Senate to stay in session to thwart Bush

[stephanie]

and this is the party we want to run our Country???:lame2:

By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer / December 19, 2007
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he would keep Congress in session over the holiday break solely to block President Bush from making recess appointments. It was an apt ending to one of the most bitterly partisan congressional sessions in memory.

more stories like this"We're going to go into pro forma session so the president can't appoint people that we think objectionable," Reid said on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to wrap up business for the year.

The Senate must confirm major presidential appointments and judicial nominations, a constant source of confrontation between the White House and Senate Democrats. But when the Senate is off, as it will be for the rest of the month and much of January, the president can make recess appointments that are not subject to confirmation hearings. These appointees can serve until the end of the congressional session, which at this point would be until Bush leaves office.

The move affects congressionally passed legislation as well. The Constitution gives Bush 10 days after passage to sign or veto such bills. If he does not take action by that deadline during a period when Congress is in session, the legislation becomes law. In cases when the deadline passes during adjournment, the legislation is "pocket-vetoed."

Maintaining pro-forma session is an unglamorous job. One senator stands sentry every few days, opening the chamber for business -- but not doing any -- often for less than a minute. For the upcoming recess, that means someone must open the session about 11 times.


read the rest..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/19/senate_to_stay_in_session_to_thwart_bush/

[April15]

It is a sad statement that Bush is so irresponsible that the Senate feels it is necessary to stay in session to thwart his efforts to destroy this nation.

[JohnDoe]

I personally do not trust the President with his "Senate out of session" appointees and think it behooves us to want the Senate, who represents the will of the people, to advise and consent of his appointments as the Constitution intended.

President Bush is trying to play the system like a fiddle in a hillbilly band and I personally do not appreciate it.

jd

[Dilloduck]

It is a sad statement that Bush is so irresponsible that the Senate feels it is necessary to stay in session to thwart his efforts to destroy this nation.

I think its great that the senate is actually doing it's job. They are PAID to be a check on presidential powers if they feel it to be necessary.

[gabosaurus]

I knew Stephanie would be opposed to Congress actually having to work for a change.

[stephanie]

I knew Stephanie would be opposed to Congress actually having to work for a change.

Hey..I don't care..it's your dime also.. paying for the stupidity coming from your party...:dance:

I hope they bring their jammies and teddy bears..

I'm just curious who the poor sucker is, who was chosen to do this..Of course it won't be the Harry Reed himself....:laugh2:

[red states rule]

and this is the party we want to run our Country???:lame2:

By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer / December 19, 2007
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he would keep Congress in session over the holiday break solely to block President Bush from making recess appointments. It was an apt ending to one of the most bitterly partisan congressional sessions in memory.

more stories like this"We're going to go into pro forma session so the president can't appoint people that we think objectionable," Reid said on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to wrap up business for the year.

The Senate must confirm major presidential appointments and judicial nominations, a constant source of confrontation between the White House and Senate Democrats. But when the Senate is off, as it will be for the rest of the month and much of January, the president can make recess appointments that are not subject to confirmation hearings. These appointees can serve until the end of the congressional session, which at this point would be until Bush leaves office.

The move affects congressionally passed legislation as well. The Constitution gives Bush 10 days after passage to sign or veto such bills. If he does not take action by that deadline during a period when Congress is in session, the legislation becomes law. In cases when the deadline passes during adjournment, the legislation is "pocket-vetoed."

Maintaining pro-forma session is an unglamorous job. One senator stands sentry every few days, opening the chamber for business -- but not doing any -- often for less than a minute. For the upcoming recess, that means someone must open the session about 11 times.


read the rest..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/19/senate_to_stay_in_session_to_thwart_bush/

This is one way Dems can stop any conservative Judges from being appointed. Since the Dems have openly said they would not approve any judges Pres Bush would nominate - this is all they have left

Dems need their liberal judges on the courts so they can create new laws from the bebch since Dems can;t get their insane liberal ideas through the legislature

[nevadamedic]

and this is the party we want to run our Country???:lame2:

By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer / December 19, 2007
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he would keep Congress in session over the holiday break solely to block President Bush from making recess appointments. It was an apt ending to one of the most bitterly partisan congressional sessions in memory.

more stories like this"We're going to go into pro forma session so the president can't appoint people that we think objectionable," Reid said on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to wrap up business for the year.

The Senate must confirm major presidential appointments and judicial nominations, a constant source of confrontation between the White House and Senate Democrats. But when the Senate is off, as it will be for the rest of the month and much of January, the president can make recess appointments that are not subject to confirmation hearings. These appointees can serve until the end of the congressional session, which at this point would be until Bush leaves office.

The move affects congressionally passed legislation as well. The Constitution gives Bush 10 days after passage to sign or veto such bills. If he does not take action by that deadline during a period when Congress is in session, the legislation becomes law. In cases when the deadline passes during adjournment, the legislation is "pocket-vetoed."

Maintaining pro-forma session is an unglamorous job. One senator stands sentry every few days, opening the chamber for business -- but not doing any -- often for less than a minute. For the upcoming recess, that means someone must open the session about 11 times.


read the rest..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/19/senate_to_stay_in_session_to_thwart_bush/

God I hate Dirty Harry. I ripped up my Certificate of Senatorial Recognition that he awarded me.

[red states rule]

God I hate Dirty Harry. I ripped up my Certificate of Senatorial Recognition that he awarded me.

You are not alone. The last time I saw approval ratings for Harry he was tied with Scooter Libby at 19%

[nevadamedic]

You are not alone. The last time I saw approval ratings for Harry he was tied with Scooter Libby at 19%

His approval rating here in Nevada last time I checked was like 17%. God I can't wait until 2010. I personally know both of the candidates who are planning on running against him and he is in deep shit because both are extremly popular with Republicans, Democrats and Independants. The rumors are that Dirty Harry is planing on retiring because he knows he is going to get his ass handed to him and if that's the case the Democratic Candidate will more then likely be Dina Taxes err Titus since she faced a major loss during our last election when she ran against Congressman Jom Gibbons for Governor and she is still being a sore loser about it.

[red states rule]

His approval rating here in Nevada last time I checked was like 17%. God I can't wait until 2010. I personally know both of the candidates who are planning on running against him and he is in deep shit because both are extremly popular with Republicans, Democrats and Independants. The rumors are that Dirty Harry is planing on retiring because he knows he is going to get his ass handed to him and if that's the case the Democratic Candidate will more then likely be Dina Taxes err Titus since she faced a major loss during our last election when she ran against Congressman Jom Gibbons for Governor and she is still being a sore loser about it.


Pres Bush has kicked his ass many times ,and Harry has very little to show in his 11 months in power

Except a long list of failures

[Lazarus]

Hey..I don't care..it's your dime also.. paying for the stupidity coming from your party...:dance:

I hope they bring their jammies and teddy bears..

I'm just curious who the poor sucker is, who was chosen to do this..Of course it won't be the Harry Reed himself....:laugh2:

I shall credit your bout of uninformed posting to the early hour.

All Senators are payed the same salary, in session or out ( but you knew that ).

This is not a slumber-party ( or bonafide filibuster )- it is a 10 to 20 minute session done once every 3 days.

The " poor sucker " will , in all likelihood, be Senator Jim Webb from VA.
He performed this duty during the Thanksgiving Holiday ( but you knew that, as well ).

[actsnoblemartin]

npr said bush was at 37 percent, democratic controlled congress 22 percent

so congress should stop acting holy then thou


and this is the party we want to run our Country???:lame2:

By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer / December 19, 2007
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he would keep Congress in session over the holiday break solely to block President Bush from making recess appointments. It was an apt ending to one of the most bitterly partisan congressional sessions in memory.

more stories like this"We're going to go into pro forma session so the president can't appoint people that we think objectionable," Reid said on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to wrap up business for the year.

The Senate must confirm major presidential appointments and judicial nominations, a constant source of confrontation between the White House and Senate Democrats. But when the Senate is off, as it will be for the rest of the month and much of January, the president can make recess appointments that are not subject to confirmation hearings. These appointees can serve until the end of the congressional session, which at this point would be until Bush leaves office.

The move affects congressionally passed legislation as well. The Constitution gives Bush 10 days after passage to sign or veto such bills. If he does not take action by that deadline during a period when Congress is in session, the legislation becomes law. In cases when the deadline passes during adjournment, the legislation is "pocket-vetoed."

Maintaining pro-forma session is an unglamorous job. One senator stands sentry every few days, opening the chamber for business -- but not doing any -- often for less than a minute. For the upcoming recess, that means someone must open the session about 11 times.


read the rest..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/19/senate_to_stay_in_session_to_thwart_bush/

[Lazarus]

This is one way Dems can stop any conservative Judges from being appointed. Since the Dems have openly said they would not approve any judges Pres Bush would nominate - this is all they have left

Dems need their liberal judges on the courts so they can create new laws from the bebch since Dems can;t get their insane liberal ideas through the legislature

General, unsubstantiated drivel ?

The Politico (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3633733.shtml)

(The Politico) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has announced that he will call the Senate into pro forma sessions every several days during the upcoming winter recess in order to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments.

Reid explained that he and Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff, were not able to reach an agreement to prevent Bush from giving a receess appointment to Stephen Bradbury, the actiing head of DOJ"s Legal Counsel, and without that agreement with the White House, Reid refused to allow the Senate to recess for three weeks.

As it stands now, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) or some other Democrat will come in every couple days, gavel the Senate into session, and then immediately adjourn. This will block Bush from using his recess-appointment authority.

Reid, though, said he would clear 60 Republican nominations before the Senate adjourned today, plus another eight Democratic nominations.

This is not pertaining to judicial appointments, RSR.

[nevadamedic]

Awwwwww, it looks like RSR has a new friend. :laugh2:

[stephanie]

I shall credit your bout of uninformed posting to the early hour.

All Senators are payed the same salary, in session or out ( but you knew that ).

This is not a slumber-party ( or bonafide filibuster )- it is a 10 to 20 minute session done once every 3 days.

The " poor sucker " will , in all likelihood, be Senator Jim Webb from VA.
He performed this duty during the Thanksgiving Holiday ( but you knew that, as well ).

Well...gooooolleeeyyy...Iss so gled fors yous to edumacate mi in all thes..
Is woulnt of nevir nos thes...Yous intillence Is enviy..

:bow2:

[red states rule]

General, unsubstantiated drivel ?

The Politico (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3633733.shtml)


This is not pertaining to judicial appointments, RSR.

Not drivel. When libs always lose a vote they run to the nearest liberal Judge to too out the votes

Gay marriage is one example. Everytime it has been voted on, with only one exception, the people said no. Everytime, a liberal Judge has tossedout the votes

and libs say they want to count every vote (as long as the vote goes their way)

Yes, recess appointments do apply to Judges as well

[red states rule]

Awwwwww, it looks like RSR has a new friend. :laugh2:

Looks like we have taken in another Daily Kos kook

[bullypulpit]

and this is the party we want to run our Country???:lame2:

By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer / December 19, 2007
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he would keep Congress in session over the holiday break solely to block President Bush from making recess appointments. It was an apt ending to one of the most bitterly partisan congressional sessions in memory.

more stories like this"We're going to go into pro forma session so the president can't appoint people that we think objectionable," Reid said on the Senate floor as the chamber prepared to wrap up business for the year.

The Senate must confirm major presidential appointments and judicial nominations, a constant source of confrontation between the White House and Senate Democrats. But when the Senate is off, as it will be for the rest of the month and much of January, the president can make recess appointments that are not subject to confirmation hearings. These appointees can serve until the end of the congressional session, which at this point would be until Bush leaves office.

The move affects congressionally passed legislation as well. The Constitution gives Bush 10 days after passage to sign or veto such bills. If he does not take action by that deadline during a period when Congress is in session, the legislation becomes law. In cases when the deadline passes during adjournment, the legislation is "pocket-vetoed."

Maintaining pro-forma session is an unglamorous job. One senator stands sentry every few days, opening the chamber for business -- but not doing any -- often for less than a minute. For the upcoming recess, that means someone must open the session about 11 times.


read the rest..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/19/senate_to_stay_in_session_to_thwart_bush/

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Lazarus]

Awwwwww, it looks like RSR has a new friend. :laugh2:

Well, any friend of RSRs' is no friend of mine.

.....unless you meant.....



HEY !!!

[Lazarus]

Well...gooooolleeeyyy...Iss so gled fors yous to edumacate mi in all thes..
Is woulnt of nevir nos thes...Yous intillence Is enviy..

:bow2:

Especially at this time of year, I always seek to help out those less fortunate than myself.

Ignorance ( feigned or otherwise ) is something to be defeated.

BTW = " brain " is not spelled t e s t i c l e.

Take it out of the box and return it to its' rightful place.

[stephanie]

Especially at this time of year, I always seek to help out those less fortunate than myself.

Ignorance ( feigned or otherwise ) is something to be defeated.

BTW = " brain " is not spelled t e s t i c l e.

Take it out of the box and return it to its' rightful place.

Well aren't you Speeeeccciiiaaallll..
Here's a tip for you...take hand, reach down, and pull head out of butt..Ya might feel better after..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/juggle.gif http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/juggle.gif http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/juggle.gif

[Lazarus]

General, unsubstantiated drivel ?

The Politico (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3633733.shtml)


This is not pertaining to judicial appointments, RSR.


Not drivel. When libs always lose a vote they run to the nearest liberal Judge to too out the votes
......
Yes, recess appointments do apply to Judges as well
From Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/21456-1.html) (sub. req.):


Following hours of intense talks that ended in a standoff, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) decided late Wednesday to move several dozen nominees but still keep the Senate in business over the monthlong holiday break to block President Bush from making any controversial recess appointments while Senators are out of town....
But the two sides didn’t see completely eye to eye, as Bush pushed to include in the deal Steven Bradbury’s nomination to be assistant counsel to the attorney general.Bradbury is unpopular with Democrats for his controversial role in formulating the administration’s position on torture.

“I tried very hard to work with the president but he indicated he would still use the recess ... to appoint objectionable nominees,” Reid said on the Senate floor Wednesday night. “My only solution is to end this and call a pro forma session again.”

So, in this particular instance, you are in error.

[Lazarus]

Well aren't you Speeeeccciiiaaallll..
Here's a tip for you...take hand, reach down, and pull head out of butt..Ya might feel better after..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/juggle.gif http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/juggle.gif http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/juggle.gif

My assistance to the needy does have its' limits.
You will need to find someone else to help you with that little problem of yours.

I guess that I should have been more specific in my instructions as to where your brain belongs.

For that I am sorry.

[stephanie]

My assistance to the needy does have its' limits.
You will need to find someone else to help you with that little problem of yours.

I guess that I should have been more specific in my instructions as to where your brain belongs.

For that I am sorry.

You can take your help and shove it........................on someone else..

Now move along...bye bye..you are dismissed:thanks:

[Lazarus]

You can take your help and shove it........................on someone else..

Now move along...bye bye..you are dismissed:thanks:

Does this mean that you have taken your balls/testicles and gone home?

What a pity.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Now perhaps this thread can return to topic.

[stephanie]

Does this mean that you have taken your balls/testicles and gone home?

What a pity.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Now perhaps this thread can return to topic.



:laugh2:what a jack off...you are the one who took this thread off into la la land...

sorry some of us won't lay down and play with ya...

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/1lmao.gif

You may proceed to present yourself like your're someone...I don't care.

playing with you is like a game....and a joke...:dance:

[bullypulpit]

npr said bush was at 37 percent, democratic controlled congress 22 percent

so congress should stop acting holy then thou

Never mind that it's the Republicans who are responsible for the gridlock in Congress.

<blockquote>Republicans are filibustering so many bills that the press has begun to cover this extreme tactic as business as usual. The front-page Washington Post story covering the Webb proposal is headlined “Senate bill short of sixty votes needed.” The article says the proposal “failed on a 56 to 44 vote, with 60 votes needed for passage.” The article never tells the reader that the reason majority rule was frustrated was because of a Republican filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome. - <a href=http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/subverting_majority_rule>Subverting Majority Rule</a></b>

If you remember during the years in which the GOP controlled Congress, any time the Democrats attempted to filibuster a bill, the GOP and the dreaded MSM screamed bloody murder about the "obtructionism" of the the Democrats. Now, there is a curious silence from the supposedly liberal "MSM".

<center><img src=http://img.getactivehub.com/gv2/custom_images/caf/Cloture-vote-chart-81-121807.jpg></center>

<blockquote>As this chart shows, never have so many filibusters been threatened as in the 110th session of Congress. In just 11 months, Republicans have filibustered more legislation, and required more cloture votes to break those filibusters, than in any Congress in recent history. Congress is on pace to more than double the number of cloture votes of previous Congresses—including the ones that Republicans controlled and complained of Democratic "obstruction."

This is the result of a deliberate effort by the Republican minority to undercut the will of the majority of the American public, expressed when voters placed a Democratic majority in control of both houses of Congress. The filibuster, a procedure unique to the Senate to block an up-or-down vote on legislation unless a 60-vote supermajority agrees to proceed, has been historically used by both parties. But it has never been used as routinely as it has been by Republicans since January 2007.</blockquote>

Source: <a href=http://home.ourfuture.org/filibuster.html>CAF</a>

[red states rule]

Never mind that it's the Republicans who are responsible for the gridlock in Congress.

I lie gridlock. It stops Dems from impoing their liberalism on the rest of us. The sad part is, Dems were ufing the troops as political pawns - but they caved and did the right thing by funding them

Funny how libs said it was about minoirty rights in the last Congress, and they were happy when the Dems blocked bills

[bullypulpit]

I lie gridlock. It stops Dems from impoing their liberalism on the rest of us. The sad part is, Dems were ufing the troops as political pawns - but they caved and did the right thing by funding them

Funny how libs said it was about minoirty rights in the last Congress, and they were happy when the Dems blocked bills

And the Republicans threatened "the nuclear option" when Democrats tried to filibuster 10 of Bush's hard right judicial nominees. Or had you just "forgotten that. And, of course the GOP screamed bloody murder about the Democrats "obstruction", read "attempts to thwart", some of Bush's more disastrous policies.

[red states rule]

And the Republicans threatened "the nuclear option" when Democrats tried to filibuster 10 of Bush's hard right judicial nominees. Or had you just "forgotten that. And, of course the GOP screamed bloody murder about the Democrats "obstruction", read "attempts to thwart", some of Bush's more disastrous policies.

Yes I remember the "Constitutional option" was going to be used. Libs can;t allow Judges who interpurt the law - they want Judges who will create law from the bench. It is much easier to get their insane liberal policies put ito the law then going through the legal process of passing them in the Legislature

Dems now are on their heels, losing battle after battle to Pres Bush. The libs kook base are outraged at Reid and Pelosi - Dems are the party of big talk but no accomplishments

[Lazarus]

:laugh2:what a jack off...you are the one who took this thread off into la la land...

sorry some of us won't lay down and play with ya...

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/1lmao.gif

You may proceed to present yourself like your're someone...I don't care.

playing with you is like a game....and a joke...:dance:

Well, if you define correcting your ignorance as a trip to La La Land, then I plead guilty.

You never did retract - let alone acknowledge - that error.
Seems that you entered this discussion ignorant and shall exit the same.

And when I give a rats' ass over your feelings toward me, I shall advise you of such.


Is this your modus operandi ?

Smilies over substance ?


Next time, bring a lunch; and the facts.

[red states rule]

Well, if you define correcting your ignorance as a trip to La La Land, then I plead guilty.

You never did retract - let alone acknowledge - that error.
Seems that you entered this discussion ignorant and shall exit the same.

And when I give a rats' ass over your feelings toward me, I shall advise you of such.


Is this your modus operandi ?

Smilies over substance ?


Next time, bring a lunch; and the facts.



I thought you would be tired of her cleaning your clock by now

[April15]

Yes I remember the "Constitutional option" was going to be used. Libs can;t allow Judges who interpurt the law - they want Judges who will create law from the bench. It is much easier to get their insane liberal policies put ito the law then going through the legal process of passing them in the Legislature

Dems now are on their heels, losing battle after battle to Pres Bush. The libs kook base are outraged at Reid and Pelosi - Dems are the party of big talk but no accomplishmentsAt this time! It is not a good sign that the conservative members take such glee in the ruination of their country just to spite people who believe differently.

[red states rule]

At this time! It is not a good sign that the conservative members take such glee in the ruination of their country just to spite people who believe differently.

What glee? I am pointing out how Dems made alot of promises and have not kept them

I think that is what is bothering you

[Yurt]

From Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/21456-1.html) (sub. req.):



So, in this particular instance, you are in error.

you're making a logical error. just because they did not mention judicial appointments, does not by itself mean that judicial appointments are off the proverbial table. your ASSumption has no basis in fact.

[red states rule]

you're making a logical error. just because they did not mention judicial appointments, does not by itself mean that judicial appointments are off the proverbial table. your ASSumption has no basis in fact.

He knows judicial appointments are included - he is just trying to stir the pot

[JohnDoe]

you're making a logical error. just because they did not mention judicial appointments, does not by itself mean that judicial appointments are off the proverbial table. your ASSumption has no basis in fact.

either way, i think the president, would be trying to skirt the system, as he has done before with other recessed appointments. The constitution is pretty clear on his appointments being made via the advice and consent of the senate.

Recessed appointments were supposed to be made by the president if there is an emergency type opening that has to be filled right away... is the way the constitution reads to me.


This is not to say that other presidents haven't used the recess periods to their advantage and contrary to the constitution's intent too, just that i don't believe it should be used in this manner.

jd

[manu1959]

i am sure once hillary is in office she will close this loophole....

[Kathianne]

either way, i think the president, would be trying to skirt the system, as he has done before with other recessed appointments. The constitution is pretty clear on his appointments being made via the advice and consent of the senate.

Recessed appointments were supposed to be made by the president if there is an emergency type opening that has to be filled right away... is the way the constitution reads to me.


This is not to say that other presidents haven't used the recess periods to their advantage and contrary to the constitution's intent too, just that i don't believe it should be used in this manner.

jd
Well it goes back to Washington:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-recess-appointments-glance,1,3699037.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines


A look at presidential recess appointments
template_bas
template_bas
By The Associated Press
August 1, 2005
Presidents since George Washington have made appointments during congressional recesses to fill positions in the executive and judicial branches. Under the Constitution, the president can make temporary appointments while the Senate is in recess, without Senate approval. The appointment lasts through the end of the following one-year session of Congress.

Following are some of the more notable recess appointments:

President Bush: 106 recess appointments, including Bolton, mostly to minor posts. Among them:
...

President Clinton: 140 recess appointments over two terms. Among them:...

[April15]

Well it goes back to Washington:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-recess-appointments-glance,1,3699037.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
Well it is obvious Clinton made better choices or the republicans would have stayed in session.

[red states rule]

either way, i think the president, would be trying to skirt the system, as he has done before with other recessed appointments. The constitution is pretty clear on his appointments being made via the advice and consent of the senate.

Recessed appointments were supposed to be made by the president if there is an emergency type opening that has to be filled right away... is the way the constitution reads to me.


This is not to say that other presidents haven't used the recess periods to their advantage and contrary to the constitution's intent too, just that i don't believe it should be used in this manner.

jd

I wonder if you felt the same way when Bill made recess appoinments? The liberal media praised his actions - it countered the evil Republicans who blocked his liberal nominations

When you say you don't believe it should be used in this manner - what you really mean is Pres Bush shoudl not be allowed to use it

JD, with all due respect and love - if it was not for double standards you liberals would have no standards at all

[red states rule]

Well it is obvious Clinton made better choices or the republicans would have stayed in session.

Bill got his people confirmed - Republicans did not have nonstop temper tanturms like the Dems are having

[PostmodernProphet]

we need a lolcats picture for this....

".....in yer Congress, blockin' doze recess appointments......."

[JohnDoe]

Well it goes back to Washington:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-recess-appointments-glance,1,3699037.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

i think reagan made about 250 recess appts....tops every president!

Here's an update through june '07 for president bush: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf


Recess Appointments Made by President George W.
Bush, January 20, 2001-June 4, 2007
Summary
Under the Constitution, the President and the Senate share the power to make
appointments to the highest-level politically appointed positions in the federal
government. The Constitution also empowers the President unilaterally to make a
temporary appointment to such a position if it is vacant and the Senate is in recess.
Such an appointment, termed a recess appointment, expires at the end of the
following session of the Senate. This report identifies recess appointments made by
President George W. Bush from the time he took office on January 20, 2001, through
June 4, 2007, the end of the 2007 Memorial Day recess. Basic descriptive statistics
regarding these appointments are also provided.
As of June 4, 2007, President Bush had made 171 recess appointments.
President William J. Clinton, in comparison, made a total of 139 recess appointments
during the course of his presidency.

[Kathianne]

i think reagan made about 250 recess appts....tops every president!

Here's an update through june '07 for president bush: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf

I know that, which is why I posted what I did in response to this:


Originally Posted by JohnDoe
either way, i think the president, would be trying to skirt the system, as he has done before with other recessed appointments. The constitution is pretty clear on his appointments being made via the advice and consent of the senate.

Let's not forget if not for 'midnight appointments' we would have been waiting longer for judicial review. Presidents are supposed to excercise their powers, Congress may check them.

[Gunny]

It is a sad statement that Bush is so irresponsible that the Senate feels it is necessary to stay in session to thwart his efforts to destroy this nation.

It's more a sad statement that partisan hacks like Reid were actually voted for by people who supposedly can think.

Even more sad is YOUR statement which is a baseless, bullshit personal attack which serves absolutely NO purpose.

[Gunny]

I think its great that the senate is actually doing it's job. They are PAID to be a check on presidential powers if they feel it to be necessary.

They are paid to be a check on presidential powers PERIOD.

[red states rule]

i think reagan made about 250 recess appts....tops every president!

Here's an update through june '07 for president bush: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33310.pdf

Perhaps the difference is, Republicans held voted on his nominees

Need I remind you what Chucky Schumer said in July?

Ah the fairness of the left



Schumer says No More Judges for Bush

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Bush can expect to make no more Supreme Court judicial appointments "except in extraordinary circumstances" according to Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance," Schumer said Friday at the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. "We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito."

Schumer and other Democrats fear that another justice like Justice Alito could presage the demise of Roe v. Wade and lead to a decidedly 6-3 conservative court, instead of the current 5-4 court, with Justice Anthony Kennedy often acting as a wild card.

Schumer says that he regrets the confirmation of Alito to the Supreme Court, since his replacement of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has tipped the Court's precarious 5-4 split more towards the conservative side. Schumer called it one of the "greatest failings" of his career as a senator and claimed President Bush "hoodwinked" Senate Democrats into allowing a vote on Alito.

"Alito shouldn't have been confirmed," Schumer said. "I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn't have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more."

Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation process is, however, already considered to have been one of the most grueling gone through by any Supreme Court nominee. His confirmation proceeded after arm-twisting from Sen. Ted Kennedy forced Mrs. Alito to break down in tears at the judicial hearings, creating a public embarrassment for the Democratic party.

President Bush may still have the opportunity to fill another vacancy on the court, since Justice John Paul Stevens is 87, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74. However, since both justices are pro-abortion and leftist, they are likely, barring ill health or sudden death, to attempt to hold off retirement until the election of a Democratic President.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073002.html

[Lazarus]

you're making a logical error. just because they did not mention judicial appointments, does not by itself mean that judicial appointments are off the proverbial table. your ASSumption has no basis in fact.


He knows judicial appointments are included - he is just trying to stir the pot

You both persist in making that leap ?

The facts in This particular pro forma session are that the Dems are using their Constitutional authority to prevent Bush from appointing 2 key partisans.
1) Bradford to head the DoJ legal Counsel, and
2) von Spakovsky to the FEC


I never stated nor implied that, historically, Federal Justices were recess appointed.
That is an error of ASSumption that was made on your parts.

And while I am on the subject of the FEC;
4 of the 6 seats are vacant at present.
By law, this board is to be evenly divided between Parties.
One Dem and 4 Rep seats are vacant. To protect von Spakovsky, the Senate Reps refused to allow " up or down votes " on these individuals. They insisted on an all-or-nothing deal.
The history in Bush' recess appointments to this board alone is justification for the Dems to remain in session :

Michael E. Toner – March 2002 – March 2007. (by recess appointment on March 29, 2002, confirmed to full term 2003)
Ellen L. Weintraub – December 2002 – Present. (by recess appointment on December 6, 2002, confirmed to full term 2003)
Robert D. Lenhard – January 2006 – Present. (by recess appointment on January 4, 2006)
Hans A. von Spakovsky – January 2006 – Present. (by recess appointment on January 4, 2006)
Steven T. Walther – January 2006 – Present. (by recess appointment on January 4, 2006)
These recess appointments are only valid for 1 year.
So, effective 1 Jan 2008, the FEC is out of business.

[red states rule]

You both persist in making that leap ?

The facts in This particular pro forma session are that the Dems are using their Constitutional authority to prevent Bush from appointing 2 key partisans.
1) Bradford to head the DoJ legal Counsel, and
2) von Spakovsky to the FEC


I never stated nor implied that, historically, Federal Justices were recess appointed.
That is an error of ASSumption that was made on your parts.

And while I am on the subject of the FEC;
4 of the 6 seats are vacant at present.
By law, this board is to be evenly divided between Parties.
One Dem and 4 Rep seats are vacant. To protect von Spakovsky, the Senate Reps refused to allow " up or down votes " on these individuals. They insisted on an all-or-nothing deal.
The history in Bush' recess appointments to this board alone is justification for the Dems to remain in session :

These recess appointments are only valid for 1 year.
So, effective 1 Jan 2008, the FEC is out of business.

Oh the nerve of Pres Bush appointing people who agree with him

[April15]

It's more a sad statement that partisan hacks like Reid were actually voted for by people who supposedly can think.

Even more sad is YOUR statement which is a baseless, bullshit personal attack which serves absolutely NO purpose.I would beg to differ with your opinion! A statement of the obvious is not a personal attack as is what your comments are towards me. But I can't expect any thing more from a Bush apologist.
I can say I voted for Pelosi so she could send Bush packing with his vendetta war in Iraq. I can also say that I knew Bush was an evil man before he was elected and he has proved to be just that, Satins twin!

[Lazarus]

Oh the nerve of Pres Bush appointing people who agree with him
Whoop - Whoop - Whoop Fan !!!

Oh, the audacity of Senate Dems denying those recess appointments.

Well, at least you are slowly beginning to recognize the gist of this thread.
Keep tryin' lad. That lightbulb should illuminate eventually. Unless it's a dud.

[stephanie]

I guess some people just can't help themselves, being a jerk is all they know..:lame2:

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Who are the Satins...were they in WEst Side Story?


I would beg to differ with your opinion! A statement of the obvious is not a personal attack as is what your comments are towards me. But I can't expect any thing more from a Bush apologist.
I can say I voted for Pelosi so she could send Bush packing with his vendetta war in Iraq. I can also say that I knew Bush was an evil man before he was elected and he has proved to be just that, Satins win!

[Gunny]

I would beg to differ with your opinion! A statement of the obvious is not a personal attack as is what your comments are towards me. But I can't expect any thing more from a Bush apologist.
I can say I voted for Pelosi so she could send Bush packing with his vendetta war in Iraq. I can also say that I knew Bush was an evil man before he was elected and he has proved to be just that, Satins twin!

Your opinion, skewed by partisanship and backed by no REAL fact is not a statement of the obvious. As you say, nothing personal in stating the obvious.

I see Pelosi has done a bang-up job. Let's see ... Bush has PWNED Congress no matter what the Democrats have tried, but she DID usurp the executive branch's power by attempting to conduct foreign policy.

Doesn't look like it's working out anywhere near how you had it planned.:poke:

Your last senctence, that Bush is an evil man, only underscores the fact that my original response to you was correct. Thought you PC, seculr progressive wananbe-intellectual lefties didn't believe in evil? Isn't religious idealism? Don't tell me you are attempting to push your religious beliefs on me.

Lastly, I don't apologize for Bush, and if you'd open your eyes and look around, I have criticized him a-plenty. Fact is, you and I just don't agree on what he's screwed up for the aforementioned reasons in paragraph one.

[Gunny]

Who are the Satins...were they in WEst Side Story?

Didn't the Moody Blues sing that?:cheers2:

[red states rule]

I guess some people just can't help themselves, being a jerk is all they know..:lame2:

He is damn good at it however

[actsnoblemartin]

that was a great movie


He is damn good at it however

[red states rule]

that was a great movie

A Steve Martin he is not - he is more like Pee Wee Herman

[actsnoblemartin]

which reminds me the music for the movie , not that one!, is preety cool


A Steve Martin he is not - he is more like Pee Wee Herman

[red states rule]

which reminds me the music for the movie , not that one!, is preety cool

Some people are overcome with Bush Derangement Syndrome and they can;t let it go