas has surged and the price has dropped significantly, making solar even less competitive. But we still have global warming to deal with, and we are doing nothing policy-wise to combat it.

    “Barack Obama fostered the questions when he rushed the process of appointments, ignoring not only the Senate’s role in advice and consent, but also bypassing the initial steps that all appointees are supposed to take prior to their names being submitted for confirmation.”

    Having a hostile Senate unwilling to grant any Presidential appointments, considering how critical it is to have both the CFPB and NLRB working, the President did what any President would do faced with blanket opposition. I don’t fault him for that, in fact, I praise him for it!

  38. WW:
    Having a hostile Senate unwilling to grant any Presidential appointments, considering how critical it is to have both the CFPB and NLRB working, the President did what any President would do faced with blanket opposition. I don’t fault him for that, in fact, I praise him for it!

    Show us where in the Constitution it says :”If the President has a hostile Senate, then by-pass them and shred the Constitution”?

    If a president, as you state, gets an alleged hostile Senate, there is no remedy but to work with them. There is no other choice or remedy. BO may not like that, but that’s Politics. Of course, if he continually by-passes them, BO will certainly invoke a Constitution Crises and appear as a Dictator.

  39. WW writes

    First, the executives were dishonest in not fully disclosing their financial position, even after the collapse,

    In actuality, this conveniently ignores the fact that the Obama admin was warned of the precarious financial position of Solyndra, yet did nothing about it.

    Having a hostile Senate unwilling to grant any Presidential appointments, considering how critical it is to have both the CFPB and NLRB working, the President did what any President would do faced with blanket opposition. I don’t fault him for that, in fact, I praise him for it!

    Yorkshire’s response is perfect for this unintentionally hilarious bit of nonsense. In fact, WW perfectly illustrated the title of this post!

    Now, imagine President Bush doing something similar. We all know what WW’s position would be, then.

  40. “Show us where in the Constitution it says :”If the President has a hostile Senate, then by-pass them and shred the Constitution”?

    If a president, as you state, gets an alleged hostile Senate, there is no remedy but to work with them. There is no other choice or remedy. BO may not like that, but that’s Politics. Of course, if he continually by-passes them, BO will certainly invoke a Constitution Crises and appear as a Dictator.”

    Oh please, Yorkshire, to the consternation of his base, President Obama has bent over backwards to work with Congress.

    What can a President do having a bunch of absolutists (my way or the highway types) dominating the House, and having the Senate leader who proclaimed in early 2009 that his first priority was to hold the President to one term. Do you understand what “first priority” means, Yorkshire? Should not what is good for our country be the first priority?

    Your party messed up really badly, then you prevent and punish the inheritor of the mess from cleaning it up, because you want power back, and you blame him. I think the American people understand this very well, and will do the right thing come November 2012, in spite of the massive voter suppression going on, in spite of the Super PAC’s doing the dirty work!

    The American people are already speaking, and the popular movement will grow exponentially!

  41. WW writes

    What can a President do …

    Follow the law, maybe?

    in spite of the massive voter suppression going on

    IOW, maybe me repeating this for the 3,014th time will get someone to believe this nonsense.

    The American people are already speaking, and the popular movement will grow exponentially!

    And then I woke up from my fantasy.

  42. “I supported the Solyndra start up funding, but two problems appeared afterwards.”

    Once again Wagonwheel, you show your total lack of business experience. The term “start up funding” is by deffinition the initial investment by private participants in creationg a new enterprise. Since Solyndra existed for many years as a multimillion dollar company prior to the government infusion of the $535 million of OUR money they were by deffinition, not start up funds. Further, government audits found Solyndrs to be a particurly bad investment as far back as 2008 and at that time declined to infuse taxpayer funds into it.

    I’d also like to know where the authority comes from for the government to “invest” in private corporations. The government has the right to procure things from private companies such as cars, computers, munnitions and weapons but has no authority to invest out tax money. Now, if you really did support the funding for Solyndra I’d like to ask you exactly how much of your own money did you put into the company? Didn’t think so.

    The main problem here Wagonwheel, is that the government has no business “investing” OUR money in any company. They have the right to give tax credits and incentives, they even have the right to buy a company’s products, but when they “invest” they create that thing we call crony capitalism where the line between public and private is blurred or even erased and we, the public get screwed.

  43. Perry, you failed to address one of Gretchen’s points other than to arbitrarily label it “rumor and innuendo.” Then you wrongly claimed the “allegations are being made based on unidentified sources.”

    That’s not so. The allegation Obama’s nominees failed to submit the required paperwork for their confirmation hearings is unmistakeably attributed to Lachlan Markay, a reporter for the Heritage Foundation’s Scribe.

    Now, Markay’s allegation is either true or it’s not, and it bears directly on Obama’s rationale for circumventing the Senate’s Constitutional prerogatives. If Obama’s nominees failed to submit the required information so appropriate FBI background checks could be completed, Obama’s claims are not only without merit, they’re demonstrably fraudulent.

    The Senate, whether actively in session or only in pro forma session, can hardly be accused of foot-dragging if it’s Obama’s nominees themselves which have obstructed the required confirmation procedures.

  44. “The main problem here Wagonwheel, is that the government has no business “investing” OUR money in any company. They have the right to give tax credits and incentives, they even have the right to buy a company’s products, but when they “invest” they create that thing we call crony capitalism where the line between public and private is blurred or even erased and we, the public get screwed.”

    Hoagie, these words are synonyms, the way you are using them: tax credits, incentives, investing.

    In all cases they involve the expenditure of tax payer dollars.

    I believe the government should promote strategically important industrial initiatives, of which solar energy is certainly one. It comes down to whether we will be able to compete, especially with the Chinese, who put government money into their strategic industries as well.

    Had Solyndra been a rousing success, we would all be cheering. Unfortunately, corrupt capitalists put one over on us! A major problem we deal with today is just this, corrupt capitalists, as in Wall Street. You Conservatives need to take your heads out of the sand, Hoagie.

    That said, I do think the Obama Administration erred in their desire for political gain which resulted in hanging on to the Solyndra program even after it had become obvious that the enterprise was failing. A half of a billion is far from chump change, so I am not at all pleased with the way the Obama Administration has handled themselves on this one.

    I think the intentions were admirable, but corporate corruption and political fervor combined to make a good incentive turn rotten.

  45. “The Senate, whether actively in session or only in pro forma session, can hardly be accused of foot-dragging if it’s Obama’s nominees themselves which have obstructed the required confirmation procedures.”

    Ropelight, Cordray submitted his paperwork and has been vetted. Republicans themselves, like Orin Hatch, admitted that he was a qualified individual for the job. His appointment has been blocked by Republicans since the summer, so President Obama’s frustration is understandable.

    The Seattle Times published this about this issue:

    In addition to Cordray, Senate Republicans have blocked nominations to the National Labor Relations Board, saying Obama’s appointees were too favorable to unions. The stalemate had left the five-person board without a quorum to take most actions.

    The appointments are almost certain to lead to legal challenges from businesses affected by the consumer bureau or the labor board. Unless a court rules otherwise, the nominees can serve until the end of 2013.

    The procedural snarl comes on top of a bitterly waged substantive fight over the consumer bureau. Several Republicans have spoken highly of Cordray, but 44 GOP senators said last year they would block any nominee to the agency until changes were made to reduce its powers. That fight was part of an overall effort by Republicans to roll back parts of the 2010 financial-reform law of which the consumer agency was a centerpiece.

    Cordray’s nomination got 53 votes last month, a majority, but short of the 60 needed to end a filibuster. Just one Republican, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, voted with Democrats in his favor. Brown announced support of Cordray’s appointment Wednesday. He is seeking re-election and is likely to be running against Democrat Elizabeth Warren, the liberal favorite who was largely credited with creating the new consumer bureau.

    The impasse had stalled the bureau’s ability to issue rules governing finance companies, payday lenders and mortgage brokers. The agency formally opened in July and took over existing government authority to regulate banks. But the law said it could not regulate other consumer-finance industries until an agency director was in place.”

    So about the NRLB appointments, the Senate has been holding them up as well.

    I’ll tell you, ropelight, your Republicans have been playing hardball from day one of the Obama Administration, whereas the Dems have tried to make compromises and accommodations. The lesson the Dems have finally learned is that playing hardball is the only way to get their agenda addressed, and frankly, I’m now all for the hardball. You are getting a dose of your own medicine, and you don’t like it one bit. For example, where in the Constitution does it say that 60 votes are required for passage of a bill in the Senate, ropelight?

    So get used to the hardball game, ropelight! Good, good, good!!! ‘Tis all for good causes!

  46. WW writes

    For example, where in the Constitution does it say that 60 votes are required for passage of a bill in the Senate, ropelight?

    Article I, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

  47. Republicans never obstructed the two Democrats Obama installed on the NLRB. They couldn’t have even if they wanted to; Obama only named them as nominees on December 15, less than three weeks before he made the move. The nominees never even filed the normal paperwork with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP) Committee. They didn’t undergo background checks. They didn’t submit questionnaires. They didn’t meet with a single Senate Republican.

    Moreover, less than two years ago the Supreme Court heard the case New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the court rejected the argument that the NLRB can operate with just two members, the number it again had at the end of 2011 with the expiration of the recess appointment (the real kind, during a Senate recess) of Craig Becker. Becker, of course, had been rejected by the Senate because of his work as the associate general counsel of the SEIU and the AFL-CIO and his longstanding support for outlandish legal theories under which the NLRB could completely rewrite labor law to favor unions without congressional authorization. He most infamously wrote that “Employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.”

    With Becker in place, the NLRB last year greatly shortened the timetable for union elections to allow union organizers to ambush employers with surprise elections, approved so-called micro-unions to allow organizers to cherry-pick very narrow classes of workers to get a foot in the door and took away the right of workers to demand a secret-ballot election when employers collude with union organizers to forego one.

    The radical agenda of the NLRB stalled out when Becker’s recess appointment expired. When Congress refused to go into recess to block similarly outrageous appointments, Obama had no way to reward the union bosses who control the money and manpower that are critical to his re-election. So, under cover of the high-profile and politically charged Cordray nod, Obama installed two completely unvetted union lawyers, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, to continue Becker’s work. (He also installed Republican Terence Flynn, who had been stalled for a year by Senate Democrats.)

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/obama-illegal-nlrb-appointments-even-more-outrageous-than-cordray-appointment/#ixzz1iypLJjjB

  48. Perry, it would help if you’d pay attention. My comment yesterday at 09:29 and Gretchen’s 21:25 comment both specified NLRB nominees, her comment was even in bold type.

    Subsequent comments referred to Obama’s NLRB nominees which have not been vetted and which are the ones who failed to submit the required paperwork so necessary FBI background checks could be performed.

    Please try to keep up.

  49. Wagonwheel says:
    January 9, 2012 at 09:11 (Edit)

    “Show us where in the Constitution it says :”If the President has a hostile Senate, then by-pass them and shred the Constitution”?

    If a president, as you state, gets an alleged hostile Senate, there is no remedy but to work with them. There is no other choice or remedy. BO may not like that, but that’s Politics. Of course, if he continually by-passes them, BO will certainly invoke a Constitution Crises and appear as a Dictator.”

    Oh please, Yorkshire, to the consternation of his base, President Obama has bent over backwards to work with Congress.

    You mean by campaigning for the 2012 elections for the last six months.

  50. I was taught in elementary school that a simple majority rules. It did not take 60 votes to elect the President of my fifth grade class. Likewise, I would argue that Article 1 Section 5 was not meant to overrule the idea of majority rule.

    Regarding long campaigns, one could argue that the entire four years of a any modern Presidency is one long campaign, Repubs and Dems alike. And for the House, it has gotten to where they are in session only three days of so, then go back to their districts to campaign. And I am not even including the Summer recess, the Christmas recess, and the Spring recess, all to do more campaigning. This issue is about the only bipartisan issue which we have left over from the “olden days”. Everyone agrees on vacations, except the mean, nasty, and grouchy Republicans when it is the Democratic President who takes one, never mind when the last Republican President took far more vacation time. Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy!!!

    And Gretchen, on your Daily Caller cite, it doesn’t take much reading to see such as the “radical agenda of the NLRB”. Well, that radical agenda of the NLRB has not gotten the American Labor Movement very much in recent years. Instead, radical red state governors, like Dictator Walker, and greedy CEO’s, have been successful in cutting back on the freedoms of big labor to act.

    An active NLRB is needed as an advocate for workers to be a counter to the power of big business, the latter who otherwise have a long history of exploiting them, especially in recent years as evidenced by the increased skew of income and wealth in this country to the upper 1-2%.

    And you hardballers have the utter gall to criticize a President who is attempting to move back towards leveling the playing field. Without this, the course of current management’s and complicit Republicans’ actions against the working man is hardly sustainable without increasing chaos and even some violence being the reaction, as I have been pointing out for several years already. I mean, people need food and shelter!

    And ropelight, you expect me to pay attention to this stinky garbage of yours?

    “It seems they’ll fit right in with the sorry mob of crooks, deadbeats, and unemployables His Imperial Magnificence, Shovel Ready Dictator, Compulsive Golfer and Master of Vacations, Barack Insane Obama, has invited to feed from the public trough.”

    The power grabbers, Gretchen, are the Machiavellian Republican party, who are taking any means necessary to prevent Congress from enacting the people’s business, to the point of using the filibuster by far more than any other Senate has done. That’s power grabbing, Gretchen. President Obama’s attempts to keep the NRLB operational can hardly be construed as power grabbing, except by the extreme right who, as just stated, who are power grabbing on a daily basis!

  51. “Hoagie, these words are synonyms, the way you are using them: tax credits, incentives, investing.

    In all cases they involve the expenditure of tax payer dollars.”

    They are absolutely not synonyms and they all do not invole the expenditure of tax payer dollars. A tax credit requires zero expenditure, rather it is the decision not to collect revenue for a certain reason. That’s not an expenditure since it was never collected. Incentives could be anything from simply rolling back onerous regulations to expediting building permits and EPA requirements, still no “expenditure” of taxpayer dollars. An investment on the other hand, require one to put his money into the hand of the person or entity in which he is investing. If the government does that, as in Solyndra, that IS an expenditure of the taxpayers dollars taken from we the taxpayers. If I took your money and invested it where I wanted it you’d have me in court for grand theft.

    “I believe the government should promote strategically important industrial initiatives, of which solar energy is certainly one. It comes down to whether we will be able to compete, especially with the Chinese, who put government money into their strategic industries as well.”

    I too believe the government has a role in “promoting” important industrrial initiatives but only when the security of the United States is involved. And solar energy is certainly no an important industrial initiative, but exploiting our natural resources in fossil fuel is. Raptors don’t fly on solar power, aircraft carriers don’t run on wind power and an Abrams tank dosen’t fire solar flares. The fuels used for these items as well as heating our homes, running our cars to work and powering our enormous truck fleet to bring our economy to market is straqtegic importance. Not pin-wheels and mirrors. And of course the Chinese put government money into their strategic industries…they’re communists. All their money is government money. And if you believe that any communist contry can compete with a capitalist country economically I simply reffer you to the Soviet Union. What could go wrong? And if you believe solar power is a stragegically important industry I must again ask: How much have you invested in it? How about you move your 401K’s into solar power? Dosen’t sound like such a good investment now does it?

    “Had Solyndra been a rousing success, we would all be cheering. Unfortunately, corrupt capitalists put one over on us! A major problem we deal with today is just this, corrupt capitalists, as in Wall Street. You Conservatives need to take your heads out of the sand, Hoagie.”

    Had Solyndra been a rousing success I for one would not be cheering. Because that would be just the excuse guys like you would use to promote more government “investments” in whatever businesses you want. We don’t need no stinkin’ crony capitalism. You keep saying “corrupt capitalists” but who do you think corrupts them? Guys like you handing them out OUR MONEY. You want government to pick and choose “the winners” then when a company like Solyndra jumps on your Free Cash bandwagon you blame the capitalists. Hell, if you get me a government grant for $500 million, I’ll go into the solar power business too. Am I the corrupt one or are you for giving me free money?

  52. Perry, stop dodging the facts. Obama blatantly violated the Senate’s advise and consent powers when he appointed two members of the NLRB before the nominees even submitted their required paperwork for FBI background investigations. You know it and everyone here knows it.

    How many times must a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?

  53. WW writes

    I was taught in elementary school that a simple majority rules. It did not take 60 votes to elect the President of my fifth grade class. Likewise, I would argue that Article 1 Section 5 was not meant to overrule the idea of majority rule.

    You expect me to pay attention to this stinky garbage of yours?

    In many cases a simple majority does NOT rule in these United States (we are a Republic, after all, not a democracy). Nevertheless, the filibuster rule does NOT impose a 60 vote needed majority on voting; it only means that if one wishes to filibuster. And, the filibuster must be kept up; the Senate would do itself a favor if it went back to the old ways of filibustering — meaning, someone must keep talking (endlessly) to maintain a filibuster. All Harry Reid has to do is enforce it.

    Get a clue.

  54. Koolo says:
    January 9, 2012 at 14:09

    WW writes

    I was taught in elementary school that a simple majority rules. It did not take 60 votes to elect the President of my fifth grade class. Likewise, I would argue that Article 1 Section 5 was not meant to overrule the idea of majority rule.

    You expect me to pay attention to this stinky garbage of yours?

    … the Senate would do itself a favor if it went back to the old ways of filibustering — meaning, someone must keep talking (endlessly) to maintain a filibuster. All Harry Reid has to do is enforce it.

    Get a clue.”

    Perhaps Perry would like to state here and now and for the record that he is unconditionally for enforcing the old Senate rules and procedures regarding the courtesy of allowing unlimited speaking time. Meaning that, the speaker must actually hold the floor by speaking.

    It’s just a procedure after all, and can be changed as the Senate sees fit.

    Also, Dana, I took another look at Perry’s gap bridging site, and was somewhat puzzled by the fact that despite the only visitors who seemed interested in leaving comments being Perry, and the guy who is generously underwriting his site (yourself), the comment function on some postings was turned off.

    Not a very effective way for the author of the blog to drum up business, or even live to up to his “free speech” advocacy claims, I would think.

  55. “I was taught in elementary school that a simple majority rules. ”

    Sounds to me like that might be an “absolutist’s” kind of statement.

  56. Wagonwheel says:
    January 9, 2012 at 13:34

    I was taught in elementary school that a simple majority rules

    I was taught the same thing, but in Civics class it was Majority rules, but respect the rights of the Minority”. It was drilled into our heads. It’s as if I was back in 5th grade with the teacher saying this over and over.

  57. DNW wrote:

    Also, Dana, I took another look at Perry’s gap bridging site, and was somewhat puzzled by the fact that despite the only visitors who seemed interested in leaving comments being Perry, and the guy who is generously underwriting his site (yourself), the comment function on some postings was turned off.

    Both BtG and this site have a feature installed which automatically closes comments on a thread after the thread reaches a certain age; on this site, the “expiration date” is set to 14 days. This is a function intended to fight spam; spambots like to comment on older threads, hoping that they won’t be noticed, and escape deletion.

  58. WW complains about Senate filibusters again:

    I was taught in elementary school that a simple majority rules.

    Of course, it wasn’t so long ago when WW approved of the filibuster, “to prevent a tyranny of the majority,” but, of course, that was when George Bush was still our President, and the primary Democratic use of the filibuster had been to prevent confirmation votes on President Bush’s appointees.

    Oddly enough, in that very same comment he wrote:

    Which brings to mind, speaking of tyranny, we must restore the balance of powers by insisting that our errant Bush Executive Branch obey the law!!!

    Yet now, he cheers President Obama for trying to make an end run around the Senate, saying that they were in recess when they were not, to make a recess appointment or four. Perhaps in the expression, “Different strokes for different folks,” different folks refers to different presidents.

  59. And when it comes to recess appointments, it seems that the lovely Nancy Pelosi had different views of them depending upon whom was President:

    In 2005, Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California said President George W. Bush’s decision to “circumvent the Senate” and appoint John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador during a congressional recess was a “mistake” that would “harm the United States’ reputation.” But Pelosi said on Thursday that she is “glad” President Barack Obama made “bold” recess appointments while the Senate was technically still in session.

    “The President’s decision to circumvent the Senate and use a recess appointment naming John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is a mistake,” Pelosi said in an August 2005 statement.

    “For President Bush to use a recess appointment for such a controversial nominee not because there was a compelling case that Mr. Bolton was the best person for the job, but merely because the President had the power to do it subverts the confirmation process in ways that will further harm the United States’ reputation in the eyes of the international community. The American people deserve better.”

    Despite widespread criticism of Obama’s recess appointments on Wednesday, Pelosi told The Daily Caller that Obama’s decision was “bold” and Democrats are “glad” the president “took the lead” on the appointments.

    IOKIYAD

  60. WW wrote:

    I’ll tell you, ropelight, your Republicans have been playing hardball from day one of the Obama Administration, whereas the Dems have tried to make compromises and accommodations. The lesson the Dems have finally learned is that playing hardball is the only way to get their agenda addressed, and frankly, I’m now all for the hardball. You are getting a dose of your own medicine, and you don’t like it one bit. For example, where in the Constitution does it say that 60 votes are required for passage of a bill in the Senate, ropelight?

    Since you are “now all for the hardball,” then you must approve of the Republicans’ use of the filibuster; that’s certainly hardball! :)

    If the 2012 elections happen to turn out the way we Republicans hope, with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, and a Republican President, I suspect that you will find a new respect for the filibuster rule.

  61. “If the 2012 elections happen to turn out the way we Republicans hope, with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, and a Republican President, I suspect that you will find a new respect for the filibuster rule.”

    In the near past, the Dems faced exactly that. Instead of playing hardball using the filibuster, they cooperated with you neocon warhawks, believing then that you had the best interests of our nation in mind. We were fooled, and made fools of. This will not happen again.

    God forbid, if what you say comes true, which I seriously doubt, I say yes, filibuster all of your crap, while continuing to try to work with you to make sane policy and law.

  62. About that voter fraud that never happens:


    SC DMV chief says as many as 900 dead people may have voted in SC elections


    Posted by: ST on January 12, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Via The State Newspaper by way of the Charlotte Observer:

    COLUMBIA The S.C. Department of Motor Vehicles director estimates more than 900 dead people may have voted, and his data has been turned over to the State Law Enforcement Division for investigation.

    DMV Director Kevin Schwedo testified Wednesday before an S.C. House subcommittee that his staff analyzed the records of more than 239,000 voters who do not have an S.C. driver’s license or identification card, and discovered that about 37,000 of them were dead.

    Analysts used records from the S.C. Election Commission, the S.C. Department of Vital Statistics and the Social Security Administration, Schwedo said. His office determined that about 957 people could have voted after they had died but said there could be data-reporting problems or other errors that would make the number lower.

    Schwedo did not say when those questionable votes may have been cast – whether over the past 20 years or two years. He said he examined the data because he wasn’t satisfied with what was being presented by the S.C. State Election Commission.

    Schwedo’s testimony comes just weeks after the U.S. Department of Justice rejected South Carolina’s law. Under the law, people would have to show a state-issued driver’s license or ID card, a military ID or a U.S. passport to vote. However, the Justice Department determined the law would discriminate against black voters, who more often do not have a photo ID, and it ruled that the state had done nothing to demonstrate a need for the law.

    State Attorney General Alan Wilson announced his intentions to file a lawsuit against the Justice Department. Wilson’s office issued a press release Wednesday to say it had requested a SLED investigation of Schwedo’s findings.

    Bbbbut Voter ID laws are raaaaaaaaaaaaacist, didntcha know?! 8-|

  63. The DOJ issued a CYA document that the recess appointments were legal. But remember this is AG Hold it for BO’s AG.

    White House says DOJ recess appointment memo ‘will pass muster’
    By Amie Parnes – 01/12/12 03:27 PM ET

    The White House expressed confidence Thursday that a Justice Department memo defending President Obama’s recess appointments would hold up in court.

    Press secretary Jay Carney said the DOJ memo — which argues that the Obama acted well within the law when he made controversial recess appointments last week — is on solid legal ground.

    “We believe our legal argument is very strong and will absolutely pass muster,” Carney said.

    In the memo, Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued the pro forma sessions held every third day in the Senate do not constitute a functioning body that can render advice and consent on the president’s nominees. It said the president acted consistently under the law by making the appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the National Labor Relations Board.

    Moron Here
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/203903-white-house-confident-memo-will-pass-muster

  64. Obama’s DOJ says ‘recess’ appointment illegal

    When President Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) defends Obama’s “recess appointment” — made today after the Senate adjourned yesterday — his lawyers will have to argue against the position they took on recess appointments last year, during a Supreme Court hearing.

    Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Chief Justice John Roberts that “the [congressional] recess has to be longer than 3 days” for the president to have the power to make a recess appointment, recalls House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, while criticizing Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    -break-

    From the transcript, courtesy of the Speaker’s blog: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1457.pdf

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

    MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

    So, two opposite opinions from the same DOJ

    Moron This Here:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-doj-says-recess-appointment-illegal/292181

  65. Clearly, this is a matter which will have to be settled in the courts. In the meantime, the appointments will stick, which angers Republicans no end. They might wish to ask themselves why they did not act to begin with. These dirty tricks back and forth are not the way we expect our government to be run.

  66. Wagonwheel says:
    January 13, 2012 at 11:16

    Clearly, this is a matter which will have to be settled in the courts. In the meantime, the appointments will stick, which angers Republicans no end. They might wish to ask themselves why they did not act to begin with. These dirty tricks back and forth are not the way we expect our government to be run.

    The answer as to why they didn’t act was a philosophic difference with Cordrey to the Consumer Board. The three for the NLRB weren’t even finished their vetting applications and sent to the Senate. There was NO WAy the Senate could have acted in any way shape or form.

  67. The Republicans did act, by blocking the appointments, the only way that they could. What they have to do now is, once they regain control of the Congress and White House, is eliminate the agency itself.

    The appointments will stick, because the only way to undo them now is to take it to court, and by the time they made it to the Supreme Court, the session would be over, and the recess appointment expired.

Comments are closed.