President Obama wins showdown with GOP (27 Confirmations)

[kpete]

Source: Politico

President Obama wins showdown with GOP

The Senate confirmed a huge group of administration nominees on Thursday, following a tense exchange between President Barack Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

At a White House meeting with bipartisan congressional leaders on Tuesday, Obama warned that he would make recess appointments if the logjam over nominees wasn’t broken before the Senate left for the Presidents’ Day break.

“Mitch, this is unprecedented,” the president said, gesturing forcefully on the Cabinet Room table, according to aides. “If you don’t move any, I’m going to do some appointments.”

The 27 confirmations mean no recess appointments will be needed during this break, top administration officials said. Recess appointments, which a president can make when Congress is not in session, are temporary and generally last to the end of the year.

In a statement Thursday night, Obama said: "At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination. ... And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. ... Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate. While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32874.html#ixzz0fHpHOPDO


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32874.html

[Arkana]

1. Wow. THAT's a boot to the ass.

[CatWoman]

16. lol

wish I could rec your response :)

[WileEcoyote]

55. I want to see all federal highway and similar funds cut off to GOP led districts

Like McConnell's Kentucky. Then I will consider it a boot in their ass.

Red states are parasites anyway. Receiving far more in federal subsidies than they pay in taxes.

Time to let businesses learn: You put GOPukes in office? There stops the money.

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. That's because Obama is thin and wiley.

The tip of his shoe can wedge into the tightest of places.

[bjobotts]

Over 60 nominations waiting that would easily win confirmation and 27 is only 47%

[bjobotts]

98. and you think that is a win. Maybe Mitch McConnel should make the nominations

[bjobotts]

99. Republican appeasement to prevent recess appointments is hardly winning a showdown.

[bjobotts]

100. Appoint Dawn Johnsen as an answer to Bush appointing Bolton which no one wanted

[bjobotts]

101. These obstructionist holds were not based on qualifications.Obama should appoint who he needs

[90-percent]

108. Dawn Johnsen

Dawn Johnsen is to Republicans what sunlight is to vampires.

Dawn Johnsen is to treasonous war criminals what sunlight is to vampires.

The Republicans will stall her confirmation until 2024 if they could get away with it.

Are Democrats going to let them do this?

-90% Jimmy

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. I'm glad he *FINALLY* got tough with them.

[Historic NY]

4. They keep walking all over him, its time for hard ball.

[Go2Peace]

28. It wasn't "TUFF", he agreed to give up his ability to make recess appointments

I would not exactly call this a sign of strength.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. No he didn't. he said he would not make recess appointments at this time

But he said he would use them in the future if he had to.

[xxqqqzme]

37. Too bad Obama's a Democrat

If he was a rethug, he would say he wouldn't do the recess appointments this time, then go ahead and recess appoint anyway. Obama can be less than honorable with totally dishonorable men.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GiveMeFreedom]

64. English much? n/t

[ima_sinnic]

66. not everybody is a native English speaker--imagine that.

I've seen posters whose first language was not English shamefully ridiculed here on DU, by fake "democrats" who pretend to be compassionate and caring.
it is to be hoped you are not among those bullies.

[boppers]

68. Forum spammers who don't speak english...

Writing in a language poorly is one thing.

Writing in a language while posting a URL is another.

Of course, if multi-lingual skills are your thing, I would suggest that a great number of "individuals seeking gracious assistance for your aid to help enable the release of funds" are something you might want to avoid.

[ima_sinnic]

74. all right, I didn't even notice the link

in the post we're talking about, so, my bad.

I am a copy editor and receive papers from around the world, about 2/3 in non-native English, so it riles me to see non-native English ridiculed, and I have seen legitimate posters hounded off of DU by insensitive, hurtful posters.

[GiveMeFreedom]

78. I too

would defend a foreign speaker who had something to say. Although I am an unemployed construction worker and not a copy editor, I have spent many, many hours working along side Spanish speaking co-workers. They are among the most generous and hard working folks I know, I am well liked by my friends. I give you credit for defending what appeared to be a "slight" towards a non-American born speaker, so we agree on this tactic. Spam is spam and the link in the post is what gives this away, enough said.

[No Elephants]

45. You'd never know it from studying Dummya, but the Constitution does have something to say about

recess appointments. The President's power to make them is not unlimited.

IMO, Pres. Obama did the correct thing. He called a bully's bluff without necessitating a Constitutional brouhaha.

[kestrel91316]

50. Do you always just make shit up? Or only on DU?

[No Elephants]

86. How can I reply? have no idea what shit you've been imagining.

Try reading the Constitution, tho'. Or just tell me the name of the Supreme Court case that disproves my statement about the Constituion.

[namahage]

92. Perhaps she wasn't talking to you. N/T

[No Elephants]

103. Omigod. You are correct. My bad. If I cannot delete, I will do another post. In either case, I

will apologize abjectly.


And here I thought her reaction was uncalled for! I feel awful.

[No Elephants]

104. Too late for me to edit, but I apologize to Kestrel91316. I misread the thread.

I am so sorry for my mistake.

I will check the Replying to Post # area carefully next time.

Again, sorry.

[JNelson6563]

94. No he didn't.

He agreed not to make any during this break. Re-read the article. He played this well. The Rethugs look like jerks with nothing left to do but sit in their own poop and cry, while Obama looks reasonable and rational.

Julie

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

102. Yes...

... and the 27 confirmed appointments do not have to serve under the threat of no longer being there a year from now. These 27 are locked in for as long as they want to serve, barring any malfeasance or scandal. Obama cut the amount to dicker over by 47%.

[cliffordu]

43. He's been turning up the heat for weeks.

[Lil Missy]

3. I wish he's recess appoint all the rest of them just to hear them piss and moan and bitch. n/t

[No Elephants]

46. Please see Reply # 45.

[clixtox]

53. Absolutely "ditto"! Everyone knows nothing will change after this recess!

Everyone, especially BO by now, knows without any possible doubt, that the Rethugs will delay and deny at absolutely any conceivable opportunity. They threw BO a bone that is relatively meaningless since BO intimated he was ready to make all of his blocked nominees recess appointments. This looks to me like another win for the hideous forces of repression and Inverted Totalitarianism.

When is the next recess? Who knows if there will even be another one before summer!

The Rethugs are only interested in cheating, lying, stealing, pedophilia and whore mongering in many cases, and maintaining the bamboozlement of the American sheeple above all.

At this time in our history those Rethugs in the highest elected or appointed offices are uniformly allied in the service of the uber-rich and opposed to freedom, critical thinking, dissension, truth and justice.

These Rethuglicans and their Dino Blue Dog ass lickers have sold out, they have been suborned. They are truly traitors to the USA.

“When we resist concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties. The truth is, we are all caught in an economic system which is heartless – American industry is not free, as once it was free; the person with only a little capital is finding it harder to get into the field, more and more impossible to compete with the big fellow. Why? Because the laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak.”
– Woodrow Wilson


Of course there are differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Otherwise they couldn't fool anybody!

[MadMaddie]

5. Here are the holds

I started to note the really important ones but they are all important. Look at the criticality of some of these positions.

<snip>
1. Ketanji Brown Jackson, of Maryland, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission
2.Susan B. Carbon, of New Hampshire, to be Director of the Violence Against Women Office
3. Betty King to be Ambassador International Organization U.N.
4. Caryn Wagner to be Assistant Secretary DHS
5. Sara Manzano-Diaz, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Women's Bureau
6. Patrick Corvington- CEO National Service
7. Robert A. Petzel, of Minnesota, to be Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs
8. Nicole Yvette Lamb-Hale, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce,
9. Marisa Lago, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
10. Ellen Gloninger Murray, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services
11. Bryan Hayes Samuels, of Illinois, to be Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services
12. Charles Collyns, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury
13. Mary John Miller, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
14. André Birotte, Jr., of California, to be United States Attorney for the Central District of California
15. Richard S. Hartunian, of New York, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York
16. Ronald C. Machen, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
17. Mary Sally Matiella, of Arizona, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army, vice Nelson M. Ford.
18. Douglas B. Wilson, of Arizona, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, vice Dorrance Smith.
19. Irvin M. Mayfield, Jr., of Louisiana, to be a Member of the National Council on the Arts
20. Cynthia L. Attwood, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
21.Sharon Y. Bowen, of New York, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation
22. Orlan Johnson, of Maryland, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation
23.Douglas A. Criscitello, of Virginia, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development
24. Theodore W. Tozer, of Ohio, to be President, Government National Mortgage Association
25. David W. Mills, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce
26.Suresh Kumar, of New Jersey, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service.
27.Kevin Wolf, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce.
<snip>


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32874_Page2.html#ixzz0fHpaIvhC

[CatholicEdHead]

88. Broad cross-section of positions

It appears that the GOP's hatred of government is at the stage to just shut things down. These are just positions to keep the government running, not political at all.

Back when W did it, they were plants to dismantle from the inside. This group is to rebuild the agency to be useful and viable to their missions.

[thunder rising]

6. Tough my a$$. looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess? How long til the next

recess?

[madville]

7. Bush made tons of recess appointments because the Democrat minority would not allow a vote

Just saying, it happens when the President has a majority. Bush actually had to make recess appointments when the R's controlled the Senate because the best they ever had was a 55 seat majority. Granted we were cheering the obstruction then but of course it is ok now that it is our side in control. Obstruction by our side = Good, Obstruction by their side = Bad.

[Beetwasher]

10. Don't Compare What Bush Did To What Obama Is Threatening

When Bush was in power the Dems held up a handful of incredibly odious, malignant and detestable nominees and Bush appointed them any way via recess. They never put holds on the amount of nominees that the Repubs are holding up. Not even close and to pretend the situations are in any way analagous is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

[madville]

17. Bush made well over 100 recess appointments

Would you classify that as a "few". I'm not defending it or justifying it. Just saying The Senate Democrats obstructed Bush nominees in many of the same ways. They were justified to do so because they had the power to do it, sometimes we agree with certain powers and sometimes we do not.

[Beetwasher]

18. All Those Appointments Were Being Held Up???? No, They Weren't

Yup, that stupid cocksucker sure did ram through his nominees with recess appointments! He just didn't want them to go through the nomination process at all. He ABUSED recess appointments to circumvent the process, NOT because Dems held up his nominees.

If you're claiming the Dems held up hundreds of his nominees, put up your source for the claim or admit it's not true.

Big difference. Don't pull that intellectually dishonest shit w/ me. It don't fly.

[madville]

22. The Republicans are only giving in to quiet the story

In effect making it a non-story. They realize they are riding near the crest of a wave for the next year and they don't want the negative press obstructing trivial admin appointments will bring. They give in now, they are working with the President and it is a non-story, no fun for the media.

[Beetwasher]

24. Stay On Topic-Don't Change The Subject-You Must Think I'm An Idiot

Why did Bush ram his nominees through by using recess appointments?? Were the Dems holding them all up? Are you making that claim?

Are you going to still cling to your idiotic comparison between Bush doing it for over a HUNDRED of his nominees when they weren't even being held up to Obama merely THREATENING to do it because Repubs are holding up DOZENS of his CRUCIAL nominees?

Are you STILL going to claim the two scenarios are equitable?

[bc3000]

33. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect, but at least admit it.

You made a false comparison and were called on it. Your refusal to concede the point is pitiful.

[Robbie88]

41. Haha the "Democrat minority"? Really?

N/T

[Powdered Toast Man]

49. I was thinking the same thing. n/t

[kestrel91316]

51. The proper term is "Democratic" minority. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

[Hippo_Tron]

59. He must think he's on "Democrat Underground"

[kestrel91316]

77. Exactly. Huge red flag.

[Enthusiast]

93. DU is full of stealth Republicans.

They probably love these threads where actual Democrats question Obama's motives and actions.

[Arkana]

75. Yeah, cause Bush's nominees weren't horrible extremists

who would drag us back to the 18th century at ALL.

Get out.

[theothersnippywshrub]

8. Good start. Don't stop. This is not republicans cooperating, it is republicans conceding defeat.

Gotta love the pic of McConnell describing his own erect penis.

[Beetwasher]

9. This Soooo Friggin' Good On Soooo Many Levels!!!

Dayam!!!

Kick ASS!!!

[theoldman]

11. At last he has indicated that he has a pair of balls.

[No Elephants]

56. How did he do that? Pull down his trousers?

Cause I KNOW no liberal is saying that only people with testicles have courage.

[Arkana]

76. Fine.

We'll just say that he has indicated that he has a pair of sex-cell producing organs.

[No Elephants]

97. It's every bit as fine as equating things that have absolutely no relation to each other whatever.

In other words....

Not fine at all.

Men, women, hermaphrodites and everything in between are capable of great bravery, as are people who have no reproducive organs whatever, whether born that way or injured or operated on.

Why men seem to need to equate courage and bravery with either genitalia or reproductive organs is beyond me. Well, maybe I can guess, if I try hard.

And, unfortunately, it's been unchallenged so long, even women have started to say the same ridiculous, bizarre thing.

So, I challenge it, even though I know who I am, my mom is gone and my only child is a son. But, I would not insult any female that way.

Nor would I call someone of any gender who is being a jerk a prick or a dick, though, with some men, I've been sorely tempted.

[quiet.american]

12. GOBama, go!

[aquart]

13. They did 27 out of 63 and we've been here a year?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

[D-Lee]

14. Use recess appointments for ALL the nominees! nt

[No Elephants]

48. Did each of the vacancies first occur during a recess? Please see Reply # 45.

[msongs]

15. nice to see some fight in the guy now recess appoint ALL the nominees nt

[Metta]

19. What will the quid pro quo be? What will happen in a few months?

Let's just see.

[rpannier]

20. Good for Pres Obama

He ought to appoint Becker to the NLRB during recess

[ashling]

21. Hopefully this was Obama's "a ha" moment

"Maybe if I stop enabling their lazy asses we can actually accomplish stuff."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:shrug:

[Jester Messiah]

23. This is f'n bullshit. He needs to move ahead with the recess appointments.

The senate is broken. Obama needs to take charge, forcefully!

[ffr]

25. Yep, 27. That's all???

Hey GOP. FU! You established the rules to this game. Hey Obama and Dems, recess appoint all the rest regardless of what you promise. Oops! Kinda forgot about our promise. Sorry, but we made a promise to govern as we were elected in 2008 to do.

[bc3000]

34. That's what I'm thinking.

If this is what Obama calls a victory we're in for a long three years.

[TheEuclideanOne]

67. IT IS A VICTORY!!!

Think about it. He forced the senate to approve these Senators to do something that he could have done himself next week without any problem. Oh wait.... :)

[pinto]

57. "If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future"

"Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate. While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future."

[Mithreal]

80. +1

Not like he is head of the party.

[FailureToCommunicate]

26. Obama should appoint all the remaining ones. Times a wasting. Repubs can

always buy MORE "Depends" after they see him actually do it.

[Zenlitened]

27. Good to see. K&R - n/t

[BREMPRO]

29. he's learning the ropes- gotta play hardball with these assholes and call them out publicly on

their hypocrisy and obstructionist political motives. This is what leadership looks like!

[slay]

31. Ugh. Recess appoint them all!

i mean come on - when is Obama going to realize the stakes are HUGE - we are on the brink - we need action NOW! :mad:

[Solly Mack]

32. k/r

[stevedeshazer]

35. It's about goddam time.

Recommended

[budkin]

36. That's what I'm talking bout baby!!! Kick some ass O!

[AzNick]

38. Getting my attention...

Obama has been in kick ass mode since the SOTUS and is started to get my attention.

I can't wait what's going to transpire out of the next meetings with the GOP.

[earcandle]

39. There is a long awaited point for Obama's team.

We need more assertive behavior like this to move us out of
the depression we are in. 

[TygrBright]

40. NYT Coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12confirm.html

[alp227]

42. Good, but 39 more to go...

As long as Obama keeps standing up, not bowing down, to the GnOP, I'll keep supporting him.

[Zoeisright]

44. It's about fricking time. Now keep it up!

Act like you did when you were campaigning, Mr. President!

[bandit599]

47. It's great that he never gives up

It's important that the President keeps moving the ball forward every day.

[Divine Discontent]

52. 2009 was not a good year for the O, and he lost me and millions of others who'd hoped for a tough

fighter that used every means necessary to get this country back off the trajectory of total corporate domination to where we would end up being serfs to their outright 'kindness' to give us minimum wage jobs. He has truly come out light LIGHTNING since the SOTU speech. I'm impressed, but there's so much more to do, but at least I'm again ----- dare I say ----- hopeful?

[No Elephants]

60. Maybe it's only a coincidence?

Massachusetts elects Republican Scott Brown to serve the rest of Ted Kennedy's term Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

(Democratic candidate Coakley concedes as soon as she gets the low turnout numbers from Boston, the bluest part of the bluest state, without even waiting for Boston's vote.)

President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address, Wednesday January 27, 2010

:shrug:

[NYC_SKP]

54. Not surprisingly, 27 is just not enough for some of the perpetual critics. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

65. funny!!!

because it's pretty obvious from most of these comments that many who have been disgusted with the WH of 2009 are happy with the events of the past month....

however, there's much more that needs to be done to get this country out of the grasps of the neocon holdovers, the banks, and the dirty private military. This was great news to see him be forceful. As expected, it is obviously a breath of fresh air for many!

[druidity33]

72. i'm not a perpetual critic...

but if i remember correctly, the Dem congress only held 9 nominees in a four year term of Bush's. Not sure which term, but, saying he won't recess appoint at this time when there's 23(?) more nominees on the slate is a little bit of bullshit. He doesn't have to Recess all of them. Just a few to show he's serious.


:shrug:

[pundaint]

85. Surprisingly, it is enough for some

[NYC_SKP]

89. "Ignorant" describes those who don't realize any recess appts. would only be temporary.

I don't know what this fuss is all about.

27 real, lasting appointments.

Good job.

:kick:

[No Elephants]

58. As best I can see, Pres. Obama handled this very well. The Constitution does

restrict Presidential power to make recess appointments.

The Supremes have not yet interpreted the provision, but it does seem to say that a President can make a recess appointment only when the vacancy first occurs ("happens") during a recess. And then, the appointment would be good only until the next session, which will be less than a year from now.

If you have a Senator, write or call him or her and complain about this childish game, especially if he or she is a Republican.

[clixtox]

61. Please elucidate! I looked on Wikipedia and there doesn't seem to be...

any practical restrictions on BO making recess appointments other than that the Senate has to be actually out for recess.

The section about how "shrub2" utilized this ability to completely ignore the legislature despite their nominees being filibustered, like Bolton was, is illuminating.

With "shrubs" liberal interpretation of his constitutional powers as a precedent the barn door is wide open, not just ajar.

[No Elephants]

96. I'll try. Let's look at the Constitutional language in context because

my post about a Constitutional issue was based on Constitutional language. (As to the wiki article, please see below.)

I included the first clause (CIC and pardon powers) because they provide a nice contrast of Presidential powers that do not require any approval from Congress or from the Senate, as does the general power of appointment.


The Language:




(Article II)

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The Presiden shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

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."





As you can see, the general rule as to appointments is that the offices the President get to nominate for are only those office specified in the Constitution or in a law (enacted by both houses of Congress). The President has the exclusive power to nominate. As a general rule, he can appoint, however, only with consent of the Senate. The Constitution gives us two exceptions to the general rule.

One exception is as to inferior officers. (Don't ask me what the Framers considered inferior.) The President can act alone, but only as to inferior officers and only if Congress (both houses) has passed a law that says the President need not consult the Senate as to those officers.. So, if a law exists, the Constitutional issue goes away. (I am assuming no law exists, or these people would not have been referred to the Senate for approval in the first place.)

So far, some involvement by one or both houses of Congress has been required. That tells us that the Framers were not cavalier about the Presidential power of appointment when the President acts alone. And he can act alone in only one situation: when one or more vacancies "happen" during a recess.

Notice, the Constitution does not say that the President may, on his own, fill any old vacancy he pleases during a Senate recess. It also does not say that the President may, on his own, fill any vacancy that happens to exist already when a recess begins. The Constitution gives him the power to fill on his own only a vacancy that "happens" during a recess.

And there is the Constitutional issue. From all the language, can we honestly say that the Framers intended appointment of scores, maybe hundreds, of people during a recess? I don't think that would be an honest reading of the Constitution. I did not think so when Bush did it, either--and I called Kerry's office because I heard Kerry say the Bush appointments were constitutional, or words to that effect. (No surprise. Kerry was running for President himself at that time.)

In my view, the recess appointment provision was aimed at an emergency situation, when the President needed to appoint someone. (Imagine, for example, if shortly after adoption of the Constitution, when we were in debt up and scrambling for money, the Secretary of Treasury died during a Senate recess. Or the Secretary of War. And the Senators would have to, if the could, get hold of a horse or a coach and ride in to the capitol.)

But, for purposes of my post, it does not matter whether my view of the Framers' intent is correct or not. If reasonable people can differ, there is a Constitutional issue and therefore potential for a Constitutional battle.

At the very least, that language is open interpretation. And, AFAIK, the Supreme Court has not interpreted it definitively as to this specific issue.

Whether the Senate is in session or not, or in recess or not, can also be tricky, but I'll stick with the existence of a Constitutional issue for now.

I don't know what you mean by "practical" when you say "no practical restrictions." However, say saying there could be a Constitutional issue, I am talking about legal restrictions, not practical restrictions. The Constitution empowers the President in some things and restricts the President in other things (some would say ALL other things, but let's not go there now, either).

As far as Bush, I mentioned him upthread, Reply 45. He did what he did, but his actions are not precedent in a legal sense. They neither bind Obama nor authorize Obama. Only the Constitution does that.


BTW, since you mentioned wiki, I looked at it. The wiki article on recess appointments includes a discussion of the legitimacy of certain recess appointments. That discussion shows that a recess appointment was been challenged in federal courts, but the discussion shows no Supreme Court ruling, so the Constitutional issue is still open. (I did not read the case cited in the wiki, though, so I am going only by the article and not swearing to it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

Finally, please bear in mind that I did not say these recess appointments, if made, would be unconstitutional. I said only that there might be a Constitutional issue. And the reason I mentioned the Constitution in the first place was that people on the thread seemed to be assuming that it was strictly Obama (or Democrats) versus Republicans, without seeming to realize that the Constitution speaks to the subject. And, I confess, something like that dismays me whenever it happens.

I hope that helps you understand the post of mine that you questioned. If not, and you are interested in the general subject of Constitutionality of recess appointments for "pre-existing" vacancies,, please pm me and I will try to find you an article online that is readable. (I'm not great at checking replies to my posts, so a pm would be necessaary.)

[northofdenali]

63. THIS is the Obama I saw on the campaign trail!

KICK ASS & TAKE NAMES!!!! Love it!

[TexasObserver]

69. Recommend. I like it when the president barks them down.

[Incitatus]

70. Fuck that., Appoint the rest of the 63 in recess

Their obstructionist bullshit has gone on long enough

[tbredbeck]

79. Indeed

My sentiments exactly. 27 non-controversial appointments is bullshit and more of a victory for the GOP that Obama agreed not to do recess appointments.

[rury]

82. Exactly...all 63 of them

especially Dan Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice and Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
Kick the Repukes again, harder, Barack, harder!!!

[pokercat999]

71. It's midway through the fourth round in a title fight and

Obama gets in his first punch, a straight arm jab. Pitiful, DUers act like he just won the crown while he's going back to his corner for a rest.

[crazyjoe]

73. YES!! now it's time to shove HCR down their throats!

[Renew Deal]

83. I don't have an issue with the republicans or democrats holding up a handful of appointments

But what they were doing was completely over the line.

[pundaint]

84. How little are the Democrats willing to call a victory? Less than half confirmed is not a win.

The Democrats are so whipped that narrow losses are considered wins. The majority is wasted on them.

[bvar22]

87. At least....

...Obama got something from the Republicans.
After his performance over the last year,
I understand why this "Meet you 1/2 way" compromise feels like a HUGE victory to some.

[HughMoran]

91. When I have massive constipation, I feel better when half a load hits the water!

Are you one of those 'toilet bowl half empty' people that makes DU seem like a bunch of perpetual whiners?

[Mithreal]

105. Hugh, if you have a full bowl, you're gonna get wet.

The problem with that metaphor, half full half empty is they are both true, seems like we can find better things to fight over than whether someone sees it one way or the other.

[HughMoran]

107. I think spin is important

The difference between Faux 'News' and MSNBC at night often involves little more than the glass half full/empty metaphor.

DU wouldn't be half as miserable as it is if people could post the exact same criticism using more positive terms.

Were you ever told to say "and" before you initiate a criticism versus saying "but" and immediately turning off the person you are talking to?

Words matter. Language matters. We could accomplish a LOT more if people didn't deliberately use the language of conflict when they have a legitimate gripe on a policy decision.

[Mithreal]

109. Agreed all the way up to "We could accomplish a LOT more..."

It is the conflict of ideas that is important here. Some people like myself are naturally more combative, others cooperative and most somewhere in between. I realize some hold to the idea that civility is key and can be learned but there really are differences of opinion on whether civility is even effective.

I have a lil more to say on this but gotta go for a bit. Take it easy.

[HughMoran]

110. Yes, conflict of ideas is why we're here

...but you have to admit that there's a difference between:

"Obama is a pussy" and

"I really, really wish Obama would crack some heads - sometimes I think he's just too nice for this job"

OR:

"If there's no public option, then the Dems can kiss my ass goodbye - I'm voting 3rd party"

versus

"There better be a public option; if not, I'm going to be grumpy for a long time & may not be as motivated to work for the Dems in the next election - especially the ones who helped to kill the PO"

OR:

"I can't support anything that this administration does so long as that criminal Geithner is still there."

versus

"I don't like Geithner, but Obama is the boss and if he thinks that Geithner is the best man for the job at this time (and Obama sets the agenda after all), perhaps he knows something I don't know. Personally, I'd fire the criminal and send him to the gas chamber"

etc...

Making broad-brush attacks based on a particular disagreement is not productive in my opinion. I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying and can think of many similar examples.

[HughMoran]

90. Someone on Tweety said he slammed his fist on the table he was so annoyed

I know I'd do the same, though I might slip and accidentally cave McConnell's face in.

[Fire1]

95. Oh how I would love to do that!! I'm guessing the dems in Ky.

would too.

[Kurovski]

106. K&R

More, please. More firmness. Thank you.

[hisownpetard]

111. Mr. K!!

Totally agree. (And good to see you around!)

[Kurovski]

112. Howdy, hoister!

:hug: Likewise!

[John Kerry VonErich]

113. There is something behind all this.

I think the two made a deal. Now it's only a matter of time before we find out what price it's gonna pay for those confirmations.