• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama threatens to make recess appointments

Tam

Well-known member
February 9, 2010
Obama threatens to make recess appointments
Posted: February 9th, 2010 02:15 PM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston

Washington (CNN) – President Obama threatened Tuesday to use his power to bypass Congress and make appointments to key positions in his administration if Senate Republicans do not allow votes on their nominations.

Obama said he asked GOP leaders during a meeting at the White House "to put a stop to these holds in which nominees for critical jobs are denied a vote for months."

"If the Senate does not act, and I made this very clear, if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess," Obama said. "Because we can't afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government."

The Senate is scheduled to be in recess next week.

While not mentioning him by name, Obama criticized Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, for putting a hold on all of his nominees as leverage to help his state.

"One senator, as you all are aware, had put a hold on every single nominee that we had put forward, due to a dispute over a couple of earmarks in his state," Obama said.

Shelby has since released his hold on almost all of the nominees.

After Democrats launched unprecedented filibusters of six of Bush's appeals-court nominees, the president used his recess appointment power to put two of those nominees on the bench. Democrats cried foul (even though Bill Clinton also made recess appointments). Senate minority leader Tom Daschle threatened to hold up every Bush nominee--not just judges--until the president agreed not to use his recess appointment power for judges. It was an outrageous demand. Yet on May 18, the president caved. He will make no recess appointments this year

Starting in 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments by Bush. A compromise was worked out for the August break, and Bush did not make any recess appointments. However, no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007, and as a result, Reid decided to keep the Senate in session by having pro forma sessions every three days. Prior to this, there had been speculation that James Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as U.S. surgeon general.[11] The Senate was also kept in session over the Christmas break as well as during 2008 breaks.[12][13] Hence, Bush was unable to make any further recess appointments during his presidency.



The Dems cried foul and threatened to block all Bush's appointees in 2006. Then in 2007 Reid prevent any further appointments by not allowing a recess of Congress. Now Obama is threatening to use those same powers for the same reason. So the question is will the Dems cry foul and will Leader Reid stop recesses so Obama doesn't get the opportunity to make his recess appointments. I think Not :wink:

Will he recess appoint a Union lawyer that some in his own party said they will vote against. Or will it be the guy he appointed that used his power in the FBI to research his ex wife's boyfriend not once but twice then lied about it. Or will it be a self proclaimed Communist like Van Jones. Who knows but I can not see this being a good thing for the freedoms US citizens enjoy due to the blood shed by many proud Vets.
:???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
All Presidents can do this and the majority of them have....

does it make it "right" then?

The Constitution (Article II, Section 2) states that the President shall seek the "advice" and obtain the "consent" of the Senate before his nominations to the federal bench (and other "officers of the United States," including Cabinet officers) assume their posts.

seems simple enough.. I guess actually following the constitution can be overridden by the president by twisting the constitution..

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "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."

anyone with a bit of background in education can clearly see the intent of the sentence..

if a vacancy happens during a recess, it can be temporarily filled.
the law was not a loophole to get past the article, but a way to fill a needed vacancy if the senate wasn't in session when the vacancy happened..

intr.v., -pened, -pen·ing, -pens.

1.
1. To come to pass.
2. To come into being.
2. To take place or occur by chance.

during [ˈdjʊərɪŋ]
prep
1. concurrently with (some other activity)
2. within the limit of (a period of time)
 

Tam

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
All Presidents can do this and the majority of them have....

The question is Do all Senate leaders block the President from doing what the majority of Presidents have a right to do? And will that Dem. Senate leader treat the Dem President like he just treated the Republican President? I think NOT :wink: :roll:
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Tam said:
jingo2 said:
All Presidents can do this and the majority of them have....

The question is Do all Senate leaders block the President from doing what the majority of Presidents have a right to do? And will that Dem. Senate leader treat the Dem President like he just treated the Republican President? I think NOT :wink: :roll:

Sure they have and will continue to anythng to further the spnding for their own state.......
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
jingo2 said:
All Presidents can do this and the majority of them have....

The question is Do all Senate leaders block the President from doing what the majority of Presidents have a right to do? And will that Dem. Senate leader treat the Dem President like he just treated the Republican President? I think NOT :wink: :roll:

Sure they have and will continue to anythng to further the spnding for their own state.......

Exactly, Jingo! And those presidents that haven't exercised their "executive privlege" have generally been bench warmers.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Sandhusker said:
jingo2 said:
All Presidents can do this and the majority of them have....

Don't I remember this one promising "Change"? :roll:


And so has every one since Washington....again.. not an issue.

I'm sorry, but you can't brush that one off. "Change" was the buzzword of this guy's campaign. He stood behind podiums with that single word on it. He said that word 10,000 times - he and his lemmings are STILL saying it daily. Potato Head Gibbs has it written on his hand. NOBODY campaigned on "Change" like Pinnociobama.
 

Tam

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Tam said:
jingo2 said:
All Presidents can do this and the majority of them have....

The question is Do all Senate leaders block the President from doing what the majority of Presidents have a right to do? And will that Dem. Senate leader treat the Dem President like he just treated the Republican President? I think NOT :wink: :roll:

Sure they have and will continue to anythng to further the spnding for their own state.......

So it is OK with you that the Senate Leader Reid is a full blown hypocrite WHEN he blocks a REPUBLICAN President from doing something he supports a DEMOCRAT President right to do. :roll:

Again the Dems live by the rule DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO. :mad:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Liveoak said:
Larrry said:
What I wouldn't give for odumbo to be a bench warmer.

:lol2: Yea, they all want to leave their marks, don't they? Too bad Obama's will all be skid marks - at least this far.

What did you expect from a man that had zero experience and had never accomplished anything in his political career?
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Liveoak said:
Larrry said:
What I wouldn't give for odumbo to be a bench warmer.

:lol2: Yea, they all want to leave their marks, don't they? Too bad Obama's will all be skid marks - at least this far.

What did you expect from a man that had zero experience and had never accomplished anything in his political career?

We tried to warn everybody...but no they were bound and determined they wanted CHANGE
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Liveoak said:
Larrry said:
What I wouldn't give for odumbo to be a bench warmer.

:lol2: Yea, they all want to leave their marks, don't they? Too bad Obama's will all be skid marks - at least this far.

LO I hate to disagree with you about the skid marks. obahma has done nothing short of crapping in his pants from day one and every day since. :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The thing that some forget is that you have a separation of powers in the US for a reason.

If you are not going to honor/respect/demand those powers and every four years say, "well the last guy/gal did it", then you will slowly slide towards a place where you do not have "spearation of powers"

What did the Dems/progressives think of signing statements when Bush was Pres.?

If you are going to disregard those things that have worked in the past, and only look at how to "CHANGE" things in the future, then don't be disappointed when it doesn't turn out the way you expected.

Progressives are too hell bent on change, that they miss what made the US great in the past.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
jingo2 said:
Sandhusker said:
Don't I remember this one promising "Change"? :roll:


And so has every one since Washington....again.. not an issue.

I'm sorry, but you can't brush that one off. "Change" was the buzzword of this guy's campaign. He stood behind podiums with that single word on it. He said that word 10,000 times - he and his lemmings are STILL saying it daily. Potato Head Gibbs has it written on his hand. NOBODY campaigned on "Change" like Pinnociobama.

You got that one right Husker. His only absolute was change. For everything else in the debates he left himself an out; "We're looking into that but......." Has he finished looking in to things yet?
 
Top