Online Now 783

Online now 1016
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Indecision 2012 - Stage of Grief: Acceptance (Northeast 4/24)

  • dexterstjacques

    In case there was still any lingering doubt that this thing is over....Romney pulls ahead in South Carolina.

    Well, I mean, that’s what it is. I doodoo and then listen to Katy Perry.

  • neal990

    Yeah I think the Gingrich surge everyone is expecting will never show up, Santorum will fade in the spotlight, Perry will be Perry. Romney may not win South Carolina because it's still South Carolina, but I don't think anyone else is going to come out of there or New Hampshire as a contender.

  • neal990 said... (original post)

    What's funny about that recess appointment is that even though the Constitution allows recess appointments, the Dodd-Frank law doesn't. It says that the head of the CFPB has to be confirmed by the Senate.

    The other thing is that he could have done it between gavels and it technically would have been ok. He didn't, he purposely did it while they were in a pro form session so he could politicize it like everything else he has done his entire presidency. This was a pure campaign move. So pathetic.

  • Sdog said... (original post)

    The other thing is that he could have done it between gavels and it technically would have been ok. He didn't, he purposely did it while they were in a pro form session so he could politicize it like everything else he has done his entire presidency. This was a pure campaign move. So pathetic.

    Huh? What does doing it between gavels mean? Haven't they been in continual pro forms session throughout to prevent him from making the appointments? There's literally nothing he could have done that would have made these appointments appear legitimate to his opponents.

  • dexterstjacques said... (original post)

    In case there was still any lingering doubt that this thing is over....Romney pulls ahead in South Carolina.

    Santorum like Bachman has really been a help to Mitt, by bringing to the forefront various non-entities who divert attention from looking at him in depth. You couldn't script it any better ... lol

    Has anyone kept track of how long each was hot ?

    1) Bachman
    2) Perry
    3) Cain
    4) Newt
    5) Santorum
    6) ?????

    MARYLAND. The area they’re now calling the DMV—D.C./Maryland/Northern Virginia—might be the country’s richest talent mine.

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    Huh? What does doing it between gavels mean? Haven't they been in continual pro forms session throughout to prevent him from making the appointments? There's literally nothing he could have done that would have made these appointments appear legitimate to his opponents.

    They were doing pro-form sessions every third day. Instead of doing it between those days, he appointed while they were actually there in one of their brief sessions.

  • Sdog said... (original post)

    They were doing pro-form sessions every third day. Instead of doing it between those days, he appointed while they were actually there in one of their brief sessions.

    No, I think you misunderstand how pro forma sessions work. The pro forma sessions meant they never actually went on formal recess -- at all. They functionally said we will continue in session, and to keep up the facade, we will hold a session (with no business conducted) every third day. But that doesn't mean that Obama could have made appointments in the days in between in a manner that Republicans or others would have found palatable.

    Think of it another way -- if Congress is in session, and retires for the day at 8 pm and comes back at 9 the next morning, is Congress "in recess" and can Obama just make recess appointments any day at midnight that he wants? No. Congress stays in session throughout until a formal recess is announced (i.e., they stay in session even if the chamber isn't conducting business that very minute). Here, they basically stayed in pro forma session throughout and held meetings every 3rd day because prior practice [by both parties] recognized that a recess should last at least 3 days before a recess appointment can be made.

    Right? Or am I missing something completely?

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by terps99 2 years ago

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    No, I think you misunderstand how pro forma sessions work. The pro forma sessions meant they never actually went on formal recess -- at all. They functionally said we will continue in session, and to keep up the facade, we will hold a session (with no business conducted) every third day. But that doesn't mean that Obama could have made appointments in the days in between in a manner that Republicans or others would have found palatable.

    Think of it another way -- if Congress is in session, and retires for the day at 8 pm and comes back at 9 the next morning, is Congress "in recess" and can Obama just make recess appointments any day at midnight that he wants? No. Congress stays in session throughout until a formal recess is announced (i.e., they stay in session even if the chamber isn't conducting business that very minute). Here, they basically stayed in pro forma session throughout and held meetings every 3rd day because prior practice [by both parties] recognized that a recess should last at least 3 days before a recess appointment can be made.

    Right? Or am I missing something completely?

    Its a slippery slope argument. It used to be understood that 3 days was the threshold for pro form sessions. Now, Obama is basically saying that one day, or two days isn't good enough. Where does it end, a 24/7 session? He could have done it on their second day off, but made a point to do it while they were actually the Senate building.

  • Sdog said... (original post)

    Its a slippery slope argument. It used to be understood that 3 days was the threshold for pro form sessions. Now, Obama is basically saying that one day, or two days isn't good enough. Where does it end, a 24/7 session? He could have done it on their second day off, but made a point to do it while they were actually the Senate building.

    I think what Obama is basically saying is that if Congress is not conducting any legitimate business, it is in recess. [Yes, I realize this is contrary to the position that Democrats, including himself, took when they had control of the Senate.] So he's not necessarily asking for a 24/7 session, he's just saying that pro forma sessions can be ignored for purposes of determining if Congress is in session or on recess.

    Thus, for example, if Congress conducted business on Dec. 1 but then did nothing more the rest of the month and held pro forma sessions on Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10, Dec. 13 etc., Congress has actually been in recess since Dec. 1. (So from his point of view, there's no functional difference between nominating someone in that situation on Dec. 12 or Dec. 13 -- the Dec. 13 pro forma session doesn't really change the fact that Congress hasn't been conducting any business since Dec. 1).

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    No, I think you misunderstand how pro forma sessions work. The pro forma sessions meant they never actually went on formal recess -- at all. They functionally said we will continue in session, and to keep up the facade, we will hold a session (with no business conducted) every third day. But that doesn't mean that Obama could have made appointments in the days in between in a manner that Republicans or others would have found palatable.

    Think of it another way -- if Congress is in session, and retires for the day at 8 pm and comes back at 9 the next morning, is Congress "in recess" and can Obama just make recess appointments any day at midnight that he wants? No. Congress stays in session throughout until a formal recess is announced (i.e., they stay in session even if the chamber isn't conducting business that very minute). Here, they basically stayed in pro forma session throughout and held meetings every 3rd day because prior practice [by both parties] recognized that a recess should last at least 3 days before a recess appointment can be made.

    Right? Or am I missing something completely?

    Right....I'm sorry but the pubs are 100% in "deny Obama anything at all" mode. They even said they don't have a problem with this guy...they have a problem with the new position/admin. WTF is Obama supposed to do? He's literally being blocked by a minority in the senate for ANY appointments.

    For the record....W made 171 recess appointments...99 to full time positions compared to Clinton's 139.

    This post was edited by Kaisersayzo 2 years ago

    9/21/2010...RIP Old IMS.

  • phatphelix

    Kaisersayzo said... (original post)

    WTF is Obama supposed to do?

    obey the law?

    Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    I think what Obama is basically saying is that if Congress is not conducting any legitimate business, it is in recess. [Yes, I realize this is contrary to the position that Democrats, including himself, took when they had control of the Senate.] So he's not necessarily asking for a 24/7 session, he's just saying that pro forma sessions can be ignored for purposes of determining if Congress is in session or on recess.

    Thus, for example, if Congress conducted business on Dec. 1 but then did nothing more the rest of the month and held pro forma sessions on Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10, Dec. 13 etc., Congress has actually been in recess since Dec. 1. (So from his point of view, there's no functional difference between nominating someone in that situation on Dec. 12 or Dec. 13 -- the Dec. 13 pro forma session doesn't really change the fact that Congress hasn't been conducting any business since Dec. 1).

    Yeah, this is what I take Obama's argument to be, that these "pro forma" sessions aren't really sessions at all, not that they're not holding them close enough together. So under that view, it doesn't really matter whether he did this while they were technically in one of these pro forma sessions or on one of the off days, since he thinks these sessions are just a sham anyways. This seems like a peculiar position for him to take, since the Senate passed the payroll tax break extension back in December in one of these "sham" pro forma sessions, but that's the argument he's making.

  • phatphelix said... (original post)

    obey the law?

    It's not clear that he's actually violating the law here.

    In any event, the bigger issue is that everyone is behaving irresponsibly here (and the same holds true for recent administrations and recent Congressional leaders). If the Senate doesn't want to confirm his candidates, that's fine, but just hold an up/down vote on them and decline to confirm the candidates. But it's absurd that the Senate just sits on candidates forever ... and then holds pro forma sessions to prevent a President from making recess appointments. The Senate's constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent; not to obstruct and delay.

    Here, Senate leaders privately ADMIT that the President's candidate is qualified -- yet, just like the Senate does with many judges who are qualified, the Senate refuses to vote on them for political reasons. Both parties are guilty of this and have been guilty of this.

    This post was edited by terps99 2 years ago

  • phatphelix

    Kaisersayzo said... (original post)

    For the record....W made 171 recess appointments.

    and what did you say about those recess appointments at the time?

    Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.

  • Gotta love Harry Reid who started Pro Form sessions now supporting Obama's circumventing of them. Friggen joke.

  • phatphelix

    terps99 said... (original post)

    It's not clear that he's actually violating the law here.

    if you say so

    Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.

  • Sdog said... (original post)

    Gotta love Harry Reid who started Pro Form sessions now supporting Obama's circumventing of them. Friggen joke.

    Yeah, I'd just like to point out the precedent being set here...right or wrong, remember this when there's a Republican President and Senate.

  • phatphelix said... (original post)

    if you say so

    If you think it's so clearly unconstitutional, I'd be happy to put money on it with odds in my favor. (Which is to say that this might get overturned, but it's hardly some obviously unconstitutional move. It's not like there's a 100% chance the Supreme Court will toss this appointment.) There's a 99.9% chance that there's a memo from the White House Counsel's office saying that this was legal in their view.

  • neal990

    The text of Dodd-Frank says that the treasury oversees the CFPB until "the Director is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011." Section 1011 says that the Director should be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this link a scholar from Cato defends the idea that "confirmed by the Senate" means "confirmed by the Senate" against the claim of another blogger who thinks that "confirmed" does not mean "confirmed."

  • neal990 said... (original post)

    The text of Dodd-Frank says that the treasury oversees the CFPB until "the Director is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011." Section 1011 says that the Director should be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this link a scholar from Cato defends the idea that "confirmed by the Senate" means "confirmed by the Senate" against the claim of another blogger who thinks that "confirmed" does not mean "confirmed."

    I think this guy probably has the better argument here, but I think some gray area certainly exists. Let me ask it this way -- what is the Constitutional mechanism for a President to appoint someone to a newly-created position that is Senate-confirmable in cases where the Senate refuses to vote on a nominee?

    For example, let's assume as part of Obamacare (or any other law), there is something that goes into effect in 2014 and someone needs to be appointed in 2014 to oversee some government agency. Now, let's assume that by the time 2014 comes around, the Senate decides that it can't get rid of Obamacare, but it's way to sink it will be to prevent the President from appointing anyone to that position. So the Senate refuses to actually reject a nominee (i.e., refuses to hold any "up-or-down vote" vote), but also continues holding pro-forma sessions where it does no business just to prevent the President from making any recess appointment.

    What is the Constitutionally appropriate mechanism for the President in that instance?

  • phatphelix

    to suck it up? or are there special exemptions for those times when the senate's being mean?

    This post was edited by phatphelix 2 years ago

    Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.

  • phatphelix said... (original post)

    to suck it up? or are there special exemptions for those times when the senate's being mean?

    The whole point of allowing recess appointments is a recognition that the President's ability to govern should not be impeded by Senate inaction (deliberate or otherwise). Instead of a politically charged issue like Obamacare, think of something like defense if you want. Let's say that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs needs to be appointed. And the Senate opposes some existing war and doesn't want to help the President. It's absurd to say that there is no Constitutional mechanism for a President to appoint a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during war and he should just "suck it up" if the Senate refuses to hold any vote on the nominee ... or there's nothing that a President can do if the Senate continues to hold pro forma sessions to prevent a Sec. of Defense or someone from being appointed.

    This post was edited by terps99 2 years ago

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    It's not clear that he's actually violating the law here.

    In any event, the bigger issue is that everyone is behaving irresponsibly here (and the same holds true for recent administrations and recent Congressional leaders). If the Senate doesn't want to confirm his candidates, that's fine, but just hold an up/down vote on them and decline to confirm the candidates. But it's absurd that the Senate just sits on candidates forever ... and then holds pro forma sessions to prevent a President from making recess appointments. The Senate's constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent; not to obstruct and delay.

    Here, Senate leaders privately ADMIT that the President's candidate is qualified -- yet, just like the Senate does with many judges who are qualified, the Senate refuses to vote on them for political reasons. Both parties are guilty of this and have been guilty of this.

    I agree that the filibustering of nominations should stop, and up/down votes should be held. However, I would differ from the rest of your post on two points. First, I don't think the Senate has a responsibility to confirm the President's nominees just because the nominee is "qualified," in the sense that the nominee has sufficient professional expertise and experience to satisfy some basic level of competency in the position. I think it is entirely legitimate for a Senator to vote against a nominee that is unquestionably "qualified" because the Senator disagrees with the policy positions and direction that the nominee will advance once in office. The "qualified" standard is certainly not dictated by the Constitution.

    Second, the recess appointment power was originally created because it was anticipated that the Senate would often be in recess and truly unavailable to perform its "advice and consent" duty for lengthy periods of time (3-6 months). It was not intended as a way for the President to install nominees that he couldn't get through the Senate because of Senate opposition, as it has become in modern times. I don't see the ability to make these kinds of recess appointments as some kind of fundamental right the President has or some integral part of the governmental system envisioned by the founders.

  • MisterNiceGuy said... (original post)

    First, I don't think the Senate has a responsibility to confirm the President's nominees just because the nominee is "qualified," in the sense that the nominee has sufficient professional expertise and experience to satisfy some basic level of competency in the position. I think it is entirely legitimate for a Senator to vote against a nominee that is unquestionably "qualified" because the Senator disagrees with the policy positions and direction that the nominee will advance once in office. The "qualified" standard is certainly not dictated by the Constitution.

    I agree, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just making that point to emphasize that this is political grandstanding and BS by both sides, not any principled fight over the qualifications of a nominee or something.