[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

Remember what I was just saying about making the same mistakes Bush did?

At least Bush bothered to read Article I Section 5. Obama's appointments are in no way constitutional.

That article contains nothing Obama has explicitly violated. His act was both precedented and defendable.

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

That article contains nothing Obama has explicitly violated. His act was both precedented and defendable.

If the Senate was not actually in recess, Obama needed to get their approval. At least when Harry Reid held pro forma sessions to block Bush in '07 Bush didn't violate the Constitution to do what he wanted. Assuming that Cordray's appointment makes it to the Supreme Court I will be astounded if it's not declared void.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

If the Senate was not actually in recess, Obama needed to get their approval. At least when Harry Reid held pro forma sessions to block Bush in '07 Bush didn't violate the Constitution to do what he wanted. Assuming that Cordray's appointment makes it to the Supreme Court I will be astounded if it's not declared void.

It won't get cert due to the precedent. Well it should not get cert, but given the conservative tilt on the Court it may just get cert and get decided in a way contrary to over a century of jurisprudence, as this Court is wont to do.

I do not consider that a positive outcome.

[The Inflicted]

What precedent? When has recess appointment been made when Congress was in session, pro forma or not?

[Pail Ail (Banned)]

Gonzo, can you answer this?

Originally Posted by Pail Ail

Close Gitmo or stop the ever-increasing rate of drone strikes in Northern Pakistan and in general? Be aware that 1/3 of those killed by the strikes are confirmed civilians, and less than 2/3 are confirmed terrorists.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

What precedent? When has recess appointment been made when Congress was in session, pro forma or not?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...dy-109587.html

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...dy-109587.html

Doesn't work. Obama has gone a lot further than Roosevelt did. In 1903 there was a minutes-long "window" during which the appointments were made. Even under the most recent precedent he should have waited 3 days. Here, the President is simply ignoring the same rules that as Senator he seemed to have so much respect for.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...his-is-now.php
As someone who would supposedly reach across the aisles, this shows utter contempt for the powers of Congress, the Constitution, and the will of the American people.

[Maxpow999]

Originally Posted by Umami

Stop repeating yourself, it's getting annoying. I'm starting to hate Ron Paul because of YOU.

No offense meant but why would it matter what you think? You're a shill for progressive hack politics. Only just recently did you realize that Obama was a turd. We were all on that ship when it sailed 2 years ago.


And if you let something like "repetition" get in the way of the real issues you're a true derper. I happen to have a candidate who I feel passionately about who isn't a whore. When you're passionate about something like *****ing and moaning about "injustices" I don't complain about the repetition, just the message. Lets try to focus on the real issues here. thx.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Maxpow999

And if you let something like "repetition" get in the way of the real issues you're a true derper. I happen to have a candidate who I feel passionately about who isn't a whore. When you're passionate about something like *****ing and moaning about "injustices" I don't complain about the repetition, just the message. Lets try to focus on the real issues here. thx.

The problem is that it isn't repetition of anything with substance. You are simply cheer-leading without any valid input. And it makes me hate Ron Paul more and more as well.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

Doesn't work. Obama has gone a lot further than Roosevelt did. In 1903 there was a minutes-long "window" during which the appointments were made. Even under the most recent precedent he should have waited 3 days.

Obama acted in one of the 3-day windows between Senate pro-forma sessions. The 3-day limit is not a real thing and there have been at least two previous precedents that it can be smaller. If anything it's a courtesy, and Obama has been shown no courtesy by Republicans blocking almost 200 of his nominees via filibuster.

Furthermore, the pro-forma session don't really change the status of the Senate as in recess from its appointment advice-and-consent role. These pro-forma session could not confirm an appointee, so the president's power is in effect. Democrats always knew that the pro-forma trick could be challenged. Bush just didn't really have to because Democrats consented to more than 75% of his appointees and they were a majority party for a lot of the time Bush was in office!

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Obama acted in one of the 3-day windows between Senate pro-forma sessions. The 3-day limit is not a real thing and there have been at least two previous precedents that it can be smaller. If anything it's a courtesy, and Obama has been shown no courtesy by Republicans blocking almost 200 of his nominees via filibuster.

Furthermore, the pro-forma session don't really change the status of the Senate as in recess from its appointment advice-and-consent role. These pro-forma session could not confirm an appointee, so the president's power is in effect.

Obama's own deputy solicitor general defended the 3-day limit before the Supreme Court in 2010. If Obama perceives Constitutionally-prescribed actions as a "discourtesy," this hardly justifies clearly unconstitutional actions of his own. Also, I'm hesitant to call the December 23 session pro-forma at all considering that Congress actually was working on the payroll tax cut extension. There was no recess, and Obama's attempt to make a recess appointment is clearly unconstitutional.

[The Inflicted]

Back on topic:

[Maxpow999]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

The problem is that it isn't repetition of anything with substance. You are simply cheer-leading without any valid input. And it makes me hate Ron Paul more and more as well.

Why do I care what some bleeding hearts think? I will champion the candidate you dumb-***** should have voted for years ago like I did. I will be proud to know that writing in Ron Paul in 2008 could have meant something if more bleeding hearts pulled their heads out of their collectivist ***** for a few minutes.


You are such a hack why does it matter? Even if Ron Paul wins the primaries, you guys aren't going to vote for him against Warmonger In Chief.

[Drex17]

Originally Posted by Maxpow999

Warmonger In Chief.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Maxpow999

Why do I care what some bleeding hearts think? I will champion the candidate you dumb-***** should have voted for years ago like I did. I will be proud to know that writing in Ron Paul in 2008 could have meant something if more bleeding hearts pulled their heads out of their collectivist ***** for a few minutes.


You are such a hack why does it matter? Even if Ron Paul wins the primaries, you guys aren't going to vote for him against Warmonger In Chief.

[licence_to_kill]

does anyone actually read maxpow's posts?

lol

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

does anyone actually read maxpow's posts?

lol

Yea. I read everyone's posts.

[Maxpow999]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Yea. I read everyone's posts.

Thanks. I read all your posts too.


And everyone else's. Its good to hear other opinions and ideas, it makes you more well rounded. To brush off an idea simply for its lack of personal appeal is to give into ignorance.

[Pail Ail (Banned)]

Maxpow you know ily but be nicer to progressives and read some John Rawls and communitarian work and you'll understand their position a lot better.

[custar]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Yea. I read everyone's posts.

Me too. I have a sizeable anti-acid budget.

custar

[The Inflicted]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...TLQ_story.html

Here's an interesting story.
One of the men most responsible for our knowing what goes on at Gitmo has been arrested leaking information. On the one hand, you could argue that what he's done amounts to treachery. On the other, all he was trying to do was provide some of the due process of law to the inmates who have been denied it.

Also, you've got to love the The Drudge Report sometimes.

He takes this passage:

Kiriakou, who was among the first to go public with details about the CIA’s use of water-boarding and other harsh interrogation measures, was charged with disclosing classified information to reporters and lying to the agency about the origin of other sensitive material he published in a book.
..........
The Justice Department also said that the information Kiriakou supplied to journalists also contributed to a subsequent security breach at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. Kiriakou’s disclosures, according to the Justice Department, enabled defense attorneys to obtain photographs of CIA operatives suspected of being involved in controversial interrogations, pictures that were subsequently discovered in prisoners’ cells.

....and makes this headline: